Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that has been around for a while, but it has become increasingly relevant as the forces of globalization have become fiercer, and as the issue of environmental sustainability become more recognized by businesses and the customers that support them. CSR has to do with how businesses link their behavior and values with the needs and opportunities of the stakeholders. Stakeholder is a term that encompasses many actors, not just the investors and the customers. It also refers to employees, suppliers, and the broader society. CSR is a concept that highlights a company's pledge to be accountable to all of these stakeholders, not just the obvious two. It requires businesses to not only consider the economic bottom line, but also the environmental and social bottom line. This is where the term triple-bottom line is derived from. There are different arguments in favor of and against the new drive toward CSR, as some believe it is a good thing and something that all business should strive to achieve, while others are opposed to it for various reasons. Those who argue in favor of CSR believe that businesses have much to gain from implementing these policies in their business model, while those who are against it believe that CSR goes against the fundamental principles of business and capitalism.
[...] From this it is clear that governments need to play a more significant role in CSR as the onus should not be placed on the companies themselves because they are not accountable to the public or society, only to the law. It was shown that the various perspectives on CSR can be reconciled and that CSR is a positive thing, and governments must take steps to ensure that companies adhere to principles of CSR. Bibliography Banerjee, B. S. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Northampton, MA: [...]
[...] Businesses perform an essential role in society, and this role ought to be highlighted in the CSR calculation according to these two theorists. (Porter and Kramer, 2006). This is an example of two theorists who are in favour of the implementation of CSR, but they also believe that CSR needs to take on a different approach than the one it has come to adopt in recent times. After examining the arguments of Porter and Kramer it might seem as though CSR is without argument the right approach to take, however there are those that argue against it, and one such person is Robert Reich. [...]
[...] Mark Kramer and Robert Reich who take opposing stances on the issue. This essay will argue that CSR is a positive thing, and governments must take steps to ensure that companies adhere to principles of CSR. Among those who support the concept of CSR are Porter and Kramer. These two theorists are proponents of CSR, but they do it in their own special way. They argue that CSR has become more popular in the business world, but there is a lot that is wrong about the way CSR has been approached. [...]
[...] There has been an overarching argument in the business world with regard to CSR that it has to come at the expense of corporate success. Porter and Kramer argue that this is not the case though, as they propose a different and more innovative way of aligning society and business, in a way that does not make CSR and corporate success a matter of one-or-the-other. The propose a new framework for CSR that calls for companies to discover the positive and negative aspects on society that they business model yields, and this will allow the decision makers within these companies to decide how to proceed in a manner that is socially responsible but also beneficial to the profitability of the company. [...]
[...] This will result in more competition for jobs, and ultimately better employees. In this sense, principles of CSR benefit a company's human resources division. Companies that adhere to principles of CSR also have a better grasp on their risk management, and that is something that is of crucial important to businesses. When these businesses act socially responsible, they are much less likely to have un-socially behavior uncovered which can serve to hurt them. For example, Exxon Mobile was hurt during their infamous oil spill, but if they had managed this risk in advance (by being more environmentally responsible), then they would not have been adversely affected. [...]
using our reader.