Business Ethics -Corporate responsibility Essay Example
Business Еthiсs -Соrроrаtе rеsроnsibility
There exist three major viewpoints of CSR and they include the narrow classical view, broad maximal view as well as the socioeconomic view. The narrow classical view which is also termed as the shareholder view is fairly negative and more so in regard to the consequences and the roles of CSR on the economy and on politics. When put in simpler terms, it does not support the idea that corporate executives should be forced to assume full responsibility for their businesses since they are not selected and thus they cannot be made accountable. Thus, the shareholder model concludes that the core aim of CSR is to increase profits for the corporations or maximize the long-term value of the corporation (Mahoney and Linda 250).
The socioeconomic view also referred to as the stakeholder model its proponents argue that companies ought to be driven by the needs and interest of the stakeholders rather than by the needs and interest of the stockholders alone. In regard to this the stakeholders are entities which have entered into a contractual agreement with the company as well as those who are usually affected by the decisions of the company directly. Thus, stakeholders may include the workers, suppliers, consumers, competitors and creditors just to mention a few (Mahoney and Linda 247).
The broad maximal view argues that the business ought to help and support in the solving of social problems. In a way this view shows a positive public relations image in the community and at the same time offer long term profits for the corporations. This approach shows that the business and society can work together so as to solve all the social problems in the community and this would lead to the enhancement of the community (Hussain and Mostaq 134).
Simon et al’s (1972) Kew Garden Principles has some relevance to all the three viewpoints of CSR. In relation to the stakeholders view, though the core aim of businesses is to maximize profits a business has other additional duties which collaborate with the negative injunctions and affirmative duties. Businesses need to act and work while adhering to justice and law so as to prevent harm. Also businesses should not cause any unjustifiable harm and based on this moral minimum would be adhered to and thus the avoidance of social injury. Based on these the principles would elevate the organizations CSR to CR would show a duty of care for stakeholders and the community at large (Simon et al 60).
Kew Garden principles have some relevance to the shareholders view in that it suggests that the social responsibility need to be taught in those businesses which have the shareholder model in regard to CSR. The principals could offer businesses with frameworks to put into consideration when determining obligations that are beyond the idea of moral minimum. In relation to the broad maximal view, Kew Garden principals seem to be of importance since it portrays that the society and businesses can be able to work together with the aim of solving the various social problems that are in the society and this can be done through the adoption of the four principles which have been outlined (Simon et al 23).
Hussain, Barkat and Mostaq, Hussain. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Customers Get What They Expect?” Journal of Business Studies 1. 1 (2005): 133 – 139.
Mahoney, Lois and Linda, Thorne. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-term Compensation: Evidence from Canada”, Journal of Business Ethics 57. 3 (2005): 241-253.
Simon, John, Powers, Charles, and Gunnemann, Jon. The Ethical Investor. New Haven and London, Yale University press, 1972. Print.
More Important Things