The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility
THE CASE AGAINST CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
According to my point of view, the writer of this article makes a controversial argument against Corporate Social Responsibility. He defines Corporate Social Responsibility as the increasing popular idea. His basic argument against this idea is twofold. First he argued that if profits and public interests are aligned, Corporate Social Responsibility is irrelevant.
But I think that Corporate Social Responsibility is not irrelevant. The fact that making a profit can coincide with making a positive contribution to society does not make that public good irrelevant. Any company should be praised on both accounts: They can cut cost and be socially-responsible. Through such publicity, other companies will also be inspired and follow them. In this manner, they will seek creative ways to contribute to the public good while increasing profits.
Second, writer of this article argues that if profits and public interests are not aligned, Corporate Social Responsibility is ineffective and other methods of coercion should be employed to protect the public interest: government regulation, NGO watch-dogs and advocates, and self-regulation. The writer makes a good point in this argument when he says that CSR may delay effective regulative measures by “green washing” or disguising destructive practices under the guise of social responsibility. For this reason, I agree with the writer that the public good needs continual protection through laws and independent watchdogs. Yet this does not mean that CSR is completely ineffective as a means of coercion. The work of CSR can help to reframe the debate within a corporation. It raises broader questions of public perception, productivity, and employee satisfaction—all of which impact profit. Corporations who take seriously their responsibility to the public can contribute to society in a manner that is relevant, effective, and
According to my point of view, the writer of this article makes a controversial argument against Corporate Social Responsibility. He defines Corporate Social Responsibility as the increasing popular idea. His basic argument against this idea is twofold. First he argued that if profits and public interests are aligned, Corporate Social Responsibility is irrelevant.
But I think that Corporate Social Responsibility is not irrelevant. The fact that making a profit can coincide with making a positive contribution to society does not make that public good irrelevant. Any company should be praised on both accounts: They can cut cost and be socially-responsible. Through such publicity, other companies will also be inspired and follow them. In this manner, they will seek creative ways to contribute to the public good while increasing profits.
Second, writer of this article argues that if profits and public interests are not aligned, Corporate Social Responsibility is ineffective and other methods of coercion should be employed to protect the public interest: government regulation, NGO watch-dogs and advocates, and self-regulation. The writer makes a good point in this argument when he says that CSR may delay effective regulative measures by “green washing” or disguising destructive practices under the guise of social responsibility. For this reason, I agree with the writer that the public good needs continual protection through laws and independent watchdogs. Yet this does not mean that CSR is completely ineffective as a means of coercion. The work of CSR can help to reframe the debate within a corporation. It raises broader questions of public perception, productivity, and employee satisfaction—all of which impact profit. Corporations who take seriously their responsibility to the public can contribute to society in a manner that is relevant, effective, and