When It Comes To Corporate Social Responsibility CSR Do You

When It Comes To Corporate Social Responsibility Csr Do You Think C

When it comes to corporate social responsibility (CSR), do you think companies should lean toward Friedman or Carroll’s ideology? Explain why you think your answer is better for the company and its stakeholders. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MINIMUM OF 125 WORDS) CLASSMATE’S POST I think corporations should lean more towards Carroll (1991) ideology. One of the reasons that I believe Carroll ideology should be followed is that it suggests companies should not focus solely on profit, although profit is how an organization survives, but the impact that its goods have on consumers. Leaders in an organization not only have a responsibility to ensure that a profit is generated but must also ensure that the corporation is operating in the realms of what is considered ethical, legal, economic, and philanthropic as these elements are all part of the blueprint for what an organization needs to be successful and show their commitment to corporate social responsibility. Carroll (1991) argues, “The total corporate social responsibility of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm's economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities" (p.43). When organizations design a plan that adheres to corporate social responsibility they are more likely to be successful in areas other than profit.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) presents two prominent perspectives: Milton Friedman’s view emphasizing profit maximization and economist Milton Friedman advocating that a company's primary responsibility is to increase its profits for shareholders, and Archie Carroll’s integrative approach, which asserts that corporations bear multifaceted responsibilities including ethical, legal, philanthropic, and economic duties. While Friedman’s approach underscores the importance of profitability as the primary and perhaps sole obligation of corporations, Carroll’s framework recognizes that sustainable business success depends on balancing these various responsibilities. In this paper, I argue that adopting Carroll’s CSR model is more advantageous for the company and its stakeholders, as it fosters long-term growth, enhances reputation, and meets societal expectations.

Milton Friedman’s perspective on CSR, articulated in his 1970 essay "The Social Responsibility of Business," posits that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase profits for shareholders, provided it stays within the legal boundaries. Friedman emphasized that engaging in social causes or ethical considerations beyond profit-making inherently risks reallocating shareholder resources without clear benefits, potentially leading to inefficiency and mismanagement. Moreover, Friedman believed that corporate managers are employees of shareholders and should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within the legal framework. This view, while advocating efficiency and free-market principles, tends to overlook the broader social implications and interconnectedness of modern business operations.

In contrast, Archie Carroll’s CSR Pyramid (1991) offers a more holistic approach. The pyramid is structured into four levels: economic responsibilities at the base, followed by legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. This model underscores that corporations should not only seek economic gains but also operate ethically, adhere to legal standards, and contribute philanthropy to society. Carroll’s approach suggests that such a balance can enhance brand reputation, foster employee loyalty, and mitigate risks associated with unethical practices. Empirical studies have shown that companies practicing CSR in line with Carroll’s model tend to enjoy improved financial performance over the long term, as they build trust with consumers and the community.

For example, companies like Patagonia exemplify Carroll’s model by prioritizing environmental sustainability and ethical labor practices alongside profit. This commitment has not only enhanced Patagonia’s brand loyalty but also contributed to its financial success, proving that ethical practices can coexist with profitability. Conversely, companies solely focusing on Friedman’s profit-centric approach may face reputational damage when unethical practices come to light, leading to consumer boycotts and legal sanctions. Therefore, integrating social and ethical responsibilities into core business strategies aligns with sustainable development and stakeholder interests.

In conclusion, while Friedman’s perspective emphasizes economic efficiency and shareholder primacy, Carroll’s multidimensional framework offers a sustainable and socially responsible approach to business management. Embracing Carroll’s model ensures not only financial success but also societal well-being and corporate reputation, making it a more effective paradigm for contemporary corporations seeking long-term growth and stakeholder trust.

References

• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
• Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 51-77.
• Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Spiller, F. (2016). Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society: A Relational Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 463-473.
• Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening Stakeholder–Company Relationships Through Types of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 253-272.
• Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Not whether, but how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.
• Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045-1061.