Social Responsibility in Business

In examining the mission statements of multiple companies, it is app bent that corporations pick out to prioritize mixer debt instrument. Companies like Whole Foods, Ben & adenosine monophosphateJerrys, Camano Island Coffee Roasters in all actively contri only ife to different amicable feats. Even Philip Morris prioritizes actively participating in societal concerns that be relevant to its commercees over generating returns for its stock cast offers (Philip Morris, 2011). There are numerous different views on the extent to which corporations should be involved in societal concerns.The three most prominent are the stockholder hypothesis, the concept of cordial business, and the stakeholder theory. Of these, the stakeholder theory is the most appropriate. Because corporations are bowl overed to be individuals within our society, they bear a certain amount of responsibility to their fellow citizens, so it is not exuberant for them to act tho in the interest of their stoc kholders. However, corporations are entitled to pee profits, and therefore enkindlenot be expected to act as purely well-disposed businesses.Consequently, businesses must look for a happy medium within the stakeholder theory, performing in the interests of the stockholders, customers, employees and civil society. Milton Friedman, a major proponent of the stockholder theory, argues that beyond legal compliance, the social responsibility of business is to join on its profits, meaning corporations hold responsibilities only to their shareholders and the justness (Friedman, 1970). One of the main points he addresses is the position that when a political party manager spends the companys money on a social cause, he/she takes a itinerary from the maximum possible returns to the stockholders.In addition to fetching from the stockholders, the price of the product may rise, taking away from the consumer, or fee might fall, taking away from the employees. Because of this, the manager is in effect bossy taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other (Friedman, 1970). Friedman call fors taxes are the responsibility of the government and giving the corporations money to a social cause is a form of tax without representation. This would be the case if the manager were merely donating the funds to a cause of his/her choosing.However, Camano Island Coffee Roasters (CICR) supports its own industry by ensuring that they participate in honorable Trade. In addition to participating in blank Trade, CICR helps the coffee farmers by making sure they own the land they work, as well as helping to keep their children well nourished (Gunter, 2007). By helping the farmers from whom CICR buys its coffee, it ensures that it can use the bring in 1% of the available coffee market (Gunter, 2007). As a result of its acts of altruism, Camano Island Coffee Roasters has been able to ensure a top quality product and consequently has been a ve ry successful corporation.Friedmans theory is besides similar to the trickle- nap theory. He believes that by maximizing profits, corporations go away help the less fortunate by providing better goods and services as well as higher(prenominal) wages. However, like the trickle-down theory, the result is the CEOs of corporations make millions of dollars, whereas the dismay level employees barely make enough to survive. Ben and Jerrys is a faultless example of a company that does not abide by Friedmans philosophy, and yet has been extraordinarily successful.They manage to provide the highest quality product possible, in addition to paying their employees what they call living wage, making sure the last paid employees are still making well in a higher place the lower limit wage (LEDA article). For Ben and Jerrys, the tax, as Friedman would call it, is taken from the highest paid employees of the company. An article reviewing Ben and Jerrys business ethics says Consistent with thei r mission for social responsibility, the highest paid employees of Ben & Jerrys would not earn more than seven times more than the lowest paid full-time employees (LEDA article).Despite the success of socially responsible corporations, Friedman would argue that these companies would stupefy had greater success if they had foc utilize solely on turning higher profits. Therefore it is critical to consider the possibilities for corporations to act in an unethical style even when complying with Friedmans philosophy. When Ford released the Pinto, it was aware of the potential for customers to be killed collect to a flaw in the Pintos design.Despite this knowledge, based on a cost-benefit analysis, Ford determined it would be less costly to deal with the law suits brought by people who were injured or killed rather than to recall and beget each car. Ford was well within the legal requirements for car prophylactic at the time and legally sold the Pinto, despite the danger. However, by not considering the consequences of its actions beyond just the financial, Ford was responsible for over fifty deaths (American Decades, 2001). fit in to Friedman, this decision to value profit over human lives was perfectly ethical. On the other side of the pectrum from the stockholder-oriented philosophy is a new field of business called social business. By definition, a social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company whose focus is not on profits, but on furthering a social cause (Yunus, 2010). Nobel Peace prize laureate Muhammad Yunus is the founder of this field of incorporate social responsibility. In 2006, Yunus collaborated with a French food company called Danone to arrange the first social business, Grameen Danone. Its mission is to provide children in rural Bangladesh with nutrients that are lacking from their diet.An article on the Danone website says the success of the project volition above all be judged on non-financial criteria the number of direct and in direct jobs created (milk producers, atrophied wholesalers, door to door give awayers), improvements to childrens health, protection of the environment etc (Danone, 2011). However, based on the way we currently measure the success of corporations, Grameen Danone would appear to be a very unsuccessful business. Do social businesses and non-profit organizations necessitate a change in the conventional rules of determining the success of a corporation?It is highly flimsy that many corporations will adopt such a radical method as social business. Therefore, while social businesses should be commended, and even used as inspiration, for their contribution to society, it is more reasonable for corporations to focus on the interests of both their stockholders and community. R. Edward Freeman is one of the founders of the stakeholder theory, which says that companies hold responsibilities to five main groups including shareholders, consumers and the general public.Unlike social business, Freemans stakeholder theory is not meant to be a bumble to the stockholder theory, but rather, Freeman argues that the views of both Friedman and Yunus are just narrower versions of the stakeholder theory (Theoretical and Pedagogical Issues). Freeman says that in modern society businesses must consider multiple stakeholders when making decisions. Whole Foods provides an example of a company which takes into pecker more than just making profits. Whole Foods purchases its products from topical anaesthetic farmers despite the fact that this raises the costs of its goods.Even though this may hurt its checkbook, Whole Foods is able to sell healthier and higher quality products while also supporting its local community. In addition to performing altruistic acts, many of Whole Foods customers are loyal because of its ethical methods of doing business (Conversation with John Mackey, 2011). Whole Foods also goes beyond merely making profits by creating trust with its employees. When exe cuting a merger with the company Wild Oats, Whole Foods needed to c recede down many of the Wild Oats locations because they were in markets where there were already Whole Foods stores located.However, instead of firing the Wild Oats workers, Whole Foods offered solid job protective cover and replacing positions at the existing Whole Foods locations. In an interview, in regards to the job security offered to Wild Oats employees, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey said, First of all, thats the ripe(p) thing to do, and secondly, if people have a lot of anxiety that they could lose their jobs, that inhibits their ability to learn and adapt. I feel youve got to offer security if you lack to get people to move forward. Otherwise theyre too scared. (John Mackey Interview, 2008)Not only does this stakeholder approach to business result in societally beneficial actions, but it also leads to more efficient, harder working employees. However, there are problems with the stakeholder approach to business ethics. many another(prenominal) argue that an adoption of stakeholder theory, over stockholder, would undermine shareholder property rights and discourage rectitude investment ( moral philosophy Gone Wrong, 2000). Advocates of this concept claim that because corporations must cater to the call for of groups other than their shareholders, the potential of the stockholders investment diminishes significantly ( ethics Gone Wrong, 2000).Contrary to this idea, investment vehicles like the Calvert Investment Mutual caudex provide investment portfolios that integrate deuce distinct research frameworks a rigorous review of financial performance, and a thorough assessment of environmental, social and governance performance. (Calvert Investments, 2011). The success of the Calvert Mutual Fund provides evidence that even when considering corporations that apply stakeholder-oriented business practices, the value and trade-ability of equity enceinte does not diminish.Therefore, ev en if most corporations adopt a stakeholder-oriented perspective, the effects on the stock market and on equity capital will be much less severe than critics predict. Another issue often address by critics of the stakeholder theory is that an adoption of the stakeholder philosophy would result in an increase in self-serving behavior among managers. This is because managers will be able to attract to the conflicting demands of different stakeholders in order to circumvent certain responsibilities, as well as indulge in self-serving behaviors.Advocates of stockholder-oriented business claim that adopting the stakeholder philosophy will not only multiply the amount of self-serving managers, but will also make it even more unvoiced to discipline such behavior. Alexei M. Marcoux, a critic of the stakeholder theory, says, Between the ability of managers to relinquish their self-serving behavior in terms of the balanced pursuit of stakeholder interests and the protections that a stakeho lder-oriented corporate law must afford to managers the accountability of managers for their actions must inevitably suffer. (Ethics Gone Wrong, 2000). However, if firms are so intent on adhering to a unappeasable ethical code, there will be internal means by which such dishonorable behavior can be disciplined. Furthermore, in the hiring process, firms will ensure that managers will not act in self-serving ways, but instead maintain high ethical standards. Among the various philosophies regarding the social responsibility of businesses there is a spectrum ranging from exclusively profit-oriented to solely serving the community.However, because corporations are considered individuals within our society, it is incumbent upon them to use their position to achieve a balance surrounded by the responsibilities they hold to their shareholders and the responsibilities they hold to the other member of the society. Therefore, corporations should adhere to stakeholder-oriented business ethi cs. Bibliography Yunus, Mohammad. create hearty business. New York, NY PublicAffairs, 2010. Print. The Ford Pinto Case. American Decades. 2001. Encyclopedia. com. 5 May. 2011<http//www. encyclopedia. om>. Makower, Joel. Milton Friedman and the Social righteousness of Business. World Changing(2006) n. pag. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. worldchanging. com/archives/005373. hypertext mark-up language>. Marcoux, Alexei. Business Ethics Gone Wrong. CATO Institute22. 3 (2000) n. pag. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. cato. org/pubs/policy_report/v22n3/cpr-22n3. html>. Hooker, John. wherefore Business Ethics?. (2003) n. pag. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//web. tepper. cmu. edu/ethics/whybizethics. pdf>. Freeman, Edward, Ramakrishna Velamuri, and Brian Moriarty. Company Stakeholder tariff A New Approach to CSR. Business Roundtable Institute for incarnate Ethics(2006) n. pag. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. darden. virginia. edu/corporate-ethics/pdf/csr. pdf>. Fassin, Yves. The S takeholder Model Re? ned. Journal of Business Ethics83. (2006) 113-135. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. austincc. edu/njacobs/1370_Ethics/Ethics_Articles/Stakeholder. pdf>. Tupate, Patel. Ben & Jerrys a Moo-del of Corporate Social Responsibility. LEDAn. pag. LEDA at Harvard Law School.Web. 5 May 2011. <http//leda. law. harvard. edu/leda/data/236/Patel,_Tupate_-_Paper. html>. Gunter, Marie. Fair Trade or Fairly Traded?. Articlesbase. 2007. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. articlesbase. com/environment-articles/fair-trade-or-fairly-traded-fair-economy-promoters-share-views-with-onegreenglobecom-community-253833. html>. Freeman, Edward, Andrew Wicks, and doubting Thomas Jones. Stakeholder Theory The State of the Art. Theoretical and Pedagogical Issuesn. pag. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//www. blackwellpublishing. om/ field/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631221220%5Cbowie. pdf>. Public Trust in Business- John Mackey of Whole Foods. Business Ethics and Leadership. Web. 5 May 2011. <http//josephsoninstitute. org/business/blog/tag/r-edward-freeman/>. Danone Website http//www. danone. com/en/what-s-new/focus-4. html Calvert Investments Website http//www. calvert. com/products-funds-by-sri-approach. html Philip morris Website http//www. philipmorrisusa. com/en/cms/Company/Mission_Values/default. aspx? src=top_nav