In recent years CSR has become a fundamental business practice and has gained much consideration from chief executives, chairmen, boards of directors and management teams of larger international and national companies. They understand that a strong CSR program is an essential aspect in achieving good business practices and successful leadership. Companies have determined that their impact on the economic, social and environmental backdrop directly affects their relationships with stakeholders, in particular investors, employees, customers, business partners, governments and communities. CSR encourages a vision of business accountability to a wide range of stakeholders, as well shareholders and investors. The key areas of apprehension in CSR are environmental protection and the well-being of employees, community and civil society in general, both now and in the future.
Arguing that while in some cases it may be true that CSR has proved beneficial to target communities, it also appears that CSR is driven not so much by philanthropic considerations as the profit-maximising calculations of business, implying that corporations are involved in altruistic gestures only if it makes sense business wise (Aaron, 2011). However, Moir (2001) did
Though the writing is based on the CSR in Western Europe but it gives an introductory idea about how CSR works with different institutional environment. According to Jackson - Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often seen as a strategic response to pressure from stakeholders who may be adversely affected by company practices, or as a pro-active attempt by firms to pre-empt or at least mitigate these pressures and enhance the reputation and value of the corporation. Much research has aimed to establish the business case for CSR by examining its relationship with economic performance. Parallel to these efforts, other literature has focused on the moral and ethical justifications for CSR independent of its potential economic utility. (
III Argument: a business or firm should incorporate CSR Connecting with CSR has many advantages for the organisation, as well as to other environments. The following focuses why a business or firm should consolidate CSR. 1 Public image and long- run profits Any organisation can build a positive corporate image by participating in social activities. In order to obtain a good image, the business will must instil active efforts. The impact of a good company image cannot be overlooked.
Some scholars (Matten & Crane, 2005; McIntosh, Thomas, Leipziger, & Coleman, 2002) do not endorse Carroll’s interpretation of CSR. They propose that CSR should be beyond economic and legal responsibilities because every business must practice them. For instance, Matten and Moon suggest that “CSR is differentiated from business fulfillment of core profit-making responsibility and from the social responsibilities of government” (2008, p. 405). Similarly, McWilliams and Siegal (2001) also define CSR in a way that does not include economic and legal responsibility; they define it as “actions that appear to further some societal good, ahead of the wellbeing of the firm and that which is required by law” (p. 117). Jones too define the CSR in a same way as “the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law or union contract….. (1980, p. 59).
CSR is defined as a form of corporate self-regulation combined into a business representative. Many debates and reports focus on the nature, benefit or business opportunities that can be achieved when performing corporate social responsibility. For that, CSR can be "a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage"
The social responsibilities of a corporation contribute to the sustainable development of a global village. CSR has also been signified throughout history of Asia. Stakeholders who are affected by the way a business is run have been placing emphasis on how business should be run in order to maintain, or even raise a company’s reputation. For those reasons, it has become essential for scholars to start looking into CSR of businesses that have foundation in Asia. In the initial phase of CSR’s development, scholars focused more exclusively on North America and Europe as the standard form of Corporate Social
Failure to retain the participation of a primary stakeholder group will result in the failure of that corporate system. The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; still others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. Some of the positive outcomes that can arise when businesses adopt a policy of social
In conclusion, a fundamental problem with CSR (or other actions not aimed at generating profits) is that the issues addressed are not measured in monetary gain or loss, which basically are the only measurements most companies are interested in. Another problem is that companies only consider CSR issues if their legitimacy is threatened. This may be due to the difficulty of measuring the impact of CSR actions, such as raising minimum wages, which is a problem from an substantial point of view – CSR actions are not seen as important enough unless the legitimacy of the company is threatened. Not until legal intervention or, if the pressure for corporate responsibility continues to grow stronger, are changes in core business practice likely to take