Corporate social responsibility (CSR) describes the business practices that involve initiatives aimed at offering benefit to the society; they are the social responsibilities taken up by these Corporates with an aim at serving the community. These social activities that entail a CSR go beyond merely legal or ethical duties, to philanthropic actions such as voluntary investments. Today CSR can be viewed as an attempts by an organization to achieve a balance between the economic, environmental and social obligations without the neglecting the expectations of shareholders, of wealth maximization, and giving back to the community.
The foundation of CSR was because of the need for businesses to give back to the wider public. Over the years, however, the CSR tool has evolved into a crucial management tool used by managers to achieve particular advantages over every other business. Business persons view CSR as a way of covering the Corporation’s shortcoming, through a few good deeds, in their opinions, it is nothing but a pure PR and marketing strategy. Today organizations practice CSR due to all the wrong reasons; they apply CSR irresponsibly to doing good deeds to the community to compensate for a negative consequence. Also, most managers have implemented the SCR strategies in achieving a competitive advantage. A study shows that a big percentage of Americans have a more positive image of a business that supports a cause, most people are more likely to purchase goods or services from a company associated with a cause.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
CSR policy has proved significant in any business setting as it offers long-term advantages. The system comes in handy when building relationships with new customers, retaining staff and old customers, assuring a good reputation of the organization, etc. In doing these, a business attains the higher competitive advantage, hence increased revenue and profit. Despite these, a few individuals who feel that money spent on CSR by managers is theft from the rightful property owners- the stakeholders. These people fail to acknowledge the long term advantages of the CSR policies by making claims that costs incurred by investing in the various social programs limit profit maximization within a company. In their opinions, these acts of philanthropy should be from politicians, the government, and the non-profit organizations, not from profit-based firms whose primary agenda is to maximize profits.
Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) is the exact opposite of the CSR; it is the failure of an organization to meet the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic expectations of business. CSI can be shown in various forms, such as bribery, participation in corruption activities, social injustices, tax evasion, and degradation of the environment through water pollution, air pollution, etc. CSI goes beyond injustices to the greater public as it also involves internal injustices such as unfair treatment of workers, giving customers false product information, charting business partners, discrimination in the workplaces, etc.
It is a fact that most companies behave irresponsibly, they may indulge in a few philanthropic acts here and there once in a while, but their ultimate goal is to stay in the market. CSR occurs when organizations embrace their social obligations and integrate it into their business strategies; an act that no company pulls through in the recent times. Most institutions employ the whole Corporate Social Responsibility act through a practice of small donations and small philanthropic activities. In doing so, they may seem as though they practice social responsibility but in a real sense, they are just as irresponsible as those companies that directly degrade the environment, practice corruption and pollute every aspect of nature.
Despite the few drawbacks to business, CSR still offers more advantages compared to CSI. Most shareholders see CSR as a sheer waste of resources on people who don’t deserve it; they feel that the policy is of more advantage to the general public as compared to the individuals in business, which is not the case. CSI strategies might seem like a quicker way to add to the bottom line, but it is short-term, it offers temporary profit at the expense of others. Sooner than later, the irresponsible activities catch up with the business, which results in loss of customers and eventually, the company runs out of business. CSR might seem like a waste of resources, but it is the strategy which adds to the long-term bottom line. CSR creates and strengthens connections and relationships between the business and the society; it is from the public that a company gets customers. Strengthening relationships through CSR strategies, therefore, results in customer retention and acquisition; it is a fact that the clients form the backbone of any given business. These activities will in the long run, result in more revenue income, and therefore more profit for the shareholders, whose primary concern against CSR is the ‘waste’ of resources on the society.
In the typical business world, CSR exists hand in hand with CSI as organizations are at times put in a dilemma between satisfying the public and meeting the needs of the business; for instance making the decision of putting aside resources for social programs rather than distributing the profit amongst the shareholders. What these companies don't understand, is that by satisfying the society, they also meet their businesses' needs, it might not be readily noticed, but in the long run, it will bear more success than satisfying their businesses at the expense of the society. Corporations should never ignore their obligations to the community, they should uphold high and practice the Corporation Society Responsibilities, the irresponsible activities result only in a short-term addition to the bottom line.
Reference
Popa, M. & Salanță, I. (2014). Corporate social responsibility versus corporate social irresponsibility: Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 9 (2), 137‐146.
