Corporations Are Moral Agents and Have Obligations Which Go Beyond Obeying the Law.Doc

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

Many believe that business entities should have an ethical duty to be socially responsible, to work towards increasing its positive effects on society while decreasing its negative effects. Many organizations look for opportunities to be socially responsible while also creating shareholder wealth.

The corporate world has an unfavorable view of itself by being selfish, evil, and against the average American. Companies market themselves and their products in certain ways that makes them and their products appealing to everyone and if not everyone then a certain group of people. Every company has a mission to follow and values to go by, but some companies lack ethics and morals. In this paper I am going to talk about one company that engages in ethical behavior and another that doesn’t.

Issue 1: I do believe that corporations have a responsibility to society as a whole, not only to maximize their own profits and benefit the economy but also to respect the community that they reside in. They achieve this by not only providing employment, but also upholding an image. It is up to

Since enormous amount of incentives are offered to the corporations by the state and local governments, the corporations should also follow some rules laid out by the government and help provide for those in need. (Story, 2012) Not just the government, but there has to be regulations that require corporations to pay a wage above the poverty line, provide affordable health insurance including pre-natal care, offer sufficient retirement benefits to all of their employees including mothers who work part-time, and train women to fill managerial

The chapter one of Corporations and Citizen (Crane, A, Matten, D, & Moon, J. ,2008) is the introduction of the whole book. The authors have an assumption that it is becoming progressively possible that corporations not only have economic, legal and social roles but, also political role or significance. They assume corporations involves in politics much more than before and participated more in governmental and inter- governmental rule-making. Then, they turn to the concept of citizenship so as to fit these political views of corporations. They have set out their perspective on the core concept of citizenship and elaborated on the approach taken in the follow part of the book.

The only contradiction to this viewpoint is that while corporations are legally seen as humans with human rights they are still treated/punished as real living humans. There are few laws regarding the direct punishment of Corporations for committing a crime and as such few disciplinary actions actually affect Corporations as a whole single entity. Josh Clark puts this simply in his statement that says

A corporation is an institution with a unique structure and set of imperatives that direct the action of the people within it. It is also a legal institution, one whose existence and capacity to operate depend on the law. The corporation’s legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the often harmful consequences. (Bakan. 2)

Corporations today are faced with the hard underlying pressures to be liable and explicit, while also having high expectations to divulge an extensive amount of information about behaviours and activities, including their social responsibilities. In our profit-driven society, companies are confronted with the dilemma of choosing between increasing revenue in order to satisfy stakeholders or acting in an ethical and moral way to fulfil their obligations to society (McShane, Olekalns and Travaglione 2013).

Numerous debates have been waging over the past few years among business elites about the whether or not a corporate entity has a responsibility to society. It’s an extremely interesting topic with real and global ramifications that impact nearly every person and animal on this planet in one form or another. Anyone who owns public shares in a company has invested hard-earned money into a corporation based upon their perception that the company will be profitable and sustainable. The corporation’s board of directors are then responsible to manage the company in such a way as to increase their share-holders’ investment. For hundreds of years, this attempt to increase a corporation’s worth was done with little or no interest in social responsibility. Until very recently this topic was not very much in the public eye. However, at the moment the global economy is rapidly changing and business transparency is increasing through the accessibility of information across the world. Social and global change is moving faster than ever and progressing through this century any business will undoubtedly need to keep up to remain profitable. More mature business students will certainly recall being bombarded with the idea that the only responsibility of a corporation was to increase the value of the company and maximize long-term shareholder wealth without regard to ethics or social obligations. Is there a correlation that occurs between large multinational corporations and their

A business is not one that lives in isolation; it can be an integral part in a community’s success or demise and has social responsibilities to; the community, stakeholders, and anyone who may be affected by a company’s actions. Corporate social responsibility is a term that is never used lightly and is a key role in the development of a successful and morally healthy business. “The objectives of a corporation are to outperform its competitors, presumably through preferred competitive strategies” (Joseph Heath 123). There are three main models by; Freeman, Friedman and Heath discussing corporate social responsibilities and all have distinct differences between their moral obligations, and the way they perceive business should be ran in a

Blowfield, M. and Murray, A. (2011) ‘Introducing corporate responsibility’, (2nd edition) corporate responsibility. Oxford: Oxford university press, pp.3-25

This raises two interesting points; the first is that the answer to the question ‘what is a company’s role in society?’ will be conditioned by normative assumptions about business/government relations in a firm’s country of incorporation.

It has been a long time since I defined the most fundamental and strong motivation of corporations is maximizing business profit. Even after the proposal of corporation social responsibility, I assumed that only the result of unharmed business operation can make company start to consider social responsibilities and until they increased their profits they will remain no more than a bystanders from external issues be it social or environmental.

Companies with extensive responsibilities even argue about the system in pursuing social responsibility of business. According to Ulrich Steger, the company should prioritize the shareholders’ incessant interest but they should also be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environmental goals that the public expects them to be. Without a doubt, companies’ primary goal is to earn a profit. Emphasizing on profitability affects the fundamental values in the company, its morality. Companies ignore the ethics just to earn a mountainous income. This often causes extensive repercussions in the companies.