Critical Reasoning of Porter and Kramer's Article

Porter and Kramer believe that CSR has become a priority and responsibility for every business leader. In the article, the authors have linked corporate social responsibility with competitive advantage and have argued that organizations that do not strategize its social initiatives will lose out in the competition.

I tend to disagree with the authors viewpoint. I feel that the major objective of an organization is to drive the economy. They exist to provide goods and services and to earn profits. The task of taking care of social issues should lie with the government. Government levy taxes on corporate; therefore it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the social issues of the community. Business people are trained in areas such as marketing, finance etc. and not to resolve social issues. We have bureaucrats to take care of them.

The authors argue that business and society are interdependent. I completely agree with the authors’ point of view because well-being of one depends on the well-being of others. However, as economist Milton Friedman says, the two goals i.e. earning profits and enhancing social welfare are incompatible and will lead to the demise of the business. The fact is, social responsibility and corporate strategy are separate, with social responsibility contributing to social objectives and corporate strategy contributing to economic objectives.

According to Porter-Kramer’s framework, the interdependence takes two forms: “inside-out linkages” and “outside-in linkages”. It is true that every action has a consequence but my question to the authors would be who defines the boundaries of social responsibility and when does the responsibility end?

Porter and Kramer say that if companies approach CSR with same framework that guides their core business, it will not be a burden but a strategy. I tend to differ. Let us take McDonald for example. It has made immense donations for the benefit of children. Do you know why it is...