Argument for Corporate Social Responsibility

While one company assumes the responsibility of creating profit and legal responsibility to shareholders, it also has to assume certain responsibility to employees, consumers, community and environment. That is the implication of CSR.

The CSR of one company requires that one firm has to transcend the ideology that profit is treated to be the only target and stresses the concern to value of human beings and contributions made to environment, consumers and society. Despite several profits made by CSR to one company, there are still some arguments against CSR. And they are listed as following.

Friedman questions, “Is it tolerant that public functions, like taxation, expense and control be implemented by the people only taking charges of certain enterprises, selected for those posts by extremely private groups”. It is the fairness argument that does not agree with CSR. In a similar manner, Davis thinks that integrating social activities with fixed economic activities of business would offer business an undue concentration of powers. Such situation may threaten diversified division of powers which people have among different organizations and reduce the viability of a free society. As Lewitt mentions, the company will have to finally invest itself with all-inclusive obligations, duties and rights.

Legitimacy is another important argument opposing CSR. Social issues have to be handled by government. It is thought that business pays the government well so that it should fulfill its responsibility and business just does its own job. The business person thinks that contributions beyond the business should be out of self-willingness and government has to fulfill its social responsibility, which is supported by taxes paid by business.

As a result, there are several arguments that oppose CSR. If one company concerns with social activities, it will be offered with too much power. It is not beneficial to establish a free society. As business has paid taxes to the...