Corporate Social Responsibility
I do agree with Friedman ‘s views regarding Corporate Social Responsibility. This is in the sense that while there is a need for individuals to exercise good and engage in activities that benefit society, his claim that the current approach to CSR amounts to coercion and essentially demonizes profit making is quite valid. Society has through its hatred for capitalism, simply looked for a way to force corporations to share their profits with society through the veil of social responsibility. This in my opinion, amounts to curtailing an individual’s freedom, or a corporations freedom to operate. Indeed as claimed by Friedman, all profit oriented organizations are essentially in business to make profit, and as such, all activities are bound to be engaged in with the aim of achieving profit; even if organizations do so in the name of fulfilling their corporate responsibility. The only reason organizations engage in social responsibility ventures is to boost their public image, which essentially renders any such activities simple public relations exercises. For instance, an organization may fund amenities within a community in the name of social responsibility, but in essence it is only building its name in order to attract customers or potential employees, which means that the whole exercise loses meaning and instead becomes a marketing ploy. While Porter and Kramer’s arguments that corporations and societies or communities are interconnected may be true, the corporation employees are probably members of the community and can chose to act in a socially responsible manner, independent of the organization. Forcing the corporation to provide employment and further share its profits with the community through corporate social responsibility is indeed unfair on the corporation and its proprietor. Pearce and Doh, differ from Porter and Kramer, in that they view CSR as altruistic and motivated by personal values, whereas, the latter view it as not being entirely voluntary.