Next Question
RSS
I started writing a reply to this when I found a source that conveyed my position almost perfectly.
"The voices calling for corporate reform are getting louder. "Corporate social responsibility is an oxymoron", according to a recent book and documentary film "the Corporation" by law professor Joel Bakan. He says corporations are like amoral "psychopaths" - manipulative, incapable of being empathic or remorseful, and, while causing tremendous damage to the environment and other elements of the public interest, they refuse to take responsibility for their behavior. Harsh words, but they resonate with those uttered by critics of corporate power throughout history.
Corporations are powerful institutions. They do not serve humanity well when their pursuit of profits leads to strategies that degrade the environment, violate human rights and the dignity of employees, endanger public health and safety and otherwise undermine the welfare of communities.
People who run corporations are mostly decent human beings; many are pillars of their communities. They care about the environment and other people; they want to be recognized as good citizens. Corporate abuse of the public interest does not stem from flaws in the characters of corporate personnel; it stems from a flaw in the rules under which corporations operate.
State laws that create corporations promote behavior which managers and shareholders do not condone in their personal lives. Those laws encourage managers to act as if shareholders are psychopaths -- concerned only that their company makes more and more money without regard for the human or environmental costs. They allow managers to excuse the damage they do by claiming they are only doing what the law requires - promoting the interests of shareholders.
There are 80 million shareholders in the US. It is absurd to presume that what they have in common is a desire to make money without regard for the public interest. Nonetheless, by conforming to laws that enshrine that faulty premise, good people in corporations (managers) make decisions on behalf of other good people (shareholders) that cause their institutions to engage in antisocial behavior."
I would say that "Corporate social responsibility" is an oxymoron. If the corporations were socially responsible entities we would not be facing a toxic world and exploited populations for profit. If corporations were socially responsible we would have more companies with practical social applications instead of massive military industrial complexes. Because socially responsible corporations would would take the lead in developing a society and not try to destroy it. The corporate world is a self-serving, opportunistic, pirate geared for self preservation and profit maximization with no regard for human dignity and even less for personal responsibility.
Source(s):
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0726-11.htm
and my own opinions based on experience.
Permalink | Report
Besides, there are benefits to social responsibility. Appearing ethical is always good PR, and companies that follow social responsibility tend to do better in the long run.
Permalink | Report
I do believe a corporation can be socially responsible and I believe socially responsible corporations exist. But because a corporation's social responsibility depends upon its officers actions it's not necessarily a constant or permanent state of being.
In order to judge a corporation's responsibility it is necessary to look at its board members and judge the corporation through them.
I guess you can say that corporations acquire their officials' "personalities" and while they don't have characteristics of their own they can assume a certain attitude and personna that reflects its officers.
Permalink | Report
While it is true that corporations are run by people, you have to remember that this is human in plural form. When one person acts alone, then there are all of the human characteristics. However, a corporation is a bunch of people under the same goal, profit. They have no other links that bind them together, and their only drive is profit which could make them ruthless.
Of course, this is also under the assumption that the road of profit are in opposite direction with the benefits of the society. That is, however, not the case. The company would at least want a good image, and to do so they must abide their social contract. There are also other incentives that corporations have to fulfill their social responsibility, for example, charity functions for tax deductions, or environmental fees, etc.
So, perhaps they are fulfilling their social responsibility under the premise that they have incentives to do so which yields them profits, but they are still fulfilling it all the same.
Permalink | Report
However, executives and directors are more responsive to short-term incentives than long-term incentives, and many of the modern ills take years to come to the surface. Product liability, environmental hazards, and employee mistreatment rarely come to light in short-term manner that creates incentives on a time-scale that matters to directors and executives.
Oversight and structural changes can create some elements of responsibility. Regulatory agencies, if sufficiently funded and independent, can provide an external element of responsibility. Also, an internal corporate compliance system could be built into the structure, so that the directors and executives are responsible to this compliance system in the same measure as they are responsible to the shareholders. Naturally, this system would be clear to the shareholders, and some shareholders might choose to buy stock specifically because of this compliance system. There are mutual funds who invest in "green" companies, for instance.
Corporate responsibility can sometimes be part of a company's brand identity. For example, Google uses "don't be evil" as a guiding slogan. How well this is implemented is open to question, but most people believe that Google tries to adhere to that principle. However, that kind of responsibility probably comes more from the strong, charismatic founders than from the corporation itself. Will it survive as Google grows and the founders turn over control?
Permalink | Report
But this does not mean that "corporate social responsibility" is an oxymoron.
While a corporation is an object, the word "corporate" refers to the policies and practices of a corporation as determined by a group of people with consciences and emotions, and who are capable of exercising moral judgment as it relates to social responsibility.
Only in the case that they act contrary to that responsibility by skewing the corporation's polices/practices does the phrase become an oxymoron.
Source(s):
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/corporate?view=uk
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
March 11, 2009 02:40 AM
Is the term "corporate social responsibility" an oxymoron?
Since corporations are basically considered individuals, yet they have no conscience and no remorse, no human emotions and none to consider due to a lack of conscience, would it be fair to say that the term "social responsibility" is describing something that a corporation is not designed to have?
Interesting Question?
Yes ()
No ()
- In Psychology |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| March 11, 2009 05:11 AM |
"The voices calling for corporate reform are getting louder. "Corporate social responsibility is an oxymoron", according to a recent book and documentary film "the Corporation" by law professor Joel Bakan. He says corporations are like amoral "psychopaths" - manipulative, incapable of being empathic or remorseful, and, while causing tremendous damage to the environment and other elements of the public interest, they refuse to take responsibility for their behavior. Harsh words, but they resonate with those uttered by critics of corporate power throughout history.
Corporations are powerful institutions. They do not serve humanity well when their pursuit of profits leads to strategies that degrade the environment, violate human rights and the dignity of employees, endanger public health and safety and otherwise undermine the welfare of communities.
People who run corporations are mostly decent human beings; many are pillars of their communities. They care about the environment and other people; they want to be recognized as good citizens. Corporate abuse of the public interest does not stem from flaws in the characters of corporate personnel; it stems from a flaw in the rules under which corporations operate.
State laws that create corporations promote behavior which managers and shareholders do not condone in their personal lives. Those laws encourage managers to act as if shareholders are psychopaths -- concerned only that their company makes more and more money without regard for the human or environmental costs. They allow managers to excuse the damage they do by claiming they are only doing what the law requires - promoting the interests of shareholders.
There are 80 million shareholders in the US. It is absurd to presume that what they have in common is a desire to make money without regard for the public interest. Nonetheless, by conforming to laws that enshrine that faulty premise, good people in corporations (managers) make decisions on behalf of other good people (shareholders) that cause their institutions to engage in antisocial behavior."
I would say that "Corporate social responsibility" is an oxymoron. If the corporations were socially responsible entities we would not be facing a toxic world and exploited populations for profit. If corporations were socially responsible we would have more companies with practical social applications instead of massive military industrial complexes. Because socially responsible corporations would would take the lead in developing a society and not try to destroy it. The corporate world is a self-serving, opportunistic, pirate geared for self preservation and profit maximization with no regard for human dignity and even less for personal responsibility.
Source(s):
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0726-11.htm
and my own opinions based on experience.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (5)
March 11, 2009 02:53 AM
No, I wouldn't say it is. Corporations are run by humans, who do have emotions and consciences, although some are run by people who seem to lack them (these being ones that don't follow social responsibility). Besides, there are benefits to social responsibility. Appearing ethical is always good PR, and companies that follow social responsibility tend to do better in the long run.
Permalink | Report
Reply
March 11, 2009 08:45 PM
Let us not forget, that although there are actual people working within corporations, the "institution" that is the corporation - will only allow it's "human facilitators" to do just so much. They are not given complete and total control over any one thing within the corporation, but rather they facilitate, or carry out - the actions and greater purpose of the corporation. Corporations are facilitated by human work, but not actually controlled by the people or the thoughts and opinions of its workers and employees, but by its own structure, bylaws, rules, regulations, and of course - its purpose. They are (by law) designed to protect only the bottom line and shareholders.
Report
March 11, 2009 02:56 AM
I don't think it's an oxymoron. While corporations are individual entities, its officers and the people that lead it are human beings with their own agendas, goals, and views of the world. I do believe a corporation can be socially responsible and I believe socially responsible corporations exist. But because a corporation's social responsibility depends upon its officers actions it's not necessarily a constant or permanent state of being.
In order to judge a corporation's responsibility it is necessary to look at its board members and judge the corporation through them.
I guess you can say that corporations acquire their officials' "personalities" and while they don't have characteristics of their own they can assume a certain attitude and personna that reflects its officers.
Permalink | Report
Reply
March 11, 2009 08:55 PM
Ah, but they do have characteristics of their own, and those characteristics form the overall "personality" of the corporation. The people board members are (again) just facilitators, people who carry out the actions of the corporation. They don't always agree or disagree with the actions of the corporation, but carry out the duties of their position within the corporation. Some may even feel as if they may be able to make a small change through their career within the corporation, but their abilities are limited by what the standards of the corporation will allow them to do. Even a CEO is not given full reign, but simply in the trusted position in which to ensure that the goals of the corporation are facilitated, therefore ensuring that profit is generated.
Report
March 11, 2009 05:17 AM
My personal believe is no, it is no an oxymoron. However, this is very opinion based, and it depends on one great factor. Does yielding profit mean you are doing bad for all others. While it is true that corporations are run by people, you have to remember that this is human in plural form. When one person acts alone, then there are all of the human characteristics. However, a corporation is a bunch of people under the same goal, profit. They have no other links that bind them together, and their only drive is profit which could make them ruthless.
Of course, this is also under the assumption that the road of profit are in opposite direction with the benefits of the society. That is, however, not the case. The company would at least want a good image, and to do so they must abide their social contract. There are also other incentives that corporations have to fulfill their social responsibility, for example, charity functions for tax deductions, or environmental fees, etc.
So, perhaps they are fulfilling their social responsibility under the premise that they have incentives to do so which yields them profits, but they are still fulfilling it all the same.
Permalink | Report
Reply
March 11, 2009 11:52 AM
It's not an oxymoron, it's a goal. Corporations can be more or less socially responsible depending on the structure of the corporation and the surrounding regulatory environment. Inherently, a corporation with a board of directors and distributed shareholders is only interested in profit, because the directors are responsible to the shareholders, who are too distributed to exercise any will other than profit. The traditional view was that the profit-motif would be controlled by market forces, such as public relations, and results in some form of social responsibility. However, executives and directors are more responsive to short-term incentives than long-term incentives, and many of the modern ills take years to come to the surface. Product liability, environmental hazards, and employee mistreatment rarely come to light in short-term manner that creates incentives on a time-scale that matters to directors and executives.
Oversight and structural changes can create some elements of responsibility. Regulatory agencies, if sufficiently funded and independent, can provide an external element of responsibility. Also, an internal corporate compliance system could be built into the structure, so that the directors and executives are responsible to this compliance system in the same measure as they are responsible to the shareholders. Naturally, this system would be clear to the shareholders, and some shareholders might choose to buy stock specifically because of this compliance system. There are mutual funds who invest in "green" companies, for instance.
Corporate responsibility can sometimes be part of a company's brand identity. For example, Google uses "don't be evil" as a guiding slogan. How well this is implemented is open to question, but most people believe that Google tries to adhere to that principle. However, that kind of responsibility probably comes more from the strong, charismatic founders than from the corporation itself. Will it survive as Google grows and the founders turn over control?
Permalink | Report
Reply
March 11, 2009 09:17 PM
But if concerns over issues of product liability, environmental conditions, and employee relations were addressed through the structural design of a corporation, then the shareholders, executives, directors, etc., could actually DO something about the activities that don't comply with human standards.
As to whether or not people "believe" that Google is adhering to their "Don't be evil" slogan would actually be a reflection of the success of the Google marketing team. Common public viewpoint does not prove whether or not Google is ACTUALLY doing any GOOD.
Not doing evil is inherently different than actually doing anything productive and good. Although, that brings up another point, many corporations are designed to do good things, but the actions needed to carry out that intended "good" are actually socially irresponsible, environmentally irresponsible, and even humanly immoral.
Report
As to whether or not people "believe" that Google is adhering to their "Don't be evil" slogan would actually be a reflection of the success of the Google marketing team. Common public viewpoint does not prove whether or not Google is ACTUALLY doing any GOOD.
Not doing evil is inherently different than actually doing anything productive and good. Although, that brings up another point, many corporations are designed to do good things, but the actions needed to carry out that intended "good" are actually socially irresponsible, environmentally irresponsible, and even humanly immoral.
March 12, 2009 12:28 AM
It's hard to answer you without knowing exactly what your system of morals entails. I was merely trying to show that a corporation can be crafted to answer to a set of values other than pure profit, something that would best be described as having ethics. However, since humans seem unable to agree to a consistent set of ethics, corporations can't really be judged for not meeting everyone's values.
At best, since a corporation is more like a computer intelligence than a human one, it's values can only be as good as the foresight of its founders. Though corporations with strong leaders, like Google, will rise to the value level of its leaders. However, this is really the social consciousness of the leader, not the corporation itself.
Let me know if this answers your complaint.
Report
At best, since a corporation is more like a computer intelligence than a human one, it's values can only be as good as the foresight of its founders. Though corporations with strong leaders, like Google, will rise to the value level of its leaders. However, this is really the social consciousness of the leader, not the corporation itself.
Let me know if this answers your complaint.
March 13, 2009 03:16 AM
Yes, and you've brought up another good point. Since the corporation can be set up with a certain degree of moral standards of responsibility, the founders would then be able to set the standards for individual corporations.
However, once the ball is rolling, and the corporation is function normally, if consequences of "business" is human suffering, environmental fallout, or other negative impact, is it the responsibility of the corporation to protect people or environment? Or is it the responsibility of the shareholders? The founders? They may even care, and want to create change, but most corporations are designed to protect the bottom line, not the opinions and reputations of its founders or shareholders.
Typically, the problem continues unless there is public rebellion about a given situation. Is it public responsibility to ensure changes within these organizations? Or should the responsibility fall on the corporation and its shareholders.
Is it the responsibility of the general public to protest the negative effects that sometimes occur? Or the responsibility of the corporation to prevent human or environmental suffering at the cost of business? Isn't that what it is designed to do?
Report
However, once the ball is rolling, and the corporation is function normally, if consequences of "business" is human suffering, environmental fallout, or other negative impact, is it the responsibility of the corporation to protect people or environment? Or is it the responsibility of the shareholders? The founders? They may even care, and want to create change, but most corporations are designed to protect the bottom line, not the opinions and reputations of its founders or shareholders.
Typically, the problem continues unless there is public rebellion about a given situation. Is it public responsibility to ensure changes within these organizations? Or should the responsibility fall on the corporation and its shareholders.
Is it the responsibility of the general public to protest the negative effects that sometimes occur? Or the responsibility of the corporation to prevent human or environmental suffering at the cost of business? Isn't that what it is designed to do?
March 12, 2009 08:32 PM
A corporation is only an "individual" as defined by the law, and while the connotations we apply to that word imply a sense of morality, a corporation is still just an inanimate object, just like an "individual" apple out of a bushel is still just an apple. In other words, the term's legal application represents a quantity, defining a corporation as a single entity, and does not denote the human characteristics of social conscience. But this does not mean that "corporate social responsibility" is an oxymoron.
While a corporation is an object, the word "corporate" refers to the policies and practices of a corporation as determined by a group of people with consciences and emotions, and who are capable of exercising moral judgment as it relates to social responsibility.
Only in the case that they act contrary to that responsibility by skewing the corporation's polices/practices does the phrase become an oxymoron.
Source(s):
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/corporate?view=uk
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- facebookchips, November 10, 2009 07:18 AM
- slyguy121, November 10, 2009 07:05 AM
- sajiddewan, November 10, 2009 07:03 AM
- teardropsmile, November 10, 2009 06:54 AM
- jimmymac, November 10, 2009 06:28 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
"Corporate abuse of the public interest does not stem from flaws in the characters of corporate personnel; it stems from a flaw in the rules under which corporations operate."
Which rules are you referring to, the ones designed by corporate personnel or the ones as laid down by the government?