This assignment has been assigned by Mr. Gilbert for me to do a research on any topics that is related to the chapters that are available in this subject. The title of my research will be “Does CSR have any impact on company performance?” . Plato once said that, Only people with the whole nations good in mind can be allowed to rule the just state (Plato through Larsson, 2003 p. 87). Hence from this statement we can see that even in the past people do take serious about the importance of ethical behaviour. The multinational companies' spot and impact is developing in the global economy furthermore, with it higher requests on obligation regarding the social ...view middle of the document...
Hence with the wide ideas regarding to CSR from the stakeholders point of view, it is very impossible to have the clear definition of CSR. Hence for the sake of this assignment, I would like to come out with my own definition pertaining to CSR. CSR can be define as “activities that seem to further some social good, past the interest of the firm and that which is needed by law.” By understanding this definition, it gave us some thoughts on the CSR policies that it is an actions that encourages people to do actions beyond abiding the law in order to have a good impact to the society. Hence, a corporation that enhances the prosperity of workers by executing sound whistleblowing, strategies, for instance, is not being socially capable, but instead maintaining the law, specifically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
The Milton Friedman Perspective
2.1.1 Milton Friedman a financial specialist contends that Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) have a potential negative relationship. In his 1970 article in the New York Times, "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits," Friedman takes an industrialist position and discredits the prevalent view that organizations have social obligations. Friedman contended that a "company is a simulated individual" and subsequently can't have genuine obligations. Rather, the company's administrators are the individuals who hold the obligations. They have a "direct social obligation to their managers," and must direct the business in a manner that amplifies benefits while regarding the law and moral standards. Executives of corporate who bring socially dependable activities with business resources are disregarding the free undertaking America is a country that is based on the grounds that it is basically tax imposition without any political benefit, since it is basically "burning through another person's cash." Businesses who choose to take part in socially mindful activities danger losing the backing of partners who empower them to create benefits, and this expense significantly exceeds any advantage of social commitments. Genuine social obligation, Friedman contends, rather lies with the advocates of the organization's benefits clients, workers, and shareholders to utilize their profits (in the type of profits, rewards, and so forth.) to put resources into society. Friedman's meaning of corporate social responsibility, in this manner, is making a move outer to benefit amplification to enhance the group and environment. He guarantees that it is official's sole social obligation to expand the association's worth, which by implication empowers partners to maintain their social obligations by "spending their own cash, not somebody else's" to enhance the earth and group. On the surface of his contention, it gives the idea that Friedman accepts organizations ought to not receive corporate social responsibility (CSR)...