Corporations are merely after profit for the shareholders and as such any adoption of social responsibility is merely slick marketing.
The two are irreconcilibly different, i.e. one is for profit whilst other is about spending money and maybe not getting anything back for it - this would be a total "no-no" for corporations - how would they justify this to their shareholders?
The little social responsibility they would adopt would have been carefully evaluated to produce some return on investment.
On the whole you can expect corporations to be socially responsible but don't hold your breath.
The only way to make corporations socially responsible is through people power, i.e. not buying their products if they don't make their products in an acceptable manner, e.g. environmental moral, social concerns etc.
2006-06-07 15:33:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
socially responsible would be a question of opinion rather than fact as the criterion which would determine the responsibility would be the business' perspective of how much they owe society and therefore with corporations who feel a lot is debted would act upon it, however different people would say socially responsible means different things to them therefore have different expectations of what the corporation should be doing, saying that it wouldnt be reasonable as it wouldnt meet everyones demands
2006-06-07 07:21:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by freedom_of_speech 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yup, totally. AND it's been found that socially (well, at least environmentally) responsible organisations are ahead of the game when it comes to competitiveness in the upcoming future, as corporate responsibility is starting to be demanded by consumers (rising trend). See source below
2006-06-07 07:19:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by happynspirited 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Corporations should be socially responsible.
2006-06-07 07:01:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes is should be expected. They have a reputation to keep and not being socially responsibly doesn't say much for there company
2006-06-07 07:03:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by smelzmelz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think this conflicts with their primary interest of making the most amount of profit. If however consumers use their power and buy from socially responsible companies then it is in their interest and complements their primary concern
2006-06-07 07:03:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by aajstephen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
all corporations must comply with national law/s - this automatically makes them socially responsible - any extra 'effort' to be ''socially responsible'' may render them uncompetitive and liable to failure in a global market.Failure affects shareholders , workers and governments.
2006-06-07 07:06:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by eddie9 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
CEOs are virtually not in any respect fired for corruption, only for no longer making a income or personal habit that embarrasses the corporation. i visit't imagine of a even one case the position they fired because of corruption of their subordinates that did not outcome of their corporation dropping funds, are you able to?
2016-12-06 11:31:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There should be no corporations, all capital should be owned by the state.
2006-06-07 12:58:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They should be, if they want society to be in a position to keep giving them money for whatever it is they sell...
2006-06-07 07:01:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Miss Red 4
·
0⤊
0⤋