English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

should the corporation have corporate social responsibility?
why?

2007-03-07 09:57:21 · 6 answers · asked by Wenson L 1 in Business & Finance Corporations

6 answers

Companies should be a good citizen of the communities they serve. Most employees like to feel good about the companies they work for and socially responsible companies attract and retain the best employees.

However, if you look at the overall best performing companies, they are sometimes in industries like oil and gas, which are not always the most socially responsible companies.

2007-03-07 10:01:44 · answer #1 · answered by BluedogGirl 5 · 1 0

No, I don't believe so. Corporations are in business, I repeat BUSINESS, to make a profit for their owners or stockholders. That is the basis of our capitalist society in this country. It has been and always will be, unless the socialist, liberals condemn us to a future of working for the government to facilitate the redistribution of wealth, so that the non-contributors to the Gross National Product can share in the wealth earned by those who work for a living.
Social responsibility is the job of government. That is why we pay taxes. Corporations are not in business to provide for the common good. Just read the Constitution, you will see what it is all about.
Look what happened to those corporations that made social responsibility a part of their vision and goals. They went belly up because there was no return to their bottom line.
The true definition of an entrepreneur is one who puts his name, fame and his fortune at risk to reap the benefits of his labors, ideas and sweat. Why in the world should he work to support those who do nothing to help him?
Lastly, who is to say what area(s) are worthy of supporting? All stockholders are being taxed on the income from their investiments, why should they be taxed further by having a corporation in which they have stock contirbute more to a social cause? Charity is an individual thing. Why should stockholders be required, indirectly, to support causes in which they do not believe? For example, Abortion on demand versus life, free the killers or death penalty, alien medical care versus paid helath insurance, union shop versus right to work? This could go on forever.

2007-03-07 10:20:42 · answer #2 · answered by The Cythian 3 · 0 0

I think it should. If you work for a corporation that makes millions out of a certain region, I see no problem with putting something back into that region.

Look at what happened to BHP an OK Tedi.
I bet they're happy the cleaned up the mess they left.

2007-03-07 10:02:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

LOL, perhaps in a perfect world they would; however, the only thing corporations care about is the bottom line.

2007-03-07 10:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by evil_paul 4 · 0 1

of course - all entities and people should take responsibility for the impacts their actions have on others. If not them, then who?

2007-03-07 10:00:29 · answer #5 · answered by All hat 7 · 1 0

They can, and the cost of doing so is deducted as an expense of doing business.

2016-03-28 22:49:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers