Social responsibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social responsibility is a doctrine that claims that an entity whether it is state, government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society. This responsibility can be "negative," in that it is a responsibility to refrain from acting, or it can be "positive," meaning a responsibility to act.

There is large inequality in the means and roles of different entities to fulfill their claimed responsibility. This would imply the different entities have different responsibilities. E.g. that states should ensure the civil rights of its citizens, that corporations should respect and encourage the human rights of its employees and that citizens abide with the written laws. But it also can be more than just that. Many NGOs mean that their role and the responsibility of their members as citizens is to help improve society by taking a proactive stance in their societal role. It can also imply that corporations have an implicit obligation to give back to society; see more under corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory.

Social responsibility is voluntary. Social responsibility is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law. It is in the ideal that acting to a problem is better then reacting to a problem. Social responsibility means eliminating corrupt, irresponsible or unethical behavior that might bring harm to community, people, or the environment before it happens.

Social responsibility is most commonly associated with business and corporations but can also be applied to governments, organizations, activist groups and even communities.

1 Human Responsibility
2 Environmental Responsibility
3 Criticism of the doctrine of positive responsibility
4 Some one liners on social responsibility
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Human Responsibility

One half of social responsibility is being responsible to people, for the actions of people, and for actions that affect people. Social responsibility is about holding a group, organization or company accountable for its effect on the people around it. People within the company, people working with the company, the community the company is in and those who buy from the company.

The idea of being responsible to customers has actually long been imbedded in the ethics of business. The idea of treating a custumer with respect and attention is not new particularly in sales and commission based work. What is new is the idea that it's not to profit from the customer, but to genuinely care about what the customer wants and needs.

Accountability for people inside a company is something new. Many times when a scandal or irresponsible behavior comes to light in the corporate world the company and those involved often try to distance themselves as much as possible. Cover ups, buy offs and “golden parachutes” all fall under this behavior. Social responsibility would nearly be the opposite of what goes on in the business world today – a company taking the blame and doing what is needed to fix the problem rather than committing more crimes to cover up the first one.

In many countries, by law, a corporation's only responsibility is to make as much money as possible for shareholders and to obey the law. Social responsibility holds companies and organizations responsible for the people they affect, even indirectly. It also holds a company responsible for inaction, or indecision. Basing on the idea that a company or organization has the power to help people or, at the least, not harm them, it has the moral responsibility to do so.

[edit] Environmental Responsibility

The second half of social responsibility is the idea that a company has even more responsibility to the environment and the world around it then a individual. Companies by nature act are a far larger scale then and individual could. Thus, their environmental impacts are often far greater and have much farther reaching impacts then a individual consumer could.

Choices made by the company often have far reaching affects and even unknown conciseness. Business have proven this time and time again (See: Monsanto). They also have actions and have products that are not readily available to consumers. There are very few people in the world with access to toxic or nuclear waste and even fewer have been convicted of illegally dumping or producing those products.

Also choices companies make effect the environmental impacts of their consumers. Many products use far more packaging then is required. This environmental impact and cost is handed over directly to the consumer is in responsible for disposing of the packaging in a environmentally friendly manner. It is also not the responsibility of the company to provide the environmentally friendly option for disposing of the packaging, or even the product in some cases.

A socially responsible business would take these considerations into account when making a decision. It often falls to management and share holders to push for a company to be run responsibly and take initiative for its actions. This has often proven profitable for a company in the long right to spite short term costs. (See: Whole Foods)

[edit] Criticism of the doctrine of positive responsibility

Many, particularly libertarians, assert there is no "social responsibility" to do anything, but to refrain from doing. They argue that social responsibility only exists to the extent that an individual or business should not initiate physical force, threat of force, or fraud against another. In his famous article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits, Nobel economist Milton Friedman asserts that businesses have no social responsibility other than to increase profits and refrain from engaging in deception and fraud. He maintains that when businesses seek to maximize profits, they almost always incidentally do what is good for society. Friedman does not argue that business should not help the community but that it may indeed be in the long-run self-interest of a business to "devote resources to providing amenities to [the] community..." in order to "generate goodwill" and thereby increase profits.

Another famous economist highly critical of this doctrine is R. Edward Freeman, author of a number of papers on stakeholder theory from an explicitly libertarian perspective.