Public Reaction to CSR Communication †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Public Reaction to CSR Communication. Answer: Introduction Justice and order can be ensured in the society if moral and ethical decisions are made by its citizens. Whether a decision is ethically correct or not cannot be analyzed based on personal judgments. The ethicalness behind the decision has to be analyzed in the light of the society as a whole (Carroll 2015). There are several theories and concepts which have been brought to existence in order to ensure ethical compliance in the society. These theories and concept act as a guideline to those who indulge in the process of decision making. One of such ethical approaches is that of CSR which is also generally known as Corporate Social Responsibility. This is a form of responsibility which is imposed on corporations who function within the society. Within the meaning of law a Corporation is a separate legal person who has a distinct identity in the society. Although corporation is not a natural citizen it is considered as an artificial legal person who is a citizen of the society within w hich it operates (Hargrave 2015). According to the provisions of CSR in the same way as any normal citizen of a society has an obligation to ensure benefit and best interest of the society as a whole it is also the duty of a corporation being an artificial legal person to ensure that its functions are to an extent directed towards the betterment of the society. The concept provides that an incorporated company does not only have the object and purpose of ensuring good returns in form of profit for its shareholders but also it has the responsibility of rectifying any damages which has been caused to the society because of its operations. However this concept has been criticized by the proponents of narrow view of corporate social responsibility (Jiang and Wong 2015.). The documentary Blood Sweat and T-shirts has raised a significant controversy in relation to the role of UK retailers towards the workers of factories in India from where they outsource their products. The wages which are provided to such workers is so low that they are only able to purchase necessities required to be alive. The environment in which they work is so dirty that diseases are inevitable. This paper analyses the responsibility of the retailers in United Kingdom towards those workers who are working in Indian factories from which clothes are outsourced. The responsibility is analyzed in the light of various ethical theories and concepts such as corporate social responsibility, deontology ethics and utilitarianism. The paper analyses which of the two views of CSR that is the broad view and narrow view is adopted by the retailers in United Kingdom. The paper further clarifies that which of the two views is more ethical based on the application of ethical theories. Episode 4 of the documentary Blood Sweat and T-shirts depicts the experience of a group of six young fashions conscious British Consumers who visited the Indian Factories from which the UK fashion industry retailers outsource the cloths. The throwaway fashion trend which is taking the High Street by strong and The Hunt for bargain turning out to be a national fascination has made clothes to become disposable. The primary purpose of the documentary is to bring Awareness to the consumers in UK in relation to how the retailers are able to provide them with cloths at search lower price. The day today reality is which is faced by the workers working in such factories has been depicted through the documentary. It is revealed by the documentary that the location at which these workers are forced to work at dirty and smelly and have temperatures which are soaring. In such unhealthy working environment the workers are forced to indulge into back breaking work. There is a clear lack of respect and effective leadership by the managers who operate in such factories. The technology which is provided to the workers is totally outdated and they have to do almost all of the word manually. The documentary also shows the involvement of child labour in the factories as one of the conversation which Georgina had with a person stated that he had been working in the factory since he was 15 years of age. Arguments in relation of Narrow and Broad View of Corporate Social Responsibility As argued by Paquette, Sommerfeldt and Kent (2015) the social responsibility of business is of making sufficient profit for its shareholders. However in the contradiction of the statement it has been provided by Porter and Kramer (2018) that the responsibility of a corporation should do not be limited to only profit maximization. It is provided by the narrow view of CSR that the only objective of a business is to maximize profit. As stated by Friedman (2009) a business has only two responsibilities in the end. Firstly it is the responsibility of a business to act in good faith and honesty in relation to its operations and secondly the primary purpose of a business is to seek material gain. Renowned author Milton Friedman has provided an argument in his book Capitalism and freedom that there is no social responsibility which a business has other than maximizing profit. It has also been argued by freedman that as a corporation is only an artificial person the responsibility which is im posed on it should also be only artificial. In addition the concept of business is further more artificial and the society is only left with corporate executives and proprietor who can actually be held responsible to it. The purpose of a business is to make profit and the shareholders of such business employ executive for the purpose of reaching the goals. These executives have the obligation of acting in best interest of their employers (Bowie 2017). Therefore in order to fulfil their obligations the executive have to operate business in such a way so that it is fruitful for the shareholders. The responsibility towards the society has to be imposed on those shareholders and executives for whom the corporation or business is making profit rather than the corporation itself. As stated by Friedman the CSR is on the executives to act beyond the pursuit of profit. They have the responsibility of spending the money of the shareholders in general social interest like imposing taxes on the owners and spending such taxes on social cause. Friedman further argues that the one and only responsibility which is of a social nature imposed on a business is that it must utilise its resources and indulge in activities which are designed to enhance profit to an extent such activities are ethical. By being ethical Friedman means that such operations should ensure free and open competition without any kind of fraud or deception.There is nothing wrong with profit where there is no initiation of force (Shim, Chung and Kim 2017). Responsibility is owned by every business to its owners and shareholders for the purpose of increasing profit. Businesses who are successful also indulge in providing help to the community. The social responsibility of the businesses is not usually thought about by the financial managers in the pursuit of increasing profit. In situation where the primary concerns with such managers have is to make money for the company and themselves, their efforts often generates revenue for the community which is never considered by shareholders and business owners. Irrespective of other things the profit and loss which is made by the business provides a picture to the owners with respect to how good or bad the business is in relation to achieving its needs and wants along with those of the individuals in the society. The concept applies for both small and large corporations. It is not relevant whether service is provided by a business to a few local people or a mass population internationally. The role of profit and loss is the same for all in business situations (Scherer 2017). The primary way through which profits can be increased by a business whether it is small, large or medium is by providing other individuals with something of value. Someone or the other is being benefited by each of these businesses in the society and this is known to the business because of the profit made by them. Against the arguments provided by Friedman in relation to the obligation of business it is maintained by the broad view that organisation have an obligation not only to the shareholders but also to others who are affected by its operations. It has been stated by Rasche et al. (2017) that social responsibility means that those who make decisions has the obligation of taking an action which enhances the interest of the society in the process of serving own business interest. The company is owned by the shareholders and managers are entrusted with the management of the funds who in return make money for them. Indeed a fiduciary duty is owed by the managers of a company to th e shareholders to act in their best interest. Contradictory to the theory of narrow view of CSR duties are also owed by the management to other groups in the society like customers and employees. Worth on social responsibility is placed above profit by a stakeholder value perspective (Schwartz, 2017). However it also needs to be considered that where a business is not profitable it would not be able to meet the needs of its stakeholders. Therefore the responsibility of a business is to all those who are involved in the process of enhancing its profits. To the extent where the operation of the businesses is in relation to balancing the needs of every stakeholder there would be no problems faced by it for meeting its social responsibilities. Often new jobs are created when businesses are able to increase their profit. From these jobs employees receive benefit and subsequently the money which is spent by them benefits the community as a whole. When the employees are able to pay taxes and spend money indirect contribution to public institution such as schools and libraries are automatically made (Porter and Kramer 2018). Ethical theories deontology and Utilitarianism The deontology ethics provided by Immanuel Kant is guideline which is used for the purpose of ethical decision making. The theory which has been provided by Kant is based on categorical imperatives Kant (2018). In his theory can't has stated that when making a decision A person should ask himself a question that is every other person in the world chooses to make the same decision then would it be correct. If the answer which the person gets by asking himself search question suggests that the decision is correct the society then it is to be considered as a ethical decision. The theory further emphasizes on moral law and goodwill. According to the theory human beings are ends in themselves and this should not be used as a means of achieving ends. Where actions are focused towards exploiting humans for achieving profit such actions cannot be held as ethically correct under the theory. The theory does not provide any emphasis on consequences of action. On the other hand the theory of das h states that a decision is ethical or not is based upon the outcome of the decision. If the decisions insurance the happiness of the majority it is considered as an ethical decision. This theory is totally based on consequences of actions (Scherer 2017). Through the application of the above discussed theories it can be analysed that the when it comes to ethics the Broad view of CSR is better than the narrow view. As per Kant human beings are ends in themselves and this should not be used as a means of achieving ends. Where actions are focused towards exploiting humans for achieving profit such actions cannot be held as ethically correct under the theory (Kant 2014). Therefore according to the principles of deontology as the narrow view of CSR does not comply with treating human beings as an end themselves and rather focuses on exploiting them to achieve certain goals it cannot be considered ethical. In addition through the application of the theory of utilitarianism it can be stated that the broad view of CSR is more article then the Narrow view as it operates for the betterment of the majority of the society rather than few business shareholders. Which view is adopted by retailers in UK? It is clear in the given situation that the retailers who are involved in outsourcing of the clothes are not adopting the broader approach of CSR. The Primary objective which is clearly visible in relation to the retailers is that they only want to indulge in the process of profit maximization for themselves. In order to meet the increasing demands of clothes in United Kingdom these retailers are sourcing clothes at a very cheap rate from the Indian factories and selling them in UK at higher prices to maximize profit. The objective of the retailers in the given situation is of only making profit and not to help the community and those who are being affected by their operations. The effort which is put in by the Indian workers in relation to making such clothes is depicted through the documentary along with the minimum compensation which they are provided with. No regard is provided by the employers and factory owners in relation to the welfare of the workers as they even fail to prov ide them with proper and hygienic condition for work. As discussed earlier the narrow view of CSR states that the social responsibility of business is of making sufficient profit for its shareholders. A business has only two responsibilities in the end. Firstly it is the responsibility of a business to act in good faith and honesty in relation to its operations and secondly the primary purpose of a business is to seek material gain. Therefore through the analysis of the situation it can be clearly stated that the retailers are adopting the narrow view of CSR. Ethical obligation of retailers and professional who are a part of the process The retailers and consumers under the broad view of CSR which is more ethical than the narrow view and the ethical theories of deontology and utilitarianism have a clear responsibility to the workers in the Indian factories. As per Kant human beings are ends in themselves and this should not be used as a means of achieving ends. Where actions are focused towards exploiting humans for achieving profit such actions cannot be held as ethically correct under the theory. Therefore according to the principles of deontology as the narrow view of CSR does not comply with treating human beings as an end themselves and rather focuses on exploiting them to achieve certain goals it cannot be considered ethical. Thus the retailers cannot let the workers in the Indian factories being exploited by the owners. Under the concept of CSR social responsibility means that those who make decisions has the obligation of taking an action which enhances the interest of the society in the process of serving o wn business interest. Thus the obligation of the retailers is also to protect and enhance the situation of the workers. Conclusion It can be concluded from the above discussion that when it comes to ethics the Broad view of CSR is better than the narrow view. It is also clear in the given situation that the retailers who are involved in outsourcing of the clothes are not adopting the broader approach of CSR rather the narrow approach. The Primary objective which is clearly visible in relation to the retailers is that they only want to indulge in the process of profit maximization for themselves. However the retailers and consumers under the broad view of CSR which is more ethical than the narrow view and the ethical theories of deontology and utilitarianism have a clear responsibility to the workers in the Indian factories. Recommendations It is the responsibility of the retailers to ensure that they make the consumers aware of the situation and provided sufficient financial support to the workers in the Indian factors They may increase the price of the cloths or decrease their profit margins in order to make batter arrangements for the workers. The retailers must also ensure that the support which is being provided by them to the workers actually reaches them by exerting pressure on the owners and managers of the factories References Barnett, M.L., Henriques, I. and Husted Corregan, B., 2018. Governing the Void between Stakeholder Management and Sustainability. Bowie, N. E. (2017).Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press. Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility.Organizational dynamics,44(2), 87-96. Friedman, M. (2009).Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago press. Hargrave, T.J., 2015. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders, globalization, and sustainable value creation.Academy of Management Learning Education,14(4), pp.651-653. Jiang, W. and Wong, J.K., 2015. Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility into the Construction Process: A Preliminary Study. InICCREM 2015(pp. 18-27). Kant, I. (2014).What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?. Daniel Fidel Ferrer, Verlag.. Kant, I. (2018).Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals(p. 409). Yale University Press. Paquette, M., Sommerfeldt, E.J. and Kent, M.L., 2015. Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics.Public Relations Review,41(1), pp.30-39. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., 2019. Creating shared value. InManaging Sustainable Business(pp. 327-350). Springer, Dordrecht. Rasche, A.N.D.R.E.A.S., Morsing, M.E.T.T.E., Moon, J.E.R.E.M.Y. and Moon, J., 2017. The changing role of business in global society: CSR and beyond.Corporate social responsibility: Strategy, communication and governance, pp.1-28. Scherer, A.G., 2017. Theory assessment and agenda setting in political CSR: A critical theory perspective.International journal of management reviews. Schwartz, M. S. (2017).Corporate social responsibility. Routledge. Shim, K., Chung, M. and Kim, Y., 2017. Does ethical orientation matter? Determinants of public reaction to CSR communication.Public Relations Review,43(4), pp.817-828.. Tai, F. M., Chuang, S. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility.Ibusiness,6(03), 117