Pros and Cons of Corporate Social Responsibility

Question: Discuss about thePros and Cons of Corporate Social Responsibility. Answer: Introduction Corporate Social Responsibility has become a necessity for many businesses in the current business environment. Advancement in the society has made it a necessity for companies to give back to the community in multiple ways. According to Jones, Bowd, and Tench (2009), Corporate Social Responsibility has developed its place and position whereby companies and corporations engage in philanthropic activities to the society. However, it is important to note that Corporate Social Responsibility just like any other activity has its advantages and disadvantages. Corporate social responsibility can benefit a company in many ways including improving the image of the company. This is because when a company engages in ethical activities like recycling of wastes, the company improves its images as it contributes to a clean and safe environment for the people. Moreover, customer relations are improved when a company engages in Corporate Social Responsibility. According to (Li Morrow, n.d.), it is evident that seventy percent of the people believe that companies are mandated to be socially responsible. Companies can be able to attract more revenues hence more cash flow since investors and customers prefer and enjoy working with a company that engages in Corporate Social Responsibility. Furthermore, companies that engage with Corporate Social Responsibility create a good rapport with the local authority. This is because most governments are likely to issue incentives and reduce scrutiny to such companies. Cost restrictions are one of the cons of companies engaging in Corporate Social Responsibility. It is difficult for a company to allocate some of its limited resources to Corporate Social Responsibility. This is because personnel and other overhead cost are required. It is believed that Corporate Social Responsibility is a deviation from the main agenda of a business that is to make a profit, which is the expectation of the shareholders (Tilt, 2016). In addition to this, it is difficult for small business to afford to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility due to its small finances. According to Trong Tuan (2012), many companies use Corporate Social Responsibility to deviate the attention of their flaws. For instance, a company that emits harmful gasses to the atmosphere will tend to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility activities to make people forget the effects of their activities to the environment. Corporate Social Responsibility in Colombia, Philippines, and Australia Corporate Social Responsibility in Colombia, Philippines, and Australia operate differently. In Colombia, companies are coerced to not only follow the business laws and regulation laid out by the country, but are also supposed to follow the international Corporate Social Responsibility guidelines (Maurer, 2009). This is different in Philippines where companies have charitable activities that drive events in the country. Employee volunteerism has made Corporate Social Responsibility even easier for businesses in the Philippines. This is because overhead costs such as salary are reduced. Moreover, most companies in the Philippines believe in goodwill, whereby they believe the society deserves something good (Onkila, 2013). Conversely, despite the increase in Corporate Social Responsibility activities in Australia, the country has remained stagnant in embracing CSR responsibilities. Companies in Australia have shunned away from Corporate Social Responsibility because it is viewed as not business-like and that it limits the ability if a company to grow (Chen Bouvain, 2008). The government of Colombia has ensured that there is a National Plan for Human Rights and Business where businesses are supposed to respect human rights through Corporate Social Responsibility while carrying out their operations. However, in Australia, companies are directed on what to do by the Corporate Social Responsibility center. It is evident that Australian companies do not understand that engagement in Corporate Social Responsibility is intertwined with their existence. This implies that the two countries operate differently from Philippines in terms of their engagement in corporate social responsibility. This is because organizations in Australia and Colombia are compelled to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility. However, in Philippines, the Chief Executive Officers initiate seventy-seven percent of the Corporate Social Responsibility through lobbying for support from clients and well-wishers (Welford, 2007). References Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. (2008). Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany.Journal of Business Ethics, 87(S1), pp.299-317. Jones, B., Bowd, R. and Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities.Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), pp.300-310. Li, Z. and Morrow, R. (n.d.). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: An Empirical Analysis.SSRN Electronic Journal. Maurer, V. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Divided Corporate Self: The case of Chiquita in Colombia.Journal of Business Ethics, 88(S4), pp.595-603. Onkila, T. (2013). Pride or Embarrassment? Employees Emotions and Corporate Social Responsibility.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), pp.222-236. Tilt, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context.International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(1), p.4. Trong Tuan, L. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance.Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), pp.547-560. Welford, R. (2007). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: issues for Asia.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(1), pp.42-51.