Discuss the below:
Some "instances" of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are in the eye of the beholder. It is interesting that the early literature (say 10-15 years ago) argued that corporations could have virtues and vices; interesting idea given the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court about Hobby Lobby and religious views of corporations. In any event there is the observed behavior of corporations termed "Fixing A Problem They Created" (FAPTC). One example of fixing FAPTC is when a gambling house - which is a growing feature of the Maryland economy - is praised for its efforts at controlling problem gaming - i.e. people betting the food or rent check. The gaming issue is a bit more complex because sometimes companies are required to provide assistance to problem gamers sometimes they are not. In my experience many of you are drawn to this question because of the perceived length of the competing option in this discussion posting. In my experience that perception is faulty.
i. Identify and cite an instance of FAPTC that you find. If someone else uses your example then you need to find your own - better off doing this quickly to "claim your space".
ii. For the instance that you find, cast the problem as a form of externality describing the externality.
iii. Now for the opinion part, using either the pyramid of CSR or the domains approach to understanding CSR provide either praise or criticism for the company in your example.