Rephrase each section of the article and critique whether or not agreed with him, and if there are examples to support
A business can be compliant with laws of a country, yet shows no ethical responsibility and vice versa. The modern view of successful organisations entails adherence to both law and morality. The issue of morality or ethics was established by the 'stakeholder' theory which states that a corporation is a legally privileged association that have contractual obligations which are both legal and moral. Complying with the law is accountability, but complying with business ethics is responsibility. Hence, corporate social responsibility is the making of positive contribution to society (employees, customers, the public and shareholders) above and beyond legal obligations. In essence, CSR is pursued by social justice campaigners and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which mobilize public opinion against the unethical practices of corporations. They lead to customer boycotts, shareholder protests, exposing the names and images of offending corporations and managers. For example, they wage campaigns that promote prohibition of child labour, the right to a decent wage, safe working conditions. Thus, their anti-Nike sweatshop awareness campaign has ruined Nike's public relations campaigns and financial status.
It seems that there is a clear conflict between business and ethics. Business is concerned with rationality, practicality that leads to efficiency and calculability. In this regard, it is a collective notion where everyone has a cost, a value, and a purpose that can be tangible and measured. In contrast, ethics is concerned with the moral codes that govern our decisions and actions in terms or right and wrong. It is philosophical and abstract derived from the individualistic conscience with the aim of achieving goodness and justice. It cannot be measured as it is intangible and spiritual in nature.
However, it is not clear who decides the values which a business should adopt: companies themselves or the society. Again, in applying CSR, managers are faced with ethical dilemmas: they may use the company's resources for people other than the shareholders. They are unfairly taxing the shareholders, employees, and customers This is against their contractual duties, so they do not have the freedom to act since they are agents for managing the business on behalf of the shareholders.
In fact, both accountability and responsibility require freedom of action on the part of the agent. In case of corporate social responsibility, ethical issues become more complicated as people start differentiating between individual and collective rights and duties, and between legal and moral rights and duties. Again, society cannot be an actor since it is always acted for or represented. Then, 'who acts for society?'. It is even more difficult to define the identity of society: is it the local community, the state/ nation, or the international society?
According to the shareholder theory advocated by Friedman, managers are only agents for maximising profits. In this regard, some people argue that CSR is already done by the business when it creates jobs, shareholder value and goods and services - which contribute to society. But this claim can be rejected on the basis that businesses may use more resources of community than the taxes they pay.
This theory is motivated by consequentialism, which emphasises utilitarianism advocating that actions are neither good nor bad in themselves, but only in terms of what they bring about to the largest number of people. This is a Machivillian principle that treats people as a means to an end and justifies considerable harm done to others. This is against the deontological view of Kant, which advocates that for an action to be ethical, it must have a motive beyond self-interest and mutual advantage, and that justice is something contained within an action itself, not in its consequences.
Conclusion:
CSR depends on the code of ethics that is derived from moral theories, which do not show a universal consensus on what is right and what is wrong. Ethical or moral duties are duties of individuals, and wrongful conduct involves wrongful intent and conscious complicity. The problem is that corporations do not have minds or intention, and therefore corporate moral responsibility demands identifiable individuals and roles. In fact, activities of corporations are not the activity of every member or any particular member, and corporate actors are not free agents. Then, the questions of how to behave morally while protecting what is legally ours; how to look after the rights of those who have no capital; and why should only those with capital make these decisions have added to the problems of the CSR debate.