Corporate Social Responsibility
1. Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility has several definitions but is simply defined by Woods and others (2013, 27) as the obligation of organisations to behave in ethical and moral ways. It generally refers to the notion that corporations have a responsibility to the society that sustains them. Over the years, the theory of corporate social responsibility has continued to develop in importance and significance. In modern day business it is common practice for organisations to have responsibilities to society that go beyond just that of making a profit. To put this idea into perspective in relation to Breadtalk, Archie B Carroll’s four dimension approach can be used. This approach consists of four different corporate social responsibility categories including those that are economical, ethical, legal and discretionary. Each of the categories mentioned have a big influence on the organisational behaviour of Breadtalk.
The economical responsibility
The economic responsibility of business is ‘to produce goods and services that society desires and to sell them at a profit’ (Carroll 1979, 500). In Breadtalk’s case this means running a profitable organisation that maximises sales and minimises costs. As Breadtalk is operating an open system several factors come into play when looking to meet this responsibility. Note: Appendice 1
This responsibility can be very influential to the behaviour of organisations such as Breadtalk. If the organisation was not profitable decisions would have be made regarding the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the system in place.
The ethical responsibility
The ethical responsibility of an organisation can be described as what is expected from society as a whole. Ethical behaviour is behaviour that is morally accepted as good and right in a particular situation. For a multi-national organisation such as Breadtalk, ethics would be influenced by the different cultures of countries in which it operates.
Corporate social responsibility has several definitions but is simply defined by Woods and others (2013, 27) as the obligation of organisations to behave in ethical and moral ways. It generally refers to the notion that corporations have a responsibility to the society that sustains them. Over the years, the theory of corporate social responsibility has continued to develop in importance and significance. In modern day business it is common practice for organisations to have responsibilities to society that go beyond just that of making a profit. To put this idea into perspective in relation to Breadtalk, Archie B Carroll’s four dimension approach can be used. This approach consists of four different corporate social responsibility categories including those that are economical, ethical, legal and discretionary. Each of the categories mentioned have a big influence on the organisational behaviour of Breadtalk.
The economical responsibility
The economic responsibility of business is ‘to produce goods and services that society desires and to sell them at a profit’ (Carroll 1979, 500). In Breadtalk’s case this means running a profitable organisation that maximises sales and minimises costs. As Breadtalk is operating an open system several factors come into play when looking to meet this responsibility. Note: Appendice 1
This responsibility can be very influential to the behaviour of organisations such as Breadtalk. If the organisation was not profitable decisions would have be made regarding the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the system in place.
The ethical responsibility
The ethical responsibility of an organisation can be described as what is expected from society as a whole. Ethical behaviour is behaviour that is morally accepted as good and right in a particular situation. For a multi-national organisation such as Breadtalk, ethics would be influenced by the different cultures of countries in which it operates.
References: Website www.breadtalk.com/ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/348240/1/.html Textbook Jack Wood, Rachid Zeffane, Michele Fromholts, Retha Wiesner, Rachel Morrison and Pi-Shen Seet. 2013. Organisational Behaviour: Core Concepts And Applications.3rd edition. New York: Wiley Richard L. Daft. 2011. Management. 10th edition. Cengage Learning Journal Archie B. Carroll and Kareem M. Shabana. 2010. “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice.” The international journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85- ? Carroll, A.B. 1979. “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance.” Academy of Management Review, 4, 500 Yunxia Zhu and Herbert Hildebrandt , 2007. “Culture, Contexts, and Communication in Multicultural Australia and New Zealand An Introduction.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 17(1), 1-9