The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility
The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility
Dr. Karnani shows in this article from the Wall Street Journal, the pros and cons on whether businesses should be required to implement social welfare initiatives. For some companies, this idea is a win-win situation but there are other businesses that in order to promote these initiatives, they would have to lose profits. The idea of people helping people sounds very good but we have to be realistic, we are living in a capitalist country were people’s priority is their own well-being. The majority of the United States businesses are going to think of how to make profits; if a way to make profits is to improve social welfare then they are more likely to do it. But if by improving social welfare their profits are going to go down, then they are not going to care about the social welfare. Which also turns into a lose-lose situation, in where by increasing the profits will also increase social welfare. Dr. Karnani alleges different ways in which we can balance out both, business and social welfare. One way is where civil society creates nonprofit organizations and movements in where the common good is the main goal. These organizations are created to help the community in a variety of aspects. Some organizations can have as a main goal to protect the environment making sure that profitable companies get as close as possible to being environmental friendly while achieving their profit goal. Other organizations can have as a goal to help communities socially or cultural involved. Another way is what he calls “self control” in where companies would have to create their own regulations to voluntarily act in the public interest. Though in reality this is unlikely to happen, it would be good if someone were to do it. But even if a company were to do it, there were still have to be a third party involved that would have to supervise that the company is actually doing what it says to be doing.
Dr. Karnani shows in this article from the Wall Street Journal, the pros and cons on whether businesses should be required to implement social welfare initiatives. For some companies, this idea is a win-win situation but there are other businesses that in order to promote these initiatives, they would have to lose profits. The idea of people helping people sounds very good but we have to be realistic, we are living in a capitalist country were people’s priority is their own well-being. The majority of the United States businesses are going to think of how to make profits; if a way to make profits is to improve social welfare then they are more likely to do it. But if by improving social welfare their profits are going to go down, then they are not going to care about the social welfare. Which also turns into a lose-lose situation, in where by increasing the profits will also increase social welfare. Dr. Karnani alleges different ways in which we can balance out both, business and social welfare. One way is where civil society creates nonprofit organizations and movements in where the common good is the main goal. These organizations are created to help the community in a variety of aspects. Some organizations can have as a main goal to protect the environment making sure that profitable companies get as close as possible to being environmental friendly while achieving their profit goal. Other organizations can have as a goal to help communities socially or cultural involved. Another way is what he calls “self control” in where companies would have to create their own regulations to voluntarily act in the public interest. Though in reality this is unlikely to happen, it would be good if someone were to do it. But even if a company were to do it, there were still have to be a third party involved that would have to supervise that the company is actually doing what it says to be doing.