Corporate Social Responsibility

[SteveLaura 0]

The purpose of business is not to make a profit; it's to serve the economic needs of a society while being rewarded with a profit.

Gene Laczniak, Professor of Business Ethics, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI

Full article here

[Jenn! 918]

Are we talking should be or is?

[SteveLaura 0]

Are we talking should be or is?

From the article, I would surmise that this bloke says "is". But you can answer "should be" if you wish.

[SteveLaura 0]

Wow! 100% agree!

Oh, wait. I'm the only one that's voted so far.

[almaty 19]

i agree too

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The purpose of business is not to make a profit; it's to serve the economic needs of a society while being rewarded with a profit.

How can a business make profit if it doesn't serve the economic needs of a society? If you don't meet demands, you don't make money.

I don't see the statement above as altruistic. I see it as a statement of fact. Demands exist, you provide supply, you make money.

[SteveLaura 0]

The purpose of business is not to make a profit; it's to serve the economic needs of a society while being rewarded with a profit.

How can a business make profit if it doesn't serve the economic needs of a society? If you don't meet demands, you don't make money.

I don't see the statement above as altruistic. I see it as a statement of fact. Demands exist, you provide supply, you make money.

Interesting. I hadn't read it like that.

What do you think of this quote from the article?:

The notion that the corporation should apply its assets for social purposes, rather than for the profit of its owners, the shareholders, is irresponsible.

Betsy Atkins, CEO of Baja Ventures

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The notion that the corporation should apply its assets for social purposes, rather than for the profit of its owners, the shareholders, is irresponsible.

It's perfectly consistent. Meeting the economic needs of a society is nothing more than meeting existing demand. Social purposes is entirely different, and not the goal of a business. If a business has a lot of money and wishes to generate goodwill in the public, then that's certainly a good way to direct those assets, however. WalMart could use some goodwill right about now

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The notion that the corporation should apply its assets for social purposes, rather than for the profit of its owners, the shareholders, is irresponsible.

It's perfectly consistent. Meeting the economic needs of a society is nothing more than meeting existing demand. Social purposes is entirely different, and not the goal of a business. If a business has a lot of money and wishes to generate goodwill in the public, then that's certainly a good way to direct those assets, however. WalMart could use some goodwill right about now

Drug dealers?

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

i voted yes with the view of they have a social responsibility environmental wise. see woburn, mass for an example.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The notion that the corporation should apply its assets for social purposes, rather than for the profit of its owners, the shareholders, is irresponsible.

It's perfectly consistent. Meeting the economic needs of a society is nothing more than meeting existing demand. Social purposes is entirely different, and not the goal of a business. If a business has a lot of money and wishes to generate goodwill in the public, then that's certainly a good way to direct those assets, however. WalMart could use some goodwill right about now

Drug dealers?

What do you think Merck is?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I have to agree with Troll here.

If a business -- from Toys R Us to Pfizer -- fails to meet consumer demand, it won't make a profit or at least, a decent one. This will, in turn, upset the shareholders. So it's to the overall benefit of a corporation to supply society with what it wants and needs, since that will earn it money and placate the shareholders of the company.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have to agree with Troll here.

If a business -- from Toys R Us to Pfizer -- fails to meet consumer demand, it won't make a profit or at least, a decent one. This will, in turn, upset the shareholders. So it's to the overall benefit of a corporation to supply society with what it wants and needs, since that will earn it money and placate the shareholders of the company.

I think that's a faulty assumption and it reminds me of people who correlate popularity with quality. If a business in your town is selling you toilet paper and they are profitable, it only tells part of the relationship (providing the locals with TP), but what if upon further investigation, it is discovered that the company is polluting the local ground water? When that fact is brought to light, typically a company spokesman will state that his company is providing a great need for the people and therefore deserves legal leniency or immunity. This happens all the time - companies go on a PR campaign to talk about all the social benefits they provide (jobs, taxes, products and services) whenever someone tries to point out that they destroying the local environment or even local economy. You can't claim to provide a cure for cancer if the treatment causes cardiac arrest.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Jabberwocky