Should Corporations be Socially responsible?

Question

Should Corporations be Socially responsible?

How possible is it to challenge the today's Corporate Ethics?

Please see link for further reflection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGolgoS51o

Your views please.

Thank in advance for your time and your answer.

Answer 1

In the US (and EU, Japan, and other areas as well) many, many corporations are NOT socially responsible!

McDonald and all Pharmaceutical Companiesgivemoney to their own personal charities (Nice Tax Right off!)

The person above says they give financial aid to those who need their medicines. Try telling that to the people who are dying of AIDS because of the monopolly of such things!!!!

THE ABOVE ANSWER IS NOTHING BUT MINDLESS RETORIC!

They take far more than they give!

THEY MUST BE MADE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE DAMAGE THET DO.

Answer 2

It is better for humanity to be socially responsible.

Corporates in their attempt to help humanity,they

are developing new empires in the name of charity.

Answer 3

industry news-http://asianinmedia.org/

Answer 4

I think, Yes! They should be.

Within the last 50 years, corporations have risen to such a height that today, whatever we do, see, eat are determine by these corporations. They have become an inseparable part of our life.

Therefore, applying the theory of role specialisation of Friedman, I think today's' corporation are more powerful than the government and they are in the perfect position or role to bring about a change of betterment to this world.

However, i also believe that with the corporations, we as a customer, workers, managers, suppliers, distributors, society as a whole have full responsibility towards making the world a better place to live.

Hope it helps!

Answer 5

A lot try to be, whether or not they are is a little subjective.

Answer 6

In the US (and EU, Japan, and other areas as well) many, many corporations are socially responsible.

* Ronald McDonald House (many fast food franchises have similar...Chick-Fill-A "WinShape")

* Virtually all Pharmaceutical Companies have access to their own personal charities that give financial aid to those who need their medicines.

* Home Depot and Lowes give to communities for building shelters for the poor.

The list goes on and on.  These companies do these things as a part of good business practice in improving their image in the community.  

The message to parents is (In the case of McDonalds):  These people really care about children; therefore it's a place I want to take my family to eat.

There is an enormous amount of corporate spending devoted to this.  Schools get textbooks, communities get playgrounds, poor get shelter and other relief.  It's good business and many, many corporations practice it.

Answer 7

Mooseshit!  To answer your question, yes they should.  Companies--ANY company--only succeed because of the people who work for them.  To allow workers to ride their way up the career ladder only to fire them when they get close to retirement is just plain low.  To expect workers to come in and do their best even when they're sick--but offer nothing useful in the way of medical benifits--brings back memories of the glory days of slavery.  Charities?  If not for tax write-offs, hardly any of them would donate a coffee can... let alone money.

All you see these days are stories about multi-millionare  CEOs and VPs deciding that their companies aren't making enough... so the axe swings and people get laid off.  If their profit margins don't improve (read:  become ridiculous), they ship the plant to China or Mexico where they can feel good about paying their employees next to nothing.  Of course if these fat suits actually gave a good d**n about "the company," they'd offer to do their jobs at a fraction of their bloated wages.  Have you EVER heard of that happening?  Once?

My anger's not directed at you, of course--this is a good question.  But this c**p's gotten to the point where even politicians (who are often on the payrolls) do amazing things to ignore the people they're supposed to serve in order to set the world more favorably for these pigs to thrive:  Looser environmental impact standards for industry springing to mind immediately.  It's all about little pieces of paper!  Flesh and blood... well, even *that* has a money value attached to it.

1) Worker.  How little can you get away with paying them and how hard can you push them to produce?

2) Customer.  How many baseless promises can you get away with selling them?  What about upgrades once they figure out they've been screwed?  Also, is it more economical to produce a safe product... or will the profits far exceed the cost of the lawsuits?

3) Political.  Will the corporation in question stop lining your pockets if you step in and do something to help the customer and workers?  How many publicity stunts will it take to keep the illusion that you're actually trying?

Greed.  It's a beautiful thing.