Social responsibility - should it be expected from business? (1 Viewer)

[§eraphim]

As in the question above, do economic institutions have a responsibility to society?

 

[Generator]

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=51101

"The only responsiblity of a company is to its shareholders." Discuss.

Edit: I do not expect it given the nature of the economic system, but I am happy to see that socially responsible practices are rewarded by the market (from time to time).

 

[§eraphim]

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=51101



Edit: I do not expect it given the nature of the economic system, but I am happy to see that socially responsible practices are rewarded by the market (from time to time).

In my opinion....

social responsibility is another marketing tool. Socially responsible acts, eg charities, family work practices, etc, are only made if there is sum PR guy to put his spin on it. Social responsibility - its another investment. Businesses by their very nature, no matter what the leadership, exist to make profit and have no conscience - that would imply that it is something more than just a group of body, that it is an organism. But as leaders come and go, social responsibility is just another fad that comes up when a business is making fat profits.

 

[loquasagacious]

Business does have a PR interest though there is also other factors affecting social consciensce, for instance happier workers work better during the industrial revolution when workers were being hugely exploited there were some businessmen who took care of their workers providing houses and education.

As far as the environment goes many companies do recognise it as a resource that can only be stretched so far.

I'm sure tax deductions also make being chritable attractive as in the end it becomes essentially free publicity as it is the governmnets money being given away.

 

[malkin86]

I believe that businesses have a social responsibility - they are also members of society.

Sponsoring events etc. can be used simply as a promotional tool, but the more important thing is the work being done.

 

[Generator]

An interesting editorial (and a general topic well worth discussing, too).

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Edito...t-for-democracy/2004/12/16/1102787209513.html

Forests debate turns into a test for democracy
December 17, 2004

If corporate writs can silence Australians who speak out on public issues, our democracy is in trouble.

The fate of Tasmania's old-growth forests is a matter of great public interest. A political and environmental debate is raging around Tasmanian forestry giant Gunns Ltd. The company has raised the stakes horribly by launching a $6.3 million damages claim against critics of its actions in old-growth forests, most of which are on public land. The 20 people sued include Greens senator Bob Brown and state leader Peg Putt and representatives of the Wilderness Society and Doctors for Forests. This intimidatory action, which exposes individuals to financial ruin, expands the debate far beyond forests and Tasmania.

Everyone who cares about how public issues are decided in a democracy ought to be alarmed by what has been described as a US-style SLAPP writ. "Strategic litigation against public participation" is a US term coined in the 1980s to describe the use of lawsuits to deter or punish individuals who express views on public policy that are at odds with business interests. The practice has so damaged public debate in America that some states have anti-SLAPP laws. Such lawsuits need not succeed in court to achieve their aim; more than three-quarters of US suits are lost, but their threat alone stifles public expressions of concern on issues such as environmental damage, community health and product safety.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

The corporate domination that is such a feature of US public life and politics is taking hold in Australia. Intimidatory lawsuits have been used by developers and officials at a local level, but never on a matter of such broad public interest. Gunns alleges that groups and individuals conspired to interfere unlawfully with its business and engaged in "corporate vilification", "publicly denigrating, vilifying and criticising" the company and encouraging others to boycott or protest against it. Some of its examples - letter writing, lobbying and media campaigns - are accepted democratic tactics by which people can organise an effective response to corporate power. In this brave new world of litigation, how would past environmental protests and campaigns against the asbestos and tobacco industries have fared? (Criminal acts of trespass, unlawful obstruction and property damage should, of course, be prosecuted.) Gunns chief executive John Gay complains of "misleading information being peddled about our industry and our state", but the company generally has chosen not to respond in the public forums in which it has been criticised.

Gunns' action is part of a pattern of political and corporate pressure on the rights of ordinary citizens to speak out against the actions of the well-connected and politically and economically powerful. Gunns is all these things: it is the largest donor to the Tasmanian Labor Party, has former Liberal premier Robin Gray on its board and is the world's biggest exporter of hardwood woodchips. Its attitude is consistent with the Commonwealth's recent rejection of a state and territories agreement on national defamation laws, which would have ended corporations' right to sue individuals and capped damages. Yet Gunns may come to regret its action. It has put itself and other powerful interests squarely in the court of public opinion where, for their contempt of free debate, they deserve to lose.

Edit: 33.6 kbps connections should be outlawed.

 

[azzie]

economic institutions are out to make money. they will do what they can to make it. the whole "social responsibility" and "ethics" side is just to make people think they care.

 

[katie_tully]

Twins Basil.........TWINS.

 

[ArgueEverything]

Nothing can be expected of business except the single-minded pursuit of profit. Laws that attempt to ensure otherwise are futile in the long-run, because the legislature has been almost completely overrun by big business. All other attempts to ensure a capitalism with a "human face" have been cast into oblivion (where's the Welfare State today?), "social responsibility" is just another catch cry that will soon be meaningless.

 

[Generator]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11908022%5E2702,00.html

When discussing IR reforms, as a society we seem to be more than willing to accept the ideas of the big business lobbies, yet we appear to be wary of the unions when they too enter the debate... Something is amiss, I think.

Ah well, that's life.

 

[Gavvvvvin]

As in the question above, do economic institutions have a responsibility to society?

Is there a reason your signtaure is filled with what appears to be 10 year old asian girls?

 

[Enlightened_One]

As in the question above, do economic institutions have a responsibility to society?

The only responsibility companies have is to their share holders?

I wonder if they consult their share holders on activities that affect society. After all their share holders come from society.