Rogerian Argument Based on CSR in the Business Environment

Rogerian Argument Based on CSR in the Business Environment

INTRODUCTION

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) entails all the direct and indirect activities that for-profit organizations engage in order to benefit their stakeholder community. This initiative has been the subject of intense debate by scholars of the social and environmental impacts of businesses for many years. Some argue against CSR stating that is a ploy by the businesses to distract or even blackmail the society into ignoring the negative social and environmental impacts of doing businesses. However, proponents of CSR support the practice stating that is part of the business community’s commitment to influencing their stakeholder community positively while preserving the environment.

PROPONENTS OF CSR

One side of the CSR conundrum states that it is a strategic attempt to influence their stakeholders positively while contributing to the global environmental conservation efforts. The most common tactic that business organizations use in effecting a CSR initiative is identifying charitable causes such as children homes, sick community members, poverty-stricken regions, and infrastructural needs (Chatjuthamard, et al. 271). They invest in these scenarios for the full benefit of the affected beneficiaries. Usually, this process benefits from some environmental conservation effort such tree planting, waste management, fresh water projects, or drives to sensitize the community about environmental pollution and preservation.

Several reasons form the basis of the proponents of CSR supporting this practice. First, these business organizations consider CSR a synergy-based process that connects the for-profit entity to its stakeholder community through new connections that are not benefit-oriented (Chatjuthamard, et al. 274). The essence of CSR is to benefit a business’s stakeholder community and participate in social responsibility activities such as environmental preservation.

Business entities engage in CSR initiatives to demonstrate that their existence is not only dependent on profiting from the society. These practices are designed to convince and prove to the community that the business is committed to longevity and sustainability, both environmental and social.

Investing in the community has been shown by scholarly and industrial research to benefit the stakeholders more than what the business entity primarily engages in. Launching free health clinics, fresh water projects, education programs, SME loan schemes, and apprenticeships training schemes all constitute long-term investment in the society (Juščius, et al. 93). Such investments surpass the financial donations that such a business could donate directly to the same community.

OPPONENTS OF CSR

While majority of the business community embraces CSR and other sustainability initiatives, some people and organizations argue that these initiatives are self-serving for the business entities. Many opponents of this practice argue along the lines of blackmail, distraction, and hoodwinking society into ignoring the actual impacts of businesses on society and the environment (Bolton 59). All companies leave impacts on the society as well as the environment due to economic changes that business activity causes. These impacts range from unemployment to rise in crime or poverty.  Environmental impacts include soil, air, and air pollution as well as the production of toxic waste that finds its way into the fresh water bodies and food for both human beings and animals.

Opponents of the CSR initiative argue mostly using the distraction aspect of such initiatives. They state that CSR is the business community’s method of distracting the stakeholder community and other members of the society from the true impacts of operations (Bolton 61). They argue that CSR initiatives are usually designed to motivate society into thinking that the business has all the best intentions for its community which is not the case as its main and sole agenda is profit.

Additionally, these opponents of CSR argue that such projects are designed to blackmail or even buy off society into ignoring the evils of business processes. For example, a fertilizer company that is wreaking havoc on the environment could sink several boreholes thus silencing the stakeholder community with fresh water. Such rationale demonstrates some inherent selfishness among business entities as they engage in CSR initiatives (Mersham and Skinner 114). Essentially, these projects are meant to serve the company interests more than those of the stakeholders.

CSR is serviced with a small portion of the huge profits the business entities involved make. Concurrently, these business entities claim to have the interests of their stakeholder beneficiaries at heart, which seems to be a contradiction. Opponents of CSR argue that if the interests of the society were the sole intention of such initiatives, then majority of the huge profit margins would be invested in them. However, no business is yet to invest majority of its profits in the same society its CSR target.

AREAS OF SHARED VALUES

Although the argument on whether CSR is ethically right or wrong rages, both the opponents and proponents seem to agree on certain values related to these initiatives. First, both groups acknowledge the willingness of modern day business entities to invest in the society regardless of the underlying agenda. Currently, business practices are characterized by a cutthroat attitude involving aggressive expansion and reduction in costs through lean and agile operations (Mersham and Skinner 127). Therefore, costs associated with stakeholder welfare and environmental preservation are kept at the bare minimum. However, many modern businesses have active CSR initiatives.

Another shared value that exists between the proponents and opponents of CSR is global warming and environmental pollution. Both groups acknowledge the impacts of doing business on the environment and continuously create environmental conservation projects contributing to the global effort to reverse global warming.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

There are no clear solutions to the problems of CSR. Nobody can blame the other for having an innate desire in business to create initiatives that seem to be self-serving while benefiting the stakeholder community. However, some solutions do exist that may remedy the self-serving interests of selfish business entities while protecting the vulnerable stakeholder community (Juščius, et al. 96). First, the government authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring business practices must investigate the real agenda behind CSR initiatives.

Secondly, the stakeholder can use lobbying mechanisms to identify and shame business organizations engaged in self-serving CSR initiatives while acknowledging and even rewarding those whose initiatives are clean. Such practices would reduce the tendency among unscrupulous businesses to leverage social sentiment using hollow CSR projects.

CONCLUSION

CSR entails all initiatives that business organizations create to benefit their stakeholder community while participating in environmental sustainability and conservation. Some people argue these initiatives are self-serving for their creators while another group supports them as long terms investment into the community that creates synergy while contributing to environmental conservation.

Some solutions to the conundrum of CSR is government regulation and increased monitoring input from the stakeholder community itself. However, society chooses to judge CSR, businesses will always be expected to give back to the same community from which it has benefitted financially.