In its most narrow sense, “social responsibility” (SR) refers to corporations going beyond
their legal and economic obligations to better society. However, SR is used as an umbrella term to refer to many (inter)relating concepts such as corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, and sustainability. The SR literature does not compose an autonomous field of theorizing. It relies on various disciplines to supply it with theories and methodologies, such as economics, psychology, sociology, and management. Therefore, it can best be understood as a field of application at the intersection of a variety of social–scientific approaches. The interdisciplinary nature of SR research harbors opportunities for cross-fertilization, but it also comes associated with several forms of “collateral damage,” including a lack of conceptual clarity and insufficient delineation of research paradigms. In the extant SR literature, two broad branches can be identified. First, there is an instrumental branch, which seeks to demonstrate how investments or expenditures on SR can contribute positively to corporate performance or other self-set corporate goals. Second, there is a normative branch, which seeks to identify the extralegal and extra-economic duties and obligations that rest on corporations..
Why to be social responsible?
- Builds a good reputation for a company
- A good reputation means increased business
- Improved ability to obtain resources
- Enhances profitability
1. OBSTRUCTIONIST STANCE
The definition of obstructionist stance is to get in the way of, or stop something. An obstructionist is a person who is trying to obstruct something. An obstructionist stance is a position intended to obstruct.
The collaboration of corporate social responsibility that involves minimum effort to improve the social and environmental impact of the company within a community. For instance, the corporation that takes an obstructionist stance may cross an ethical or legal line, such as dumping hazardous material in a local landfill. Its response is to do nothing to correct its actions and may deny wrongdoing when confronted.
There are numerous company and corporation are following the obstructionist stance approach in this era...
Greenpeace international, for example,an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.
2.DEFENSIVE STANCE
Companies that take a defensive stance towards social responsibility are not particularly responsible. These companies may consider themselves neutral, and they make profits a more important motive than performing actions in a socially responsible way. These companies make a point of following the law to ensure that others cannot take legal action against them.
Tobacco companies are a good example, as domestically they follow the laws; placing warnings on packs, not advertising. But in countries where that is not the law, the go above and beyond to sell their products..
Greenpeace international, for example,an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.
2.DEFENSIVE STANCE
Companies that take a defensive stance towards social responsibility are not particularly responsible. These companies may consider themselves neutral, and they make profits a more important motive than performing actions in a socially responsible way. These companies make a point of following the law to ensure that others cannot take legal action against them.
3.ACCOMMODATIVE STANCE
The definition of accommodative stance is the approach to social responsibility such as a company or cooperation that exceeds legal minimums in its commitments to groups and individuals in its social environment.Companies that are somewhat proactive in their communities basically.The example of accommodative stance is it may decrease its creation of waste, source products that are not tested on animals and pay its employees a fair wage. The company would keep its records open to the public. Yet, these companies are often socially responsible, they even may change their policies in response to criticism.
4.PROACTIVE STANCE
Like an accommodating company, a proactive company makes social responsibility a priority. Instead of reacting to criticism, a proactive company attempts to remain ahead of the curve when it comes to social responsibility. It may make ethics part of its mission statement and attempt to avoid any harm to the environment or its employees. A proactive company may go out of its way to institute new recycling programs, give all of its employees a living wage and benefits, and donate a portion of its profits to charity.
proactive approach. For an example, managers go out of their way to actively promote the interests of stockholders and stakeholders, using organizational resources to do so.
Another example of a proactive organization is Starbucks Coffee Company.
Starbucks has been long recognized for its proactive programs to support and develop its employees. But more recently, the company is making an effort to export its employee-oriented philosophy to its Third World suppliers. Global Perspective describes how Starbucks is making a difference in the lives of people in other parts of the world, as well as those at home.
Examples business of approaches to social responsibility
On the lesser end of the spectrum, we have the obstructionist and defensive types of approaches to social responsibility (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). An organization that holds an obstructionist stance "tries to stop or block what is going on" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). In contrast, one that takes a defensive stance "argues that nothing has been done wrong by them despite possible bad outcomes" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Obviously, both of these first stances can cause a lot of suspicion and accusations among the general public. For example, consumers may wonder what questionable practices the business is attempting to hide. Or they might begin to believe that the company has no concern whatsoever for its customers and is merely worried about how much money it can make in as little time as possible. In the end, a business should realize that severe consequences can erupt if it chooses to take one of these approaches to social responsibility, particularly when a serious crisis or accident occurs because of the company's actions.
On the other hand, though, those businesses that have a firmer belief in social responsibility typically develop approaches that fit in either the accommodative or proactive categories (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). A business that employs an accommodative stance to social responsibility "provides information and facts and doesn't try to hide things" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). A company that takes a proactive stance, though, takes social responsibility to an even higher level. Ultimately, a proactive organization "actively provide[s] and tr[ies] to figure out how to help instead of being reactive" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Logically, customers are much more trusting of such companies. An accommodative or proactive business appears to truly care about the consumer and appreciate that every individual should be held accountable for how he or she affects society and the world as a whole. Ultimately, these two approaches to social responsibility fit nicely into what consumers need to help them overcome their disillusionment with American businesses (CTU Online, 2006; Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 43-46).
Another example of a proactive organization is Starbucks Coffee Company.
Starbucks has been long recognized for its proactive programs to support and develop its employees. But more recently, the company is making an effort to export its employee-oriented philosophy to its Third World suppliers. Global Perspective describes how Starbucks is making a difference in the lives of people in other parts of the world, as well as those at home.
Examples business of approaches to social responsibility
On the lesser end of the spectrum, we have the obstructionist and defensive types of approaches to social responsibility (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). An organization that holds an obstructionist stance "tries to stop or block what is going on" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). In contrast, one that takes a defensive stance "argues that nothing has been done wrong by them despite possible bad outcomes" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Obviously, both of these first stances can cause a lot of suspicion and accusations among the general public. For example, consumers may wonder what questionable practices the business is attempting to hide. Or they might begin to believe that the company has no concern whatsoever for its customers and is merely worried about how much money it can make in as little time as possible. In the end, a business should realize that severe consequences can erupt if it chooses to take one of these approaches to social responsibility, particularly when a serious crisis or accident occurs because of the company's actions.
On the other hand, though, those businesses that have a firmer belief in social responsibility typically develop approaches that fit in either the accommodative or proactive categories (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). A business that employs an accommodative stance to social responsibility "provides information and facts and doesn't try to hide things" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). A company that takes a proactive stance, though, takes social responsibility to an even higher level. Ultimately, a proactive organization "actively provide[s] and tr[ies] to figure out how to help instead of being reactive" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Logically, customers are much more trusting of such companies. An accommodative or proactive business appears to truly care about the consumer and appreciate that every individual should be held accountable for how he or she affects society and the world as a whole. Ultimately, these two approaches to social responsibility fit nicely into what consumers need to help them overcome their disillusionment with American businesses (CTU Online, 2006; Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 43-46).
