Corporate Social Responsibility for Equality- MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theCorporate Social Responsibilityfor Concept of Equality. Answer: Negative and Positive Rights A negative right alludes to a requirement that other people provide an individual with a service or a good while on the other hand, a positive right indicates a requirement that others maintain abstinence from perceived interference of your enjoyment. Justification for their existence is based on the nature of the society whereby goods and services are constantly provided. In the same instance there is bound to be forces that compromise this provision and enjoyment as well. Concept of Equality Application of the concept of equality means that some rights do not receive maximum enjoyment in the society. Different groups or individuals who may be disadvantaged in the quest for maximization of the available resources may have to be accommodated hence negating the initial groups enjoyment of the same. Resolving Conflicting Rights Overcoming conflicts in the dispensation of rights will include finding a common area of agreement. This will include the agreement on the problem, the procedure to follow in its resolution path. It should also include the agreement on the worst fears. Finally it should conclude with a small change that recognizes a level of success. Workplace Right to Freedom, Life and Property All individuals within the workplace should not be exposed into tasks that may put a threat to their life in general. For case of freedom, any individual has the right to decide what tasks they can perform as long as it remains within the confines of the organization (Basu Pallazzo 2008). Lastly, property can be exemplified in that workers are free to own property in and out of the firm and their association with the firm should not be a stumbling block. Normal Ethical Relativism Normal ethical relativism is founded on a theoretical perspective that does not recognize a universal moral code or rather principles. It presupposes that the lack of a blanket playground for conceptualization of the judgment of wrong or right means that it is impossible to judge individuals based on it as well. In essence, the theory then says that the varying degrees of wrongness and rightness in the society means that there can never be universal principles that binds all people (Matten Moon 2008). The underlying argument about the whole concept of ethical relativism is the idea that a moral disagreement has no objective truth in it which is basically untrue. In light of this, managers recognize the presence of objective truth in the presence of cultural diversity in organizations. More so, the contentious issue of morality of disagreement and the objectivity in the truth meter only pays homage to a theoretical perspective but managers recognize the actual presence in their posit ions and are therefore confronted with decisions on the same on a daily basis. Utilitarianism Primarily, utilitarianism stipulates that an action is only right if it leads to happiness for a greater number of people in a group or the larger society. It is conceptualized in the work place to indicate that when one is able to conduct themselves properly in the workplace, the one is bound to achieve professional happiness. This factors in making decisions that are morally correct. On the flipside, there is danger that it will spring into illegality and a reduction in the happiness scale. Deontological Theory Deontological perspective focuses on the act and not necessarily its consequence. It is derived from an actors obligation to perform a particular duty which could either be voluntary or involuntary. In the work places, managers initiate the belief among the employees that the highest virtue comes from performing what one is supposed to do as requested by the organization. Justice Justice in the workplace alludes to the aspect of those in authority using their greater power and influence to ensure that service is given to those in the weaker position. Weaker position indicates those whose decision making is pegged on the higher authority. In other words, one should use this position to extend interaction across the entire firm for it is only through better interaction that people are able to dedicate their commitment for the end cause of the work. Rights in the Work Place The concept of rights in the workplace establishes the need for employer-employee confidence and ultimate performance levels. Employers should always seek to better the position of the employees by ensuring that their rights are well accentuated in the organization because failure may lead into unrest and a drop in the performance as well. The Narrow Classical Economic View The narrow classical economic view regarding the Corporate Social Responsibility is developed on the premise that business enterprises who have a sole motive of making the profits must have one responsibility towards the greater society. That involves, provision of the necessary goods and services while getting in return maximum profits for the shareholders. Friedmans view is in tandem with the classical view regarding the CSR because he stated that managers responsibility as well as the company in the pursuit of having satisfaction of interests of the shareholders often coincides with the maximization of profits agenda. According to Friedman in view of the narrow classical view conclusively alludes that the key role of the business should always be maximization of profits and not necessarily the wellbeing. In this regard, the business organizations should always prioritize making money because that is the basic reason for the existence of the organization in the first. Friedman even insisted that a company will cease to exist when its core objective which is profit making is not met. Managers should therefore take in what executives demand of them. However, while the priorities must be stuck at profit making, Friedman backtracks on his statement by making a claim about executives having to meet s certain degree of corporate responsibility as well. Furthermore, according to Friedman, social responsibility that a business only has is indulging into scores of activities that are geared towards profit making, which is increasing the profits. However, such profits must be within the law. More so, they sh ould be taking place in a free and competitive market that is free of fraudulent activities and deceptions. The Broader Social Economic View While the narrow view of Corporate Social Responsibility is bent on prioritizing making the profits, the broader view of CSR indicates that despite the main objective being profit making, business organizations have a bigger responsibility towards the society in general. This will factor in addressing the negative consequences of their activities on the society at large. In this regard, organizations must always be independent in the entire process of promotion of their own interest as well as the principle of invisibility hand to do well. For instance, where organizations have worry about the CSR would mean that they will not be able to meet the material needs. Stakeholder theory presupposes the need to have the duties of an organization involve stakeholders in particular. This will include customers, the environment, employees and the customers. In essence, the consequences of the organization in the quest to have a proper accentuation of the stakeholder needs should therefore be felt in the entire industry. This concept also alludes to the essence of power and responsibility. Business organizations are generally large and as well extremely influential. Consequently, they have a bigger command in the ascertaining responsibility towards the society in general. Stakeholder interest is only realized when the society has been clearly taken care of. More so, stakeholder role and responsibility is also provided for by the business through the existence of a universal social contract between the business and the society. Based on the contract therefore, it is the society which makes the rules and the guidelines as well as the responsibilities und er which the business operates in. The Broader Maximal View The maximal view values the need to have profitability that is pegged on the legal compliance. It is important that the business organizations recognize the contribution as well as the effect of the law in the conduct of their affairs. It is only through following the due process that the law dispenses that consumer interests and stakeholder interests alike can be understood and respected at the same time (Kotler Lee 2008). Corporate Social Responsibility is founded on belief that organizations have to abide by certain guidelines so that the entire transformation can be realized for effective social effect as well. The society can be impacted better if there are frameworks that curb any unwarranted intrusion into the society. The law should also be primary in ensuring that wealth distribution is emphasized to ensure that all corners of the society are catered for. Protection of the environment remains a very important aspect that has to be covered in the bigger social platform that organizations partake. This will then imply that the secondary stakeholders moral obligation can easily be full filled (Caroll Shabana 2010). The broader view recognizes the ethical rights of the stakeholders in this regard. When stakeholder rights are observed, it as professed by the maximal view, it provides an avenue that an active role in the social issues is sought after. This eventually contributes to the betterment of the society through having programs that are directly pertains to their welfare receiving a major boost. Organizations primarily take an interest in upholding justice and rights for all stakeholders as well because the very foundation of having the betterment of the society means that financial gain has be en realized (Carroll Shabana 2010). References Matten, D. and Moon, J., 2008. Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 33(2), pp.404-424. Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), pp.85-105. Basu, K. and Palazzo, G., 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of management review, 33(1), pp.122-136. Kotler, P. and Lee, N., 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. John Wiley Sons.