Reasons for CSR assignment
This assignment will be based around Adidas, an argument will be contextualised regarding Adidas’s Social and Economic responsibility and why an organisation like Adidas chooses to deal with the externalities in the organisation, the drives of Adidas’s values and ethical approaches will also be assessed, including an overall conclusion based on my opinion of Adidas as a sustainable organisation.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined by Carroll as being split into four possibilities,”it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and Philanthropic” (Visser. W, 2005). Economic responsibilities is defined as being for profit purposes, managers focus is purely on the outcome of the business and the shareholders, there is ultimately a disregard for the effects of the organisation on the environment; “Ultimately if a factory isn’t commercially viable you have to take the decision to close…”(Financial Times, 15 February 2007, p.3). The second possibility proposed by Carroll is concerned with the legal responsibilities of the organisation, Bobby. D defines this referring to the managers being legally responsible, by doing so they must be mindful of the surrounding, for example, not to pollute rivers of sell faulty products to consumers, however some organisations will not take it further than this as their only concern is if what they do is done legally. Following that the third aspect is concerned with the organisations ethical responsibilities an “Obligation to do what is right, just and fair” (Visser. W, 2005). Carroll depicts an ethical organisation as one that must adapt aspects that are not necessarily specified by the law, including a possibility that may “not serve the company’s narrow interests” (Boddy, D 2008). but however serves social interests, a majority organisations may take this method as means of improving their economic responsibilities. Lastly discretionary or how Carroll describes it as “Philanthropic responsibilities” an
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined by Carroll as being split into four possibilities,”it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and Philanthropic” (Visser. W, 2005). Economic responsibilities is defined as being for profit purposes, managers focus is purely on the outcome of the business and the shareholders, there is ultimately a disregard for the effects of the organisation on the environment; “Ultimately if a factory isn’t commercially viable you have to take the decision to close…”(Financial Times, 15 February 2007, p.3). The second possibility proposed by Carroll is concerned with the legal responsibilities of the organisation, Bobby. D defines this referring to the managers being legally responsible, by doing so they must be mindful of the surrounding, for example, not to pollute rivers of sell faulty products to consumers, however some organisations will not take it further than this as their only concern is if what they do is done legally. Following that the third aspect is concerned with the organisations ethical responsibilities an “Obligation to do what is right, just and fair” (Visser. W, 2005). Carroll depicts an ethical organisation as one that must adapt aspects that are not necessarily specified by the law, including a possibility that may “not serve the company’s narrow interests” (Boddy, D 2008). but however serves social interests, a majority organisations may take this method as means of improving their economic responsibilities. Lastly discretionary or how Carroll describes it as “Philanthropic responsibilities” an
Bibliography: Boddy, D. (2008), Management. An Introduction, 4th edition. Pearson Education Ltd. Harlow. BBC News UK, (2012), ‘London 2012: War on Want criticises Adidas 'sweatshops ', [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18348247 (Assessed: 06 March 2013). Friedman , M. (1970), ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.’ The New York Times Magazine [Online] Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html, (Accssessed: 02 March 2013). Heuvel, S. (2009) ‘Philip Morris Holland, the Netherlands: Fostering Employability.’ Eurofound. [Online] Available at: www.eurofound.europa.eu . (Assessed on 10/11/2010). Marketing Week, (2012), ‘Olympic Sponsorship lifts Adidas sale.’ [Online] Available at: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympic-sponsorship-lifts-adidas-sales/4003094.article (Accessed: 03 March 2013). Taylor, J. (2012), ‘Adidas faces protest over sweatshop goods.’ The Independent, [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/adidas-faces-protests-over-sweatshop-goods-7942378.html . (Accessed: 23 February 2013). Visser. W (2005), ‘An African perspective.’ Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid. [Online] Available at: http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chapter_wvisser_africa_csr_pyramid.pdf. (Accessed: 11 February 2013).