Social Development and Corporate Responsibility
Social Development and Corporate Responsibility
To say that low living standards, poverty, unemployment and social development should be a responsibility of corporations is preposterous. Corporations have the sole responsibility of making their shareholders money, and in turn, making themselves money. In recent years, with advancing technology and scientific research, corporate social responsibility has becoming a talking point. Holding corporations responsible for their waste and pollution makes sense, in that those pollutants or waste would not affect others if the corporation were not in existence. Holding them responsible for the well being of their employees and their working conditions makes sense, in that the corporation directly affects the lives of its employees. But to force corporations to play a role in bettering the lives of the population in general is not fair. Poverty and poor living standards have and will always be in existence. These conditions, while painful to see, are a result of many, many variables in the poor individuals’ lives. Recently, an article was published about an NYPD officer giving a pair of boots to a barefoot homeless man on the street. On Wednesday, a follow-up article was written stating that the man was not homeless, but has had an apartment since 2009, paid in full by Veterans Affairs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs provides patient care and federal benefits to veterans through government money, obtained from the taxpayers. Therefore, tax-paying citizens of this country, many of whom are employees at these large corporations, are already funding the fight against poor living conditions. Yet Professor Hopkins wants us to give more money by lessening our cut from the corporations we invest in? While the faux-homeless man shows just one small scenario, it is one that proves that requiring corporations to increase societal welfare costs would hurt its investors. While I am not against welfare programs and
To say that low living standards, poverty, unemployment and social development should be a responsibility of corporations is preposterous. Corporations have the sole responsibility of making their shareholders money, and in turn, making themselves money. In recent years, with advancing technology and scientific research, corporate social responsibility has becoming a talking point. Holding corporations responsible for their waste and pollution makes sense, in that those pollutants or waste would not affect others if the corporation were not in existence. Holding them responsible for the well being of their employees and their working conditions makes sense, in that the corporation directly affects the lives of its employees. But to force corporations to play a role in bettering the lives of the population in general is not fair. Poverty and poor living standards have and will always be in existence. These conditions, while painful to see, are a result of many, many variables in the poor individuals’ lives. Recently, an article was published about an NYPD officer giving a pair of boots to a barefoot homeless man on the street. On Wednesday, a follow-up article was written stating that the man was not homeless, but has had an apartment since 2009, paid in full by Veterans Affairs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs provides patient care and federal benefits to veterans through government money, obtained from the taxpayers. Therefore, tax-paying citizens of this country, many of whom are employees at these large corporations, are already funding the fight against poor living conditions. Yet Professor Hopkins wants us to give more money by lessening our cut from the corporations we invest in? While the faux-homeless man shows just one small scenario, it is one that proves that requiring corporations to increase societal welfare costs would hurt its investors. While I am not against welfare programs and