Talk:Corporate social responsibility/Archive 1

Archive 1

What's with the Neutrality question?

I would seriously question the neutrality of the section 5 regarding disability and CSR, especially lines such as "[disabled people] are, in fact, more determined and hardworking than the rest of us able bodied people." Whilst I am certain that there are incredibly hard working disabled people, this is such a sweeping generalisation that I query the neutrality of the rest of the section. Rework required I think 18:36 (BST - GMT +1) 26/10/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.102.59 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't work out who added the neutrality dispute box. Which side is it meant to be biased in favour of? If there's no discussion of this by the person who put the box there I'm inclined to remove the box as I think the article puts across different views rather well. Thom2002 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by the neutrality dispute box and would hope to see it removed in not too much time. I have re-read the article twice and being relatively familiar with the topic my impression is that the auhor provides a very balanced view. I cannot see any evidence of his personal opinion and find it impossible to determine his "tendency". It is truly unfortunate when such an article shows up with the neutralilty dispute box - this is a means which should be used in a careful manor and it should require robust explanation. The one below is clearly not robust (the point about sustainability concepts can be discussed but is nowhere close to serve as indicating the text is not neutral and has too much of a POV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattScudder (talk • contribs)

I'd ask User:DanielPenfield for his opinion on the matter, since it was that user in this edit that added the POV check tag. Honestly, I'd have to re-read the article to find the POV. I just remove linkspam from time to time here. I'll see what I can find, though I'm not that familiar with the topic. --Rkitko 05:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, quickly, I noticed weasel words (i.e. "an expression used to describe what some see as a company’s obligation") and the introduction really doesn't represent a large enough portion of the views. For example, not all companies associate CSR with sustainability concepts. So that certainly represents a POV in the opening paragraph of the article. Just a quick scan, though. I'd have to dig deeper to find other POV issues. --Rkitko 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article is quite good, but could do with a bit of careful editing. I have made a start.Stephen Parnell 10:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version that I was working on. My motivation in contributing to this article as a newcomer to Wikipedia is to try and get a balanced and accurate entry. I am shocked by the politically motivated edits that have been made in the last few days. Awful beyond belief. Could I ask whover oversess these things to apply some control - otherwise the same people who want to use Wiki as a platform for the making of political statements will no doubt just carry on! Stephen Parnell 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "balanced" in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means including views which favor as well as views which oppose the ideal of CSR. If you delete all criticisms and opposing points of view, you will put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing CSR. Was that your intention? --Uncle Ed 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Uncle Ed. My intention is to seek to create a truly balanced article and this will certainly include the "for" and the "against" points of view. It's work in progress at the moment. The article is very confused at present and I will do my best to get it right. For anybody's interest my own position privately is rather anti CSR so I am certainly not a CSR freak or a corporation apologist! But as I said I want the article on this important subject to be balanced in every way. Stephen Parnell 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that subjects related at their core to either capitalism or socialism on Wikipedia generally attract a sort of brutal version of NPOV -- two sharply drawn, polemic POVs rather than a blend of mainstream basis opinion and critique, which would befit an encyclopedic article. I wish editors would strive more to explain and to critique these subjects more objectively rather than find clever, university-debate-society sentences, however brilliant, that are so covered with spines and barbs and seem to leave the objective reader with more scrapes and bruises rather than insight. This article, along with those related to Chavez or Castro or what have you, suffer from this. Perhaps those with a more journalistic style can come in and edit some of this article, and the Marxist PhD candidates, the neo-con policy wonks, the anti-globalists and the employees of CSR NGO's can maybe take a breather? Just a thought. No ill will toward anyone. NYDCSP 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and more citations and sourcing and less weasel words.NYDCSP 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What is CSR?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a notion that organizations consider the interests of all stakeholders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levanderthomas (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Using Ronald McDonald House as an example of "CSR" is a peculiarly American approach. CSR in Europe is more about how a company earns its money in the first place, meaning how much they pay their workers; responsibility over supply chain, such as not exploiting the environment, etc...rather than what they do with their money AFTER they've earned it. That's philanthropy.

I disagree -- a lot of American companies have "got it" and are far beyond the philanthropy syndrome. Many European companies, on the other hand, see philanthropy and CSR as one in the same. What the companies do with their money is as important as how they make it. Dcarpenter 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You should read on Matten and Moon's articles regarding how the US case and the European cases differ.

I added 1 para to the intro about CSR, but really feel that the first para should come out -- CSR goes far beyond simple stakeholder dialogue and this needs to be reflected more forcefully.Dcarpenter 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Attention Diversion" paragraph is one-sided commentary masquerading as objective description - it makes assumptions about why companies do certain things that they would certainly dispute.

The textbook I currently use for Business and Society uses this definition: "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) means that a corporation should act in a way that enhances society and its inhabitants and be held accountable for any of its actions that affect people, their communities, and their environment. This concept is based in the root of the term responsibility, meaning “to pledge back,” creating a commitment to give back to society and the organization’s stakeholders." Lawrence and Weber, 13th Edition.

"Corporate social responsibility (CSR) means that a corporation should act in a way that enhances society ..." cannot possibly be correct, because it equates two terms that aren't even of the same grammatical category. The first term is a noun which names a type of activity. The second term is a complete sentence that states a moral imperative about what kind of activity should be performed. There's no way the name of a type of activity can be equated to a moral imperative.

A better way to say it is "... (CSR) means acting in a way that enhances society ...", which equates the name and description for the activity. Then it could be added that a company which endorses CSR is saying that corporations *should* act in that way (a way that enhances society ...), which equates the name and description for the moral imperative regarding the activity.

Is the author of that book still alive, so that I might contact him to nitpick his incorrect use of language?

198.144.192.45 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Critique from The Corporation

Joel Balkan critiques CSR quite extensively from a leftist viewpoint. This would be a useful addition to round out the criticism from rightist viewpoints.

OO See below under Friedman article A Geek Tragedy 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to reseach CSR from a corporate HR perspective and I would like to open discussion on the use of the term 'corporate philanthropy'. Philanthropy by definition is donation with no expectation of return - while sustained CSR policies have financial benefits to organisations through employee retention, goodwill, PR and media coverage. CSR function seem to function well as an integral part sustainability of an organisations economic goals, not as an optional add on. I found the article to be informative and balanced.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.109.167 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The rise of CSR

It seems to me that CSR is a recent trend. When would you say CSR emerged?

I know for a fact that Pacific Life (formerly Pacific Mutual) had an Office of Corporate Responsibility back in the mid seventies, and that there was significant involvement (along with others) in charitable giving (especially the United Way). I would guess the trend emerged sometime in the early-to-mid seventies, partyly in reaction to some of the corporate scandals of the period (Lockheed, Robert Vesco, IT&T). These were certainly not the first corporate scandals ...but sensibilities about corporate responsibility were heightened by the general malaise of Watergate, campaign finance issues, coupled with the greater awareness of poverty and civil rights that emerged from the sixties. icut4u 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Back in 1895, George Cadbury (Chocolate) bought 120 acres and started building houses for his workers, which gave rise to the Bourneville Village. Education was provided, medicine was available. Whilst I suspect that he was motivated by having a stable, healthy, educated workforce, I suspect that there was also an element of social responsibility in his thinking. At least, that is what Cadbury Trebor Basset would have you believe in 2005!--Andrew Gardner 13:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

In our study "Significance of the CSR Debate for Sustainability and the Requirements for Companies" we have tracked the back the roots of CSR to the 1930ies. The scientific debate on social responsibility began in earnest in the USA in 1950 and the first major work on the subject, Bowen's Social “Responsibilities of the Businessman”, appeared in 1953. Starting with the observation that the economy influences the life of citizens in many areas, Bowen's investigation into the obligations of companies concluded that a company's social responsibilities have to reflect the expectations and values of society. (Loew et al 2003)Download at www.4sustainability.org.

It seems to me that perhaps more could be made of different phases of the development of CSR, starting with ideas of corporate acceptability and good public relations and then moving into CSR as a response to criticism and regulation. I think then it would be useful to look at the relationship between CSR and accountability, and verifiability issues such as those associated with triple bottom line, environmental impact assessment, and social impact assessment. One of the principle problems with CSR is the difficulty of measuring (and therefore regulating) many of its component concepts. Some headway has been made in financial and environmental verification against widespread and agreed standards, but issues of social responsibility still remain incredibly varied. This is most particularly the case where an affected minority stakeholder is not part of the financial or regulated (governmental) loops of the corporate operation.--campdog 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

what about Edward Freeman?

shouldent't Freeman be mentioned? If im not wrong, I think he was the person who brought CSR on the international scene in the 80s? the below mentioned statement is from a lecture about CSR, where Freeman was mentioned

"Competent stakeholder management turns potential conflicts into negotiations and seeks win-win solutions - thereby avoiding lock in to conflict-situations Successful organisations in the current environment takes multiple stakeholder groups into account." some info on him: http://www.darden.virginia.edu/corporate-ethics/c-freeman.htm

the business case

Having neither experience with wikipedia, nor the time to gain some, I can just suggest that some information on the so-called 'Business Case' should be included, i.e. CSR creates a win-win situation for both, the society and the enterprise. Somebody interested? I could surely contribute some information on the discussion site. oliviasummer

I think that the business case for CSR can in some instances be hard to demonstrate. It speaks volumes that complex regulation is needed in areas such as polution, financial services or accounting. In addition, moral hazard exists, where shareholder value is destroyed for the benefit of social causes.--Andrew Gardner 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. There is definetly some truth in what you are saying. But on the other hand, how do you explain that an increasing number of corporations adopt CSR programmes, if there is no business case in it. I don't believe in pure corporate philanthropy. Recently, Volkswagen, for example, published a study demonstrating the relationship between productivity and HIV/AIDS programmes it runs in Brazil. Regards, Olivia Summer 30 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)

And I cannot disagree that there are instances where a company's activities benefit itself and society. You could illustrate with a major drugs company which spends countless billions of dollars on R&D in order that it can make a profit out of curing - or at least helping to cope with - some horrendous disease. Is this good management or CSR? (both probably). The issue that I see is that an article about CSR which highlights the benefits of CSR must also point out that blind philanthropy may be an abuse of the authority vested in managers. Nevertheless it is equally valuable that we can point to topical examples of successful CSR. --Andrew Gardner 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

There are quite obviously many examples of situations where positive social actions on the part of companies result in increased profits or stronger market position. Treating workers better, and increasing their 'voice' in the workplace, as one example, would undoubtedly be both 'good' from the perspective of society and - when dealing with many knowledge-based enterprises in this information age - good for business. The problem is that this business case is far from universal - and that is what people are usually looking for, the universal example of the business case. Unfortunately, in a contingent view of the world, there will always be some examples of the anti-business case - the case where, because of specific circumstances, doing the wrong thing and doing more of it would make you more money. Dumping toxic substances in the river, if noboby is checking; busting a legal trade union when supported by corrupt government officials; using children to do low-skilled and very low paid work. These - in spite of some who would like to shrink government then drown it in the bathtub - would appear to depend on government to provide regulation and ensure that the old business case - following the law of the land - is still in place. In the face of opportunities resulting from anti-social practices and no enforcement of agreed standards, CSR breaks down. Confronted with profit differentials between 'good' and 'bad' options economic man follows his or her wallet. Charles Bodwell

bilan social

As far as I know the French law requires disclosure only on employee-related issues. Belgium, by the way, has the same requirements.

If I recall correctly, there is a firm size requirement attached to the Bilan Social Report.

Regulation

The article notes that critics of corporations purport that increased regulation is the "best way to ensure that companies remain socially responsible." Not all proponents of CSR agree with that. Others suggest that consumer-based initiatives, union initiatives, etc. are the best option. I know of one academic paper that supports this opinion and I will try to dig it up and post it here for review before I change the article. Any thoughts? Rkitko 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that something more could be made in the overall article about the rise of non-government organisations and their relationship with issues of corporate social responsibility. A great deal of the development of CSR is not just about the development of new means of being profitable but as a means of getting the NGOs off their backs (often by financing them, reabsorbing them etc).--campdog 05:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what this is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.238.180 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 

linkspam

I removed more linkspam today. I removed them under the following guidelines: Wikipedia is not an internet directory Items were being added that were CSR news sites, while potentially pertinent to the issue regarding CSR, the wikipedia article focuses on the pros, cons, business case for and against CSR as a business and economic model. Links to non-profit organizations, academic institutions, or news sites that deal with CSR should be removed immediately, in my opinion. Sites that describe at least one side of the CSR issue should be included (and labeled as such). That's why the links remaining are pro/con or analyses of certain CSR aspects. The sustainability report portal is questionable, but I left it in for the review of other wikipedia users. Rkitko 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Rkitko's assertion that a link to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is "linkspam". It is a respectable and world-leading organisation and the site has excellent content for anyone wishing to learn more. I will reinstate the link. The other link was another leader in teaching on the subject and again it is unjustified to call this "linkspam". In deference to Rkitko, I will not reinstate the link to Claude Fussler's excellent website but would recommend that others examine it to see if they form the same view as Rkitko. I strongly disagree with his view that "Links to non-profit organizations, academic institutions, or news sites that deal with CSR should be removed immediately." With the questioning of the aricle as being biased already, some neutral party links would be of benefit to readers.--Victor 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Topics such as these (CRS, cooperatives, etc.) tend to gather a lot of external links. Please read the link above about Wikipedia not being an internet directory. Simply because a link is a respected organization and has plenty of resources is no reason to include it here on this page. Take a look at WP:EL. Under the "links normally to be avoided" section, you will find:

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.

Sites such as the WBCSD are not symmetrically related to this article. An article on the WBCSD itself would require an external link to the organization. See the difference? Now, if the WBCSD has an article or official stance on CSR, linking directly to that article may be appropriate here. But do remember that articles do not exist for their external links, meaning that external links are not required and we would do our best to focus our attention elsewhere by adding actual, cited content to the article. Hope this clears that up. Cheers, --Rkitko 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the policy that WikiPedia isn't, or shouldn't serve as, a directory of the Internet. For most users, Google serves as the first point of search, but a typical result from Google search is:

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 240,000,000 for CSR. (0.12 seconds)

Nobody in their right mind is going to look through all 240 million Web pages, given that most of them are worthless. Instead, a smart user finds the WikiPedia page among the Google search results, goes there, reads the text, reads some connected WikiPedia pages, and then looks through the Links section to find ALL the other random Web pages on this topic that are especially worth reading.

Thus per a smart user's practice, WikiPedia does indeed serve as a directory of all the Web pages on this topic that are fit to read, or in other words a curated subset of Google search results. IMO this type of usage of WikiPedia should be encouraged rather than sabotaged. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Friedman article

I moved a link here to an article by Milton Friedman critising CSR which was in Don't be evil where it didn't fit. Please don't think I agree with him. A Geek Tragedy 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for adding that. The external links needed a bit of a pro and con balance. Rkitko 07:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In that respect, I have added the following external link (by the dean emeritus of the George Mason University School of Law):

• Milton Friedman Was Right: "Corporate social responsibility" is bunk by Henry G. Manne

Akaka's vandalism

I put back the first paragraph, which Akaka removed on 19:34, 5 April 2006. -- Nusquam 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments about this article in Ethical Corporation Magazine

The following article comments about the edit history of this article:

Mallen Baker: Defining the debate – Corporate responsibility on a sticky Wiki Ethical Corporation Magazine, 15 January 2007

Quote:

A year or so ago I looked at the entry for “corporate social responsibility” on the community-run Wikipedia. It gave a reasonably descriptive overview, plus some helpful links to organisations at the centre of corporate responsibility activity.

Last month I went back and found it had become a battleground of ideologies.

Regards, High on a tree 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

CSR Neutrality Question

I strongly feel that an external link to The Hitachi Foundation's "State of Corporate Citizenship," [1], is an excellent case study of a company that is doing CSR. Everytime it gets put up however, someone takes it down, citing that it is biased. While it is a non profit organization, there is already a link to another company's case study on CSR. Why would it not be considered neutral to link to this? Isn't it just an example of CSR in action, or at least a source for someone looking for companies practicing CSR?
I want to be completely honest and forthright and let you all know that I am connected with The Hitachi Foundation, but I am wondering what everyone's opinon is on this issue. There are opinion pieces on both sides of the issue, so I'm not sure what the harm is of having an external link to one organization that is actually doing CSR. Your thoughts. I want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up! Thanks!
Julieatrci 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's not neutral, the problem is that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's external links guidelines. I've removed those links several times for several reasons: 1) These links are added to a number of pages with no other contributions by the user. This leads me to believe that the user wants simply to get more links out there, something called "linkspam" here on Wikipedia. 2) It's continually re-added, like you noted. And 3) It's not necessarily directly connected to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Links get added here to this article all the time that lead to associations or companies doing CSR. WP:EL states this as one kind of external link that should be removed from articles: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject." The Hitachi Foundation's link is not symmetrically related to the page. Also review WP:SPAM - generally, if you're associated with an organization, it's a bad idea to link to that organization. It represents a conflict of interest. But I'm glad you show interest in Wikipedia. Instead of simply adding external links here and there, why not take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia in other ways? Cheers, --Rkitko 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment to: Your edits to Corporate social responsibility

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Rkitko 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if the link added was interprated as some sort of promotion for any commercial product, or inappropriate in any way. I will discuss it in the talk pages as you suggested. I just felt I had to give a short explanation: the three part documentary called the Corporation, is perhaps the most comprehensive documentary (and Docu. series ) ever made (on Corporations and their role in society, hence / therefore directly related to their social responsibility in society (cause and effects)). it is currently in the public domain (freely downloadable) and it is not a commercial product as such, even though one is able to buy it ( just as any book referenced as source in any given wiki article. on joining the url/page for the documentary, there is a short flash introduction with voice where the creators authors of the documentary explains that their work is freely downloadable but that they encourage you to support the work, much like amnesty or any other creator of any given freely available work would and does in any other area or line of work. The Corporation analyses thouroughly the modern Corporation and interviews "both sides", with representatives such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and many others. I suggest you take the time to at least watch 15 minutes of the documentary, much like you would browse through any book or link given as a source. Sorry to add this but it seems to me and I feel, that much of wikipedia have become overzealous in its attempt to become more narrow and somehow "mainstream" , by refusing anything and everything that isn't as "official" and centrist in much the same way as the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is in my opinion a terrible loss. If I wanted Britannica's conservative comercial POV's I'd buy it. This is not Britannica, and if Wiki is supposed to have any credibility in the future or indeed be of any significant value for future generations it also has to carry dissent from the official, the government version and the "winners" side of the story. Now how one achieves this in a satisfactory way I am not wise enough to suggest, but somehow believeing that a totally centrist "objective" view of the world tells "the truth" is both far from honest or accurate.

Wikipedia itself shows in a very appropriate way that "even" Britannica cannot avoid being biased. (For a better(?) "explanation" of this point see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492)

Well that (this) became a bit long-winded and english is not my mother tongue but perhaps some point gets across even so. Bear with me if you can. There's a lot more ( and a lot more precise things) to be said on the subject, and its an important debate for either side of the political spectrum to be aware of and to try to come to terms with. I feel that in a democratic world and spirit "both"(all three) 'sides' should be granted some space, since it's a fairy tale that some kind of objective centrist truth exists "in the middle". Jürgen Habermas springs to mind now for some reason. Anyhow. that's enough said. For now. Cheers, and dont let yourselves be offended. It's not worth it. Cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, sorry for the very late reply. This had completely slipped my mind. I noticed you re-added the link. I thought I'd discuss it here before I removed it again. I make no comment on the video's merits or neutrality--that's not the issue here. It's whether the link is appropriate or not. Take a look at WP:EL. Under the "links normally to be avoided" section, you will find:

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.

This article is about CSR, not about the movie and so therefore the site is only indirectly related to the topic of the article. The content of the movie, however, might be directly related. I think the "See also" link to the video is sufficient. No need to be redundant, especially when Wikipedia prefers internal links to articles over external links. Cheers, --Rkitko 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

I'm dreadfully sorry if I messed things up with my edit and should have posted a request on this page first but I thought a little further reading wouldn't do anyone harm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.227.11.233 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Defination of Corporate social responsibility

16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)62.128.161.245–62.128.161.245 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Any Modern definition of CSR should reflect global challenges (be them social or Environmental) on the one hand and internal challenges (socioeconomic relationship between institutional stakeholders and their stakes) on the other. The role of governments and politics needs also to be considered. Corporations are increasingly becoming transnational. Thus CSR needs to be looked at in terms responsibility to individuals and groups to their respectively assigned roles within institutions at the micro level; the responsibility of the institutions as a whole to its stakeholders -staff, customers, shareholders, community, country (ies) of operation etc. at the medium level and humankind at the macro level. An institution cannot be said to be socially responsible if it condones irresponsible behavior of its staff for example or fails to respond to the just and legitimate sensitivities of neighbors and society at large. CSR should therefore embrace the realms of both profit and non profit making organisations.16:48 July 2008 (Divine Ewane <dewane88@yahoo.com>)

Criticism in the introduction?

It seems that there is a substantial amount of criticism in the introduction. Specifically:

"Detractors of CSR point out that organizations pay taxes to government for exactly this purpose. They consider CSR and measures of CSR activity as an indication of failures of governments sitting on lucrative tax revenues."

While these are valid pionts, would they not be better placed in the criticism section of the article? Urecon 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've taken these out and reproduced the point under criticism Thom2002 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of CSR

I've added a section on "Definitions of CSR". I think that we all agree that there is no universally accepted definition of CSR, but we cannot get away from not providing any definitions at all - because if we do, then the Wikipedia description of CSR ("Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept which encourages organizations to consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of the organization's activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of its operations") will sooner or later become the de-facto definition - and Wikipedia should not be the source of definitions...

Of course, we could now fight for a very long time about which definitions to include, but there are actually not that many out there - at least not that many that have either been created by "well-known" individuals or organizations or that are cited often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarndt (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Ġ

Essay Style?

I've been away from this page for a while. The second half now seems to take the form of a fairly long, rambling essay, with difficult language and no proper references. I suggest a fair bit of pruning - any objections? Thom2002 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Approaches to CSR"

I'm a bit skeptical whether Shell's community project is truly more accepted in community "development circles". From my brief experience in Africa (not South Africa, but Ghana's not totally different..) I'm rather doubtful that these groups will be too impressed by Shell's CSR efforts. Oil companies such as Shell are fairly unpopular and I think that most people view CSR in terms of the company itself and not just some aspect of its operation that happens to be positive. The overall view of Shell is not really that of the typical CSR company and given the impact of Big Oil in Africa, they're probably not being looked upon in as favourable a light as this section implies. Someone with more information should probably address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A3camero (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

CSR Iran

Omidvaralireza (talk · contribs) recently added a link to www.csriran.com, and then added a whole section (4242 bytes) apparently lifted directly from info.worldbank.org/etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_TESEV6.pdf. Those two URL's are the first two Google results on "CSR Iran", by the way. Then Sfmammamia (talk · contribs) removed the 4242 bytes, but left the www.csriran.com link. Is it worthy? The Persian language version seems deeper than the English language version, but I don't read Persian. Colfer2 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the best way to include Enron & "Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002" info?

Hi, I'm concerned about the diffs between edits on 23:33, 23 July 2008 and 00:23, 24 July 2008.

Would the editor involved or a third editor please help? I respectfully disagree with edits made on 00:23, 24 July 2008 to the "Criticisms and concerns" section because it is common knowledge within and beyond the CSR field (practitioners, business owners/execs, scholars, well-informed lay people, human resource professionals, etc.) that the Enron scandal was an extraordinary debacle that caused a sea change in the CSR field. To discount or omit it would be inaccurate and biased.

My mention of Enron was mild. Were it a different forum, I might have said something like, "Enron is a scandal on top of a shame, rolled up in a debacle, topped with a fiasco, harbored within MegaClaims Litigation, moldering in the cremated ashes of poor preacher's son Ken Lay's brain cells that are now laying (and perhaps still lying) in a city that lies in dust (my friends) at a secret location somewhere in "the mountains" or so the tabloids tell us so" - yet know that such a sentence would not be fitting for the article for numerous reasons.

Would someone please re-write the "Criticisms and concerns" section in question? Or maybe better yet, include the facts about Enron and the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a different section - or include them via a different approach? I was just trying to build on what was there. The SarBox text can be found at http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:h3763enr.tst.pdf and http://www.soxlaw.com/ and other public and private sites. (Note among other things that TITLE III of it is titled, "CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY").

The entire US law was written because of Enron (and a few other corporate scandals). My tiny mention of "Enron" was not biased because a scandal is a scandal. It did what it did. Indeed, the tone was probably too light in light of the facts. Many (most?) public accountants, business owners/execs in the USA, who know what Enron did hate what it did because it now costs Corporate America billions (probably trillions) to follow SarBox (not that SarBox is bad, just that it swings the pendulum back harder than what even some of the good corps can easily swallow - which was probably needed, yet you know how it is - "one bad apple" makes it harder on everyone else). Even with the other terrible corporate failures, doubtless, SarBox would not exist had it not been for Enron because so many things about it were so insidiously and incredibly egregious to common decency.

Another key source as to Enron's relationship with CSR is "Milton Friedman: Business Ethicist" by Aexei Marcoux. A version of it was in the January 29, 2007 Chicago Sun-Times, and is now online at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20667. Marcoux (who admires and agrees with Friedman's views) points out that before its fall, Enron was both Wall Street's darling and celebrated by CSR folks (repeatedly named on lists of the best places to work, best-run companies, winner of several CSR awards). The Loyola University Chicago's Graduate School of Business prof goes on to explain that (even before they were mainstream), Enron issued regular reports on its social and environmental performance, and even embraced the so-called "triple bottom line" (people, planet & financial profits) hailed by CSR advocates. Why? Having stated the facts, Marcoux concludes that Enron execs recognized that CSR initiatives bring freedom from accountability, that "complex, multifaceted mandates to achieve social, environmental and financial goals are the self-serving executive's best friend."

Though the last part is op-ed, the write-up reflects the fact that Enron abused CSR is known (in the field and extending well beyond it) - not a matter of debate or research. So, no source citing was needed, though a reference would enhance the article (the article had already mentioned Enron's yearly "Corporate Responsibility Annual Report" as an example). My changes were not great, not the way I would have written that section in part because I was working with what was there and did not have as much time as a thorough treatment would require. All the same, it still seems clear that the Revision as of 23:33, 23 July 2008 (edit) is more accurate and less biased than that of Current revision (00:23, 24 July 2008) (edit).

Given the above and other factors, what's the next step?

Will/can/should the 23:33, 23 July 2008 version be restored until someone can give the matter proper attention? (I have a few other unbiased concerns about the version that replaces it as well.)

The impact of the Enron debacle on CSR (in the US and elsewhere) is critical and extremely well documented, so I do not see "if to include or exclude" Enron or SarBox as being the right question. How to include and balance it within the global forum is a better question. Within the larger CSR arena (not just the USA) the relationship between Enron and SarBox CSR are well fairly known (sometimes I think more outside the USA than within it). Moreover, no one in the mainstream disputes that Enron was a scandal. Enron's execs had the best attorneys hundreds of millions of US$ could buy and even so, they were convicted. These are facts, not debates. If folks to not care for the way I worded it, no prob - please improve upon it.

My main concern is that Enron/SarBox brought about a sea change in CSR (mostly within the USA, yet certainly, with ripples around the globe given all the multinationals). To not mention Enron (or SarBox for that matter) makes the article out of date, incomplete. The Enron (and WorldCom, et al) debacle is why CSR is now mainstream (in the US). ALL publicly traded corporations based in the US now must have a code of conduct/ethics. They are mandatory, not optional. All the same, some of them do not mean what they say. Thus, the industry that tries to sort the sincere from the hypocrites is now thriving.

If any CSR editors are interested and have not already read/seen "The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron" (book or movie) documents the whole ordeal. It is still mind boggling that people representing banks and brokerage companies and governments and accounting firms and law firms and stock analysts (who were duped or co-opted into giving "buy" recommendations) and just about every single entity and person that could and should have stopped the disaster did not, and instead added to its enormity. Executive and employees and politicians told lies, broke laws, stole, cheated, colluded, etc. And as a result, people died (not just suicide, but some of the people who lost power during the rolling black outs in the California energy crisis that was caused by people at Enron - with help from people in CA and DC). More than 100,000 people lost their jobs, and probably at least 20,000 lost their entire retirement. Who knows how many stock holders lost a big chunk. Even the CEO of Enron lost 100 million in the end (no doubt, only a fraction of what he had made). Some people in Texas, California, Oregon and elsewhere lost everything. Families were destroyed. A husband and wife (top Enron execs) had to figure out (fight it out?)who should/would go to jail first, and which of them should take the better deal, because they had 2 young children to raise and were both facing very long mandatory minimum sentences if convicted (they made deals). A billion dollar power plant stands as a monument to Enron's waste in India. California lost billions and as a result, they not only ousted Davis, but put another movie start in the governor's seat. The watershed SarBox act costs US industries billions (probably trillions) to follow, and the list goes on and on. Too much to count, and besides, the "Big Five" are now the the "Big Four" so there are fewer folks to help count all the damage. Arthur Andersen LLP - a once widely respected and respectable firm - went from 85,000 worldwide employees to about 200 based primarily in Chicago. The survivors have no clients of which to speak - instead they get to deal with the 100+ civil suits pending against the firm related to its audits of Enron and other companies, and presiding over the company's dissolution. All this damage and more is directly related to Enron. It is not speculative - it is documented and it is a shame. An unnecessary waste of human talent and human lives and cause of absurd suffering for countless human beings.

In sum, Enron is the poster child for the saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (and/or any of its variations) as it relates to corporations - so ought to be included in the CSR article.

Thank you for your consideration. Q37

http://www.enron.com/ http://www.time.com/time/2002/enron/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/ http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/enron/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#cite_note-washpostjul06-9 http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/08/news/newsmakers/lay/

Qohelet37 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who reverted your changes, I'll respond briefly:

1. Wikipedia's article on Enron addresses the scandal in neutral language. Yes, the word "scandal" is used there, but not words like "unnecessary, irreparable harm". That characterization may be accurate, but it needs to come from a reliable source; otherwise it's original research. Any addition of Enron to this article should model the same neutrality.

2. Keep in mind that this is a global article, so any addition that is specific to the U.S. should not be given undue weight. It's clear from the length of your message above that you are impassioned about this topic, but WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia that must be adhered to within articles. Likewise, I felt your additions on McDonald's gave that one company's CSR activities and controversy undue weight. In a global article, it seems to me that more than a couple sentences on any one company, either criticizing or in a positive light on CSR, give it undue weight. However, I recognize that McDonald's is a global corporation, so perhaps a slight expansion there, if neutrally worded and well sourced, is appropriate.

3. My concern with your previous mention of Enron was that it was inappropriately placed in a section about criticisms and was not cited to a source.

4 Perhaps the appropriate place to discuss Enron and Sarbox would be in an expansion in the section on "Laws and regulation"? This section would benefit by being expanded with other examples as well, perhaps from the EU and other world regions? --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "purpose" of business

There is a statement which says that 'Corporations exist to provide products and/or services that produce profits for their shareholders' and the cite is from Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports. This statement lumps far too many things in the same box. Corporations, business in society, capitalism and why people go into business are all different things. Please consider the following:

-The purpose of using a corporation is to provide legal protection for owners (shareholders) who hire managers to run the daily operations of their business. ("Corporations" The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5 (Mar., 1902), pp. 223-245)("Are Corporations Morally Defensible?" Gillian Brock Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), pp. 703-721)

-The purpose of businesses in a capitalist society is to provide efficient division of labor so that society can benefit from the innovativeness driven by competition. (The Natural Roots of Capitalism and Its Virtues and Values Sherwin Klein Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Jul., 2003), pp. 387-401)(Realizing the Spirit and Impact of Adam Smith's Capitalism through Entrepreneurship Realizing the Spirit and Impact of Adam Smith's Capitalism through Entrepreneurship Scott L. Newbert Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 251-261)

-Why individuals do business is to maximize their own personal exchange in a market. ("The Why's of Business Revisited" Ronald F. Duska Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 12/13, From the Universities to the Marketplace: The Business Ethics Journey: The Second Annual International Vincentian Conference Promoting Business Ethics (Sep., 1997), pp. 1401-1409)

Consider the following quote about capitalism: “More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiment and The Wealth of Nations wherein he argued that capitalism was a system of economic organization whereby social welfare can be most efficiently created through the pursuit of economic and moral self-interest. However, due to the undue focus on the latter of these two works, modern economic thinking has become dominated by the belief that the pursuit of economic self-interests alone will engender the greatest social welfare. Unfortunately, such reasoning becomes problematic when the externalities that often spawn from economically driven capitalist endeavors are considered. It appears then that in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of a capitalist system, the interests of both the self and society must be considered, which of course was Adam Smith’s argument.” (Newbert 2003 from above).

I would take out that first statement and revise the second so that we avoid the debate in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Purpose and role of a business

Businesses in our society can influence every aspect of our lives. They have such power and can create trends so easily that they have an obligation to promote good. Their shear size, power, and monetary influence allows them to heavily sway public opinion.

Where is the research ?

Doing a quick review of CSR I was surprised to see just a passing mention of the meta analysis by Orlitzky, Schmidt, Rynes (2003) that pulls apart how CSR is related to business outcomes - google scholar currently shows this as being cited by 1112 other articles. at present this Wiki entry feels more about ethics - there needs to be a more of a focus on actual business performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.112.122 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphS

I just would like to say that when I first came to this page I was rather put off by the short essay before the contents box. It seems to be a Wikipedia idea (and one I agree with) to try to keep the opening paragraph(s) a nice introductory affair which is nice to read and gives a good general overview. The rest of the details can come later, in their specific content sections. The opening paragraphs as they currently stand delve into specifics too much "In the increasingly conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century, the demand for more ethical business processes and actions (known as ethicism) is increasing. Simultaneously, pressure is applied on industry to improve business ethics through new public initiatives and laws (e.g. higher UK road tax for higher-emission vehicles)" and is too long winded, making this article a bit of an eyesore.

What say others? --Mooseberry (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. Do you have time to sort it out? Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stakeholder priorities

Section "Stakeholder priorities" is a subsection of "Criticisms and concerns" but no criticisms or concerns are brought up in it. So it should be either reworded to highlight concerns (though it is not clear what those would be), or moved to a different part of the document.

Also, the list of "key stakeholders" should include people and communities that live in the area where the corporation operates its facilities, such as factories and stores. These are much bigger stakeholders than regulators and the media. -Pgan002 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Example for "Motives" section

Under the “Motives” section, I would like to add Product Red as an example of questionable motives of CSR. There is a lot of criticism surrounding this company’s motives. Many people are arguing that they use their CSR for marketing purposes. It has been reported that more money was spent on campaigning Red products than on donations to the Global Fund. I feel like Red is a perfect example of misleading CSR. I will write this from a neutral standpoint, not lashing out against Red, but giving information on the criticisms of the company’s CSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogers sarah (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Friends, the new definition of CSR as pronounced by Amitabh Thakur is a path breaking effort and needs to be incorporated here in the Article. Since I am a direct relative hence I want u to have a neutral look at it and incorporate this definition of CSR in the Article at appropriate place.

Here is the definition-- A changing perception of CSR is that instead of treating it as voluntary and self-regulated, there is a need for making it compulsory and intrinsic, as defined here-" Corporate Social Responsibility would mean the compulsory integration of every Corporate functioning with the social, ethical, legal and ecological responsibilities and liabilities associated with all such corporate functioning."

nutanthakurlkoNutanthakurlko (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, the reason presented by Amitabh Thakur about why CSR shall be compulsory is also very important and an entirely novel concept, being appreciated by many. Kindly get it incorporated here in the Article among the different approaches of CSR.

Here it goes-

CSR Compulsory

A new approach is emerging that says that all these viewpoints have come from the perspective of the corporate world. But today it is more important to look into the matter from the point of the view of the society and the government. Proponents of this view say that the interests of the business groups will always be slanted, self centered and biased. To them the prime motive for business would be profit. But the government and the society are much bigger and much more important entities than these small number of shareholders. Hence naturally each business needs to conform to the various corporate social responsibilities, including also the rules and regulations of the State where they are operating. As per Amitabh Thakur- "Any mishandling in this regards will be disastrous having its long-term effects on the ecology, the atmosphere and the society. Such a situation can no longer be tolerated, just for the cause of a few corporate interests." .

nutanthakurlkoNutanthakurlko (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not really convinced. I want to wait for other editors' opinion before deciding either way. MikeLynch (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. One of the issues with this article has been that many of its editors are coming from a rather partisan point of view. Its been quite hard to keep it even halfway coherent. I think there would need to be evidence that this view was a genuinely new approach which was significant and recogonised enough to be included.Thom2002 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

General Cleanup

Some other sections have hinted at this, but I strongly feel that this article needs a general cleanup. While the introduction is nice, and the benefits & criticisms sections seem to follow a decent line of thought, the other sections seem poorly written with little structure within themselves or the rest of the article, especially evidenced in the "Disabilities and CSR" section.

I apologize if this isn't helpful, but I felt strongly enough about it to create an account and say so. Let me know if I'm out of place. Thanks to those who have contributed so far. Kdbscott (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Causality going backwards in time?

How could it be that a term that was a result of a book published in 1984, already came into common use in the late 1960s and early 1970s?? That's the obviously bogus claim that seems to come from the introductory section. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Editing The Disability Section - 2012

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I find the CSR & Disability section to be flawed

1. There is only one source.
2. Time sense is unclear. ("In recent years" language)
3. The section has at least one first person pronoun. (us able bodied people)
4. The section's introduction is redundant to the article.
5. The language is casual. "Basically, CSR means that..."
6. Some claims are made that are not cited. ("enthusiasm for environmental causes only" and "disability is often pushed behind")
7. Presents recommendations for future action. ("Therefore, disability must be made a part" and "There should be non-discrimination." The entire third paragraph is recommendations.)
8. Facts presented may be from tertiary sources. ("10% of the population." The source cited (at the end of the section) does refer to 10%, but *specifically* in the context of European demographics, which is not mentioned in the wiki article.)
9. A conclusion is not supported by its previous text. (Thus, carrying out business...)
10. The Source itself: The source itself is published by Fundacion Once. Its mission statement--The principal objective of the ONCE Foundation is to implement integration programmes of work-related training and employment for people with disabilities, and universal accessibility, promoting the creation of universally accesible environments, products and services.

Requested Action From Other Contributors:

• Check text for plagiarism from source material.
• Mark the section as NPOV, NOR, etc. Mark specific sentences to show [citation needed], [weasel words], etc
• Bring this request to the attention of contributors so that the section can be re-written effectively and quickly.

Suggestions:

• Remove the section until it can be rewritten that reflects Wikipedia's standards: neutral point of view, reliable sources, no original research, etc.
• Remove the section until it presents the information as efforts of Fundacion Once and other advocating bodies.

twitter:@brandon_4 - sorry I didn't make a user account. I also didn't know how to do much of the things I suggested, nor did I want to make extensive revisions or remove the section because I wanted to ensure the final changes would not be disputed. -on 8/21/2012

Merge proposal

I think corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility cover much of the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. The former is a common synonym for the latter and the seemingly unique scope of corporate citizenship, of corporations as citizens is very short and can easily be included into this article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect here since no action has been taken and this is the more developed article Bhny (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)