There is no use denying the fact that nowadays existence of the whole world is determined by the functioning of giant corporations which have huge incomes and influence economy of all states. Great number of different aspects of the life of society depend on them. Moreover, there are many smaller organizations which, however, also have a great influence on people as their activity changes the world, society and environment though not so significantly as the activity of international corporations.
With this in mind, having realized the fact that the life of a person depends on different organizations, it becomes obvious that such complicated question as ethical decision making appears. Trying to obtain huge incomes, companies should also not forget about people who work there. Under these conditions, the issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR) obtains great importance.
CSR is a practice which main aim is to control the work of any company for it to be organized in accordance with existing laws, ethical standards and international rules (Smith 2003). Nowadays, with the spread of influence of corporations of different kinds, CSR becomes one of the main remedies which can protect a person or a worker from unfair actions or attitude (Mahzarin, Bazerman & Chugh 2003). With this in mind, it is possible to say that the issue of CSR is closely connected with such notions as humanism, tolerance and ethic standards as first of all it cares about a human being, trying to guarantee his/her prosperous living.
The thing is that very often the functioning of a company could be rather ambivalent. Sometimes, it could be better for the prosperity of a company to accept some amoral decision which could lead to the worsening of the state of a certain worker. Under these conditions, the main aim of corporate social responsibility is to provide certain warranties for a person to be able to survive and earn money. These warranties could be provided in different ways, however, the main thing is that with the help of this remedy a person will be protected and a company will be able to save its positive image. However, this issue is closely connected with ethical decision making.
Nevertheless, it should be said that under the term ethical behavior or decision making some sort of actions which care about humanity and society is meant (Tenbrunsela & Smith‐Croweb 2008). However, not always these actions are preferable for a company because of some extra spending or other problems connected with the issue. One more thing which should be mentioned is that in general, the practice of corporate social responsibility is voluntary and there are no laws which control actions of a corporation for them to be ethical. That is why, very often it is for a company to decide whether to act in accordance with the main principles of ethics (Porter & Kramer 2011) or to take into account only its own benefits.
However, it should be said that in the modern world all strategic decisions should be taken resting on the main ethical principles trying to protect people and give them support. In this case, companys actions can be taken as the best evidence of its fair and tolerant character and serve as the reflection of its ethical nature. Stakeholders of any organization should take this fact into account as, in a greater degree, it is for them to decide what actions to approve and how to act in different situations (Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regnér 2013).
Reference List
Johnson, G, Whittington, G, Scholes, K, Angwin, D, & Regnér, P 2013. Exploring Strategy Text & Cases, Pearson Education Limited, New York.
Mahzarin, B, Bazerman, M & Chugh, D 2003, ‘How (Un)ethical Are You?‘, Harvard Business Review. Web.
Porter, M & Kramer, M 2011,‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review. Web.
Smith, N 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: WHETHER OR HOW?’, California Management Review, vol.45, no. 4, pp. 52-76.
Tenbrunsela, A & Smith‐Croweb, K 2008, ’13 Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going’, The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 2, no. 1., pp. 545-607.