social

Social responsibility Social responsibility is an ethical framework which suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems. A trade-off may[citation needed] exist between economic development, in the material sense, and the welfare of the society and environment. Social responsibility means sustaining the equilibrium between the two. It pertains not only to business organizations but also to everyone whose any action impacts the environment.[1] This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social goals. Businesses can use ethical decision making to secure their businesses by making decisions that allow for government agencies to minimize their involvement with the corporation.[2] For instance if a company follows the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for emissions on dangerous pollutants and even goes an extra step to get involved in the community and address those concerns that the public might have; they would be less likely to have the EPA investigate them for environmental concerns.[3] "A significant element of current thinking about privacy, however, stresses "self-regulation" rather than market or government mechanisms for protecting personal information".[4] According to some experts, most rules and regulations are formed due to public outcry, which threatens profit maximization and therefore the well-being of the shareholder, and that if there is not outcry there often will be limited regulation.[5] Critics argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful corporations though there is no systematic evidence to support these criticisms. A significant number of studies have shown no negative influence on shareholder results from CSR but rather a slightly negative correlation with improved shareholder returns.[clarification needed][6] Contents • 1 Student social responsibility • 2 Corporate social responsibility • 3 Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers • 4 Emerging normative status of social responsibility • 5 See also • 6 Notes • 7 References • 8 Further reading Student social responsibility Student social responsibility is the responsibility of every student for his/her actions. It is morally binding on everyone to act in such a way that the people immediately around them are not adversely affected. It is a commitment everyone has towards the society – contributing towards social, cultural and ecological causes. SSR is based on an individual's ethics. Instead of giving importance only to those areas where one has material interests the individual supports issues for philanthropic reasons. It forms the base for CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility because if everyone in a business organization does his/her bit the bigger things automatically fall into place. The trends however show that big charitable organizations recorded high growth due to the SR efforts of individuals and not corporations or the government. ISR may be slightly impractical, especially in the modern competitive world, where everyone works for self-interest, but it will succeed if we take decisions based on what will benefit a large number of people and respect everyone's fundamental rights. As individuals we can make our small contributions to society by donating money to trustworthy NGO's, saving our resources by reducing our consumption, e.g. by switching off lights or computers when not in use. 2. Corporate social responsibility Corporate social responsibility or CSR has been defined by Lord Holme and Richard Watts in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s publication “Making Good Business Sense” as “…the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large.” CSR is one of the newest management strategies where companies try to create a positive impact on society while doing business. Evidence suggests that CSR taken on voluntarily by companies will be much more effective than CSR mandated by governments.[7] There is no clear-cut definition of what CSR comprises. Every company has different CSR objectives though the main motive is the same. All companies have a two-point agenda—to improve qualitatively (the management of people and processes) and quantitatively (the impact on society). The second is as important as the first and stake holders of every company are increasingly taking an interest in "the outer circle"-the activities of the company and how these are impacting the environment and society.[8] Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers One common view is that scientists and engineers are morally responsible for the negative consequences which result from the various applications of their knowledge and inventions.[9][10][11][12][13] After all, if scientists and engineers take personal pride in the many positive achievements of science and technology, why should they be allowed to escape responsibility for the negative consequences related to the use or abuse of scientific knowledge and technological innovations?[14] Furthermore, scientists and engineers have a collective responsibility for the choice and conduct of their work. Committees of scientists and engineers are often involved in the planning of governmental and corporate research programs, including those devoted to the development of military technologies and weaponry.[15][16] Many professional societies and national organizations, such as the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering in the United States, have ethical guidelines (see Engineering ethics and Research ethics for the conduct of scientific research and engineering).[17] Clearly, there is recognition that scientists and engineers, both individually and collectively, have a special and much greater responsibility than average citizens with respect to the generation and use of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, it has been pointed out that the situation is not that simple and scientists and engineers should not be blamed for all the evils created by new scientific knowledge and technological innovations.[18] First, there is the common problem of fragmentation and diffusion of responsibility. Because of the intellectual and physical division of labor, the resulting fragmentation of knowledge, the high degree of specialization, and the complex and hierarchical decision-making process within corporations and government research laboratories, it is exceedingly difficult for individual scientists and engineers to control the applications of their innovations.[19] This fragmentation of both work and decision-making results in fragmented moral accountability, often to the point where "everybody involved was responsible but none could be held responsible."[20] Another problem is ignorance. The scientists and engineers cannot predict how their newly generated knowledge and technological innovations may be abused or misused for destructive purposes in the near or distant future. While the excuse of ignorance is somewhat acceptable for those scientists involved in very basic and fundamental research where potential applications cannot be even envisioned, the excuse of ignorance is much weaker for scientists and engineers involved in applied scientific research and technological innovation since the work objectives are well known. For example, most corporations conduct research on specific products or services that promise to yield the greatest possible profit for share-holders. Similarly, most of the research funded by governments is mission-oriented, such as protecting the environment, developing new drugs, or designing more lethal weapons. In all cases where the application of scientific knowledge and technological innovation is well known a priori, it is impossible for a scientist or engineer to escape responsibility for research and technological innovation that is morally dubious.[21] As John Forge writes in Moral Responsibility and the Ignorant Scientist: "Ignorance is not an excuse precisely because scientists can be blamed for being ignorant."[22] Another point of view is that responsibility falls on those who provide the funding for the research and technological developments, which in most cases are corporations and government agencies. Furthermore, because taxpayers provide indirectly the funds for government-sponsored research, they and the politicians that represent them, i.e., society at large, should be held accountable for the uses and abuses of science.[23] Compared to earlier times when scientists could often conduct their own research independently, today's experimental research requires expensive laboratories and instrumentation, making scientists dependent on those who pay for their studies. Emerging normative status of social responsibility Social responsibility as a non-binding, or soft law principle has received some normative status in relation to private and public corporations in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed by the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee particularly in relation to child and maternal welfare.[24](Faunce and Nasu 2009) The International Organization for Standardizationrd will "encourage voluntary commitment to social responsibility and will lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and methods of evaluation."[25] The standard describes itself as a guide for dialogue and language, not a constraining or certifiable management standard.[26] How Companies Can Become More Socially Responsible In a recent article I co-wrote with Milinda Martin, In the Future, Companies Will Only Survive if They Help Solve Big Social Problems, we predicted that “2015 will mark the beginning of a long-term transition of the role and purpose of the world’s largest public companies and the value chains they control” and suggested that “the new imperative for business leaders will be to embrace the idea that the viability of their businesses depends on solving the world’s most pressing societal issues.” The vision for the future we illustrated was based on input from corporate leaders who have observed that most of the ways in which businesses currently contribute to social change aren’t very effective for companies or communities. We suggested that in the years ahead leading businesses would abandon tokenistic corporate social responsibility, commit to bold social goals, and integrate social change in all aspects of their operations. In responding to comments from readers, I realized that we missed an opportunity to help corporations become more effective agents of social change by providing specific ideas for what they should start to do differently in 2015. So here are seven ideas to help executives move their businesses towards a more compelling long-term vision and improve their performance in 2015. 1. Pick a big issue, declare a clear goal, and mobilize your resources. Corporations become successful because they identify problems, allocate resources to uncover and deliver solutions, and are accountable for what happens. The role of business in social change should be no different. Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest producers of meat and poultry, has a social goal of ending hunger. Through its KNOW Hunger program, Tyson donates to food banks and increases awareness of hunger issues on a large scale. At the end of 2010, Tyson had donated 78 million pounds of protein—enough to serve one meal to every American citizen. 2. Make more effort to engage the millennials in your workforce. Employees of this generation want to be rewarded in ways that go beyond compensation and expect their employers to support their interest in social change. These employees also want to apply what they know to issues that they’re passionate about. This means reduce or eliminating activities that have employees doing menial tasks that don’t contribute to measurable social outcomes. For more about this, refer to MSLGroup’s excellent report, The Future of Business Citizenship. 3. Engage your naysayers. Corporations that include the perspectives of advocacy organizations create opportunities to make meaningful changes. “Nestlé has been engaging much more systematically with stakeholders, even constructively critical ones, to ask them what they expect of us,” said Paul Bakus, that company’s president of corporate affairs, in a recent Forbes.com interview. “This has led to the development of 35 forward-looking commitments covering every area of our business—nutrition, water, rural development, sustainability, and compliance.” 4. Begin to allocate some of your company’s philanthropic giving to social purpose businesses and/or social enterprises. This will establish a base of social investment the results of which can be quantified while you preserve philanthropic commitments that are meaningful to employees and stakeholders. Based on 2013 figures from the Giving USA Foundation, reducing philanthropic contributions by approximately 50% of what they are today would create an annual pool of social finance capital of approximately $8 billion in the U.S. alone. Company More Socially Responsible for the Stakeholders Companies can be torn between two extremes in today's global marketplace. On the one hand, the desire to compete and succeed is the basis for all business activity. Businesses that do not compete do not survive. On the other hand, concerns over environmentalism, social welfare, charity and other humanitarian concerns are also important for businesses because businesses are also expected to be socially responsible on some level. Making your company more socially responsible for stakeholders is no simple task, but there are a few simple steps you can take to get yourself moving in the right direction. Step 1 Assess your current level of participation in social programs. You need to know where you are starting from if you are to determine how to be more socially responsible for your stakeholders. The misalignment of corporate competitiveness with corporate responsibility stems from one of three issues: inexperienced corporate staff, isolation of managers in charge of corporate responsibility from the rest of the business, and a limited or restricted budget. Step 2 Establish goals that are attainable. Taking baby steps to get started and build your corporate responsibility can get you moving in the right direction. Make sure that your goals can be measured to make sure you are moving forward in the right direction. Eliminate waste or take care of other "close to home" responsibilities first. Step 3 Provide detailed reports to your stakeholders to ensure that they know exactly what steps you are taking to improve your socially responsible activity. Use concurrent press releases and other announcements to increase awareness of your company's actions. This will provide the added advantage of creating a picture among the general public of your company as being socially responsible. Step 4 Obtain feedback from stakeholders in the company. Create a system of two-way communication between shareholders and the company when it comes to the cultivation of social responsibility. This method flies in the face of more traditional methods of corporate communication where the company simply tells shareholders about its actions. Instead, this gives the shareholders a stake in what the company does. Step 5 Prioritize your efforts. Take on the simplest tasks first so that you can accomplish them quickly. This will help build your reputation with the rest of the community and give your stakeholders an opportunity to get involved incrementally as you build towards bigger and more ambitious projects. Wade out into the water before jumping or diving in to immerse yourself.