MGT7019-8 Week 1 Assignment Assess Ethical Perspectives on Social Responsibility

Ethical Perspective on Social ResponsibilityStudent Name
Institutional affiliations
Ethical Perspective on Social ResponsibilityIntroduction
Social responsibility refers to the mandate of any corporation towards its environment, its employees, and its stakeholders. In this regard, it entails that a company has to undertake its activities in such a manner as for promoting ethical duty and is geared towards the improvement of social welfare. Social responsibility also entails, to a large degree the alleviation of any processes done by the company that may destroy the environment or may otherwise be construed as detrimental towards the overall enhancement of the society (Przychodzeń & Przychodzeń, 2014). As such, corporations, and their leaders, in particular, are to consider taking on projects that promote both the economic prowess of the company as well as the support of the society and the perpetuation of its wellbeing. Corporate social responsibility can best be highlighted by any actions that reside within the quadrant represented by the intersection of three elements; planetary welfare, community improvement, and enhancement of profit.
Cohen’s interpretation of Social Responsibility
With Regard to Stakeholders
Cohen held true to the belief that a business’ paramount objective is always the realization and improvement of the profit-making ability of the company. As such, all activities to be undertaken by said company should be synonymous with this goal. In this respect, the upholding of corporate responsibility should not take preference over the profit-making prowess of the economic entity.

Stakeholders in a company are predominately concerned with the perpetuation of corporate success of the entity in which they are connected, otherwise, there would be no sense in their involvement with the same. This being said, management and leaders evident in the company ought to make sure that responsibility towards the upholding of moral uprightness and integrity does not conflict with the need for the organization to enhance itself in today’s economic environment. Every stakeholder in a given company expects returns for their investment in the same, failure to which would see them leave and migrate to other entities. Therefore, Cohen cites that it is crucial that management aligns the activities promoting profit-making as well as those aimed at the improvement of corporate responsibility in such a manner as they don’t conflict. Cohen also highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility as an avenue for the attainment of a competitive advantage, which in turn could attract more stakeholders.
With regard to Employees
Cohen believes that every company comprises a constitutional responsibility towards the well-being of its employees, which refers to their social as well as corporate welfare. Doing so, according to Cohen, will effectively result in the optimization of their productivity and enhancement of the profitability of the entity. Owing to the mandate of responsibility to its workers, it should ensure that the overall living standard of the employees is raised continuously. The challenge has been made towards Cohen’s belief in the responsibility of a corporation towards the worker’s personal lives. However, a worker’s personal life and the state of the same is directly related to their productivity in the workplace (Tilt, 2016). As such, Cohen’s beliefs are founded on a bedrock of sound reason, aimed at the enhancement of the entity’s profitability. To this end, every organization should ensure that it offers provisions for educational enhancement, skill improvement and social facilities and amenities. Through such actions, the work level of the environment is enhanced, which will not only ensure that current workers are retained within the entity, but new ones are ushered in and cultured towards the profit-making goal of the business.
With Regard to Society
Cohen believes that social responsibility of a company entails the fact that any entity should care about its impact on the environment and particularly on the persons living in the vicinity of the organization. Cohen supposes that a manager has to observe two roles in their capacity as a leader; this includes being an organizational leader and being a social leader (Trong Tuan, 2012). This means that in as much as the leaders of any entity are mandated to produce fiscally positive results at the end of each financial year, they are equally mandated to contribute in some substantial way to communal enhancement. To achieve the same, it is paramount that a company leader realizes the fact that organizational development results in the environmental degradation. The reason being most companies involved in the manufacturing of goods require raw materials attained from the environment and consequently, through the process of production, results in effluent which is often hazardous to the environment and human beings. How a company approaches this issue and how they subsequently give back to the society constitutes either a sound social responsibility strategy or one which is lacking.
Cohen’s Perspective Alignment with Drucker
Drucker and Cohen’s beliefs regarding corporate social responsibility are concisely aligned in that they both have similar concepts of the ethical mandate of a company towards the society, the stakeholders, and the employees. Drucker and Cohen, on stakeholders, both hold true that a business should always be geared towards the achievement of its predominate objective which is the realization of economic excellence, which is linked to the assurance of satisfaction of its stakeholder’s expectations. This may be in the form of returns on investment or the deliverance of quality products. Drucker and Cohen are both for the concept that the upholding of profit making prowess of an entity is essential as, without it, the company cannot be sure to achieve any other aspect of their organizational activities.
The responsibility to attain social improvement and enhancement in recent times cannot be held solely to the governmental authorities. The mandate is also held to the corporate entities that operate on a regional, national and multinational scale. Cohen and Drucker also suppose that the responsibility to be observed by a company towards the society extenuates to the maintenance or improvement of the environment in which they operate and the integration of the company’s activities with programs or projects aimed at societal enhancement. This, a company can achieve through the provision of social services and amenities to the society, which improves the living standard of the community. Cohen and Drucker both believe that all actions of a business should be harmonized with the societal expectations and needs in such a manner that it promotes societal stability and enhancement of goodwill (Tilt, 2016).
Drucker and Cohen were both revolutionary economic personalities who advocated that businesses can successfully coexist with the environment and with society, given adequate and concise leadership. Both considered it highly improbable that this could be achieved through the adoption of a reactive social responsibility strategy. As such, Drucker and Cohen both ascertained that true social responsibility could and can only be attained through a proactive approach. Companies ought to endeavor to make active plans towards the tackling of possible environmental or social issues that could be evident to them given their area of production. Through corporate responsibility, the society is not only enhanced, but the culture of trust and dependability within the company’s consideration of such elements as the society and its employees is nurtured. Cohen and Drucker are also advocates for the concept of employee importance and by extension, the need to place them at the forefront of corporate responsibility.
Cohen as compared to Friedman
Friedman holds an alternative concept of social responsibility. In this regard, he considers that ethical and moral responsibilities are inherent to every individual and as such can only be exercised or enforced on a case-by-case basis. To this end, Friedman supposes that business entities are primarily meant for profit-making objectives. As such, assigning of any social responsibility to corporations is unfounded and unreasonable. Friedman also ascertains that economic entities are not persons in themselves, and thus cannot possess any moral standard or obligation. Friedman goes on to assert that a business should be oriented towards the satisfaction of its stakeholders and the assurance of the perpetuation of the organization existence. Profit, according to Friedman, should the only concern or driving force of any economic entity and the managers only have to fill the role of organizational leadership.
Friedman’s concepts are in direct conflict with Cohen’s as the latter is of the opinion that all corporate entities have an active responsibility to their societies and environments (Rajmanthri, 2005). This, in Cohen’s consideration, is regardless of the nature of the organization, whether profit or non-profit making. In this respect, corporations should weigh the consequences to be expected from their production processes with the profit-making goals. If these two are in direct conflict, then it is the mandate of the company’s management to come up with a strategy that better reflects a harmonized approach to social responsibility. The employees of any company are the responsibility of the same, which entails the enhancement of the competency of such workers through training and educational facilities, and the offering of security systems geared towards the enhancement of the standard of living of the employees. Contrary to this, Friedman supposes that all leaders are meant for only one purpose, the improvement of the profitability of the company. This being said, any executive that embarks to undertake activities aimed at promoting social responsibility is spending stakeholder’s money in a manner that does not support the goal above. This, according to Friedman, is unacceptable.
In conclusion, the ideals given by Friedman, Cohen, and Drucker promote a green environment. These ideals are active proponents of the undertaking of corporate social responsibility by all economic entities, regardless of their profit-making, or lack thereof, nature. Cohen and Drucker’s concepts of social responsibility, not only advocate for the attainment of profit by the company in question but also observe the need to improve relation and involvement of the company in the sustaining of environmental as well as social wellbeing (Mujih, 2007). This is largely achieved by the efficient disposal of waste in manufacturing entities, as well as the rehabilitation of environments affected by the company’s endeavors. The maintenance and perpetuation of a green environment by all corporations is integral towards the upholding of social responsibility.

References
Mujih, E. (2007). Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility: Punishment or Compliance? Social Responsibility Journal, 3(3), 79-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471110710835617Przychodzeń, W. & Przychodzeń, J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility for Sustainability.Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, 22(2), 80-97.http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.100Rajmanthri, S. (2005). Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on organizationalsustainability: A case study of the Sri Lankan Corporate Sector. Social ResponsibilityJournal, 1(3/4), 149-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb045805Tilt, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility research: the importance of context. Int JCorporate Soc Responsibility, 1(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7Trong Tuan, L. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. SocialResponsibility Journal, 8(4), 547-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111211272110