As the debate unfolds I just thought that it would be interesting to get peoples views on whether companies who make products that kill can practice corporate social responsibility. With an issue like this, one can't help but think about the cigarette, arms and alcohol producing companies. If they can practice CSR how can you reconcile their corporate social responsibility acts with their products? Baker (2005), says there is an uneasiness surrounding this issue. He adds that “some on the CSR movement have felt uncomfortable about their newly discovered allies, and would really wish they would go away and play their role of corporate villain with a little more conviction.” http://mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=1492 Can these companies justify their social responsibility? What do you think?
1 comment:
The sad thing is that sometimes companies get away with CSR that has been mandated, but the consumer is unaware of it.
The tobacco industry is a perfect example. Some American tobacco companies were mandated to do educational campaigns about the dangers of tobacco use, create websites and brochures as well as commercials with information.
Sadly, to the unaware consumer, it seems as if these companies really do care, but in reality they are just trying to stay out of any futher trouble and/or it was cheaper to settle the court cases brought against them.
Post a Comment