Wikipedia defines corporate responsibility as:
a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would monitor and ensure its adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, business would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honoring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit.
Somewhere in the middle of that word mass is verbiage that relates to community growth and development. A financial investment is needed to achieve those aims. How much of an investment is the topic of much debate.
How much do you think they should reinvest?
Loading ...
Whatever they feel like.
I used to feel like that a few years ago, but now I think that after a certain level of profit they should be required to give back. There is simply too much dinero being slurped up and taken away from the common folk.
I don’t think it should be give back to the community. I think it should be used to help the company pay their employees more or reduce the cost of goods for their customers. Giving money away won’t guarantee any benefit to the company except maybe a for PR. Helping out out your employees or customer base is a good way to keep good people and stay in business. /my fantasy land
I think they should give a certain portion to the community because its the right thing to do.
I agree with helping out employees and the customer base through pricing. But in terms of helping people, employees have a revenue stream and customers apparently have revenue stream also since they have the ability to shop. The community normally has people in need of necessities like food and shelter as well as providing decent recreational facilities like parks does a lot for the youth of tomorrow.
The company is already supplying the community with jobs and I feel they have no true responsibility to do more than that. If a company chooses to do more, kudos to them.
You make it sound mutually exclusive. Almost like you can’t contribute to the world around you and increase profits./my fantasy land
Talk like that has driven the world to the extreme disparity in wealth and poverty that we experience today.
So what happens when they pick up their precious jobs and leave?
I think companies should give as much as they want to. Be that 0% or 50%. They are private organizations and should not be forced to give a portion of their profits to a charitable cause because of someone else’s sense of moral “decency”. If you don’t want to support a company that doesn’t give a portion of it’s profits to charity, don’t support that company with your dollars. THAT is your right as a consumer.
To each according to their needs. From each according to their ability….
Gee. That sounds really familiar. Where have I heard that before?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
:mamoru:
I believe that companies of all sizes should invest in their community. I think that they should determine the amount. But, I also think that it should go above money. They should serve or volunteer in the communities that they are a part of as well.
People are under the impression that you get a raise every year just because you came to work. It really shouldn’t work like that, just because you stamped 101 plates this year and did 95 last year doesn’t mean you get a raise. This will lead to minimum wage workers getting paid way too much and leading a company to either doing the WalMart or shipping jobs to Mexico.
People should get raises because Gus charged consumers $20 for those plates last year, but he’s charging $22 this year. And his excuse for the increase – inflation. So if inflation is affecting his business, then inflation is affecting the guy stamping the plates too. However, Gus like many businesses are using inflation as a way to make more revenue and profit.
If you could tell me the last time year over year that inflation or the CPI had a down turn, I would like to know.
Do you really think someone at WalMart, that is not a manager, should be making $20/hour? I agree with inflation raises but even then people can’t see inflation year to year.
No, I don’t believe Walmart would offer a position that pays $20/hr. But if people don’t make inflationary raises year over year, wouldn’t the public all begin to slip into debt. I mean if the same grocery list that once cost you $100 now costs you $125 and you still make the same as you did last year, you would have to a) cut back on spending elsewhere (less going into the economy) or b)resort to credit or some government program.
In 2010, very few have the insight to adjust their budget for such a situation.
Your personal spending and debt has nothing to do with inflation. If you can’t afford groceries from decade to decade you might should do some better shopping.
At some point a whole slew of people that aren’t managers at Wally World will make $20/hr. I don’t understand ho you can say people need inflation raises but no on a year to year basis. Are you basically saying that certain people have to take a life “L” on a routine basis?
If you make $6/hr and that store brand gallon of milk goes from $3.00 to $4.50 in 3 years what are you going to do about it.
I would insult Walmart workers but I have a feeling this joke would make me look like an asshole.
Ever wonder why the people who pick the fruit don’t make 50k? Cause the job is not designed for that pay, now I agree people need inflation wages but if you work at Wally World for 20 years at what point do your wages stop growing due to you being overpaid for your position. Likely you are not bringing more to the table than you did 18 years ago.
1) It would indeed make you look like a titanic, Greco-Roman asshole. I’m glad you know that.
2) I think your wages should stop growing when inflation stops growing. The people are putting in the work to help a company realize profits. They should be compensated to live a reasonable life, regardless of their position.
Groceries is just a simple example of what people have to spend money on monthly/annually. When you factor how much you spend on groceries, gas, mortgage/rent, insurance, clothing, child care, cars, car maintenance, home goods, the movies, you should see that the 1.8% the man is giving you compared to the 2.8% inflation rate is going to break you over time.
Put water on those cereals. LOL
I think you’re looking at the individual and saying he shouldn’t make $20/hr. But what about his manager. His manager is getting raises. His departmental manager was making 50K, but in 20 years he will likely be making 80K, and the store manager will be making 200K.
Inflation affects everyone. More so the Wally world hourly worker.
I’m looking at the position and not the individual, the cashier who becomes lead cashier then shift manager and then store manager deserves wage increases above inflation. But the cashier who is a cashier for 20 years deserves nothing more than inflation wages.
If you’re making minor dollars you might want to reconsider your life choices such as all you mention above. Live accordingly to what you make, not what you want. And yes, I know you NEED groceries.
Earlier, I thought you said people shouldn’t get inflation raises year over year.
All the items I mentioned are items that I believe EVERYONE needs. None of it was discretionary other than the movies. Necessities are items that are most likely to receive the price hike.
Just like people are expected to pay 10% of their earnings to church (if they belong), large corporations should also pay a 10% “tithe” to charity/community/whatever.
As it is, we’re paying upwards of a 40% “tithe” (combined state and federal taxes) to Uncle Sam and the states, and I don’t necessarily agree with the distribution methods.
If I gave to a cause I believed in, it would be different. I don’t trust anyone on Capitol Hill to spend my money the way I would, and go to great lengths to avoid giving so much.
Large companies or any company should not give 10% of its earnings to charity/community/whatever. Do not confuse beliefs with business.
What’s wrong with the distribution (or I assume you mean taxation) methods?
I agree with the concept of giving, but establishing a set portion for a business to give cannot be realistic. When the first company goes out of business and can prove they have been giving 10% to the community, they will then expect government to help them out.
Argument: Had the business not been giving 10% of their $1 million in profit away, they would have enough cap to sustain the 18 month economic hit.