iii. Factors influence Corporate Social Responsiveness
In business world, managers have to deal with a range of unstable and ever-changing issues, as well as the same complex stakeholder groups that have different interests (McMahon, 1999). Davis and Blomstrom’s “Iron Law of Responsibility” mention that corporate social responsibility must commensurate with their social power (Salbu, 1993). Any avoidance of social responsibility will lead to the loss of power given by the society. Welcomer, Cochran, Rands, & Haggerty (2003) indicate that stakeholder power and corporate social responsiveness have positive relationship.
Corporate social responsibility to the implementation of the survival and development of enterprises, decision-makers must …show more content…
Ibrahim & Angelidis (1995) examined that outside directors have a weaker orientation in economic performance which exhibit greater concern about the component of corporate responsiveness. Growing interest in the corporate social responsiveness of business, the proportion of outside board members has increased as a result.
Besides, the degree of religiousness and cultural differences have an impact on individual corporate social responsiveness orientation. Angelidis & Ibrahim (2004) mention that religiousness related to individual’s CSRO, it have a significant relationship between religiousness and social responsiveness. People with high religiousness attitude change over time which imply of the managerial value as same as religiousness can be altered.
Relationship between a firm's social responsiveness and size of business
Stanwick & Stanwick (1998) indicate that there was an inverse relationship …show more content…
Findings
Corporate social responsiveness is better than the concept of corporate social responsibility. From previous literature review, corporate social responsiveness is a detailed analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and social effective response. For the CSR, it is only classify the types of responsibility in business, it does not encourage and provide information of further responses, which most of the firms have achieve CSR, as it must be attain of legal standard. Corporate should take higher standard though CSR2.
From CSP model, it is to establish a stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. It is a mix from CSR principles and CSR2 process and social related issues, which is a combination from different arguments in CSR concept. It can show that corporate social responsiveness is a complex issue, it involved lots of parties. Business should consider the interests.of the stakeholders to the firm and relevant .community norms carefully. From the approach of “Iron Law of Responsibility”, while corporate continuous expanse in its business, the community requires firms to take more social responsibilities. Otherwise it will lead to strong social criticism and social pressure, so that enterprises lose the power given by
In business world, managers have to deal with a range of unstable and ever-changing issues, as well as the same complex stakeholder groups that have different interests (McMahon, 1999). Davis and Blomstrom’s “Iron Law of Responsibility” mention that corporate social responsibility must commensurate with their social power (Salbu, 1993). Any avoidance of social responsibility will lead to the loss of power given by the society. Welcomer, Cochran, Rands, & Haggerty (2003) indicate that stakeholder power and corporate social responsiveness have positive relationship.
Corporate social responsibility to the implementation of the survival and development of enterprises, decision-makers must …show more content…
Ibrahim & Angelidis (1995) examined that outside directors have a weaker orientation in economic performance which exhibit greater concern about the component of corporate responsiveness. Growing interest in the corporate social responsiveness of business, the proportion of outside board members has increased as a result.
Besides, the degree of religiousness and cultural differences have an impact on individual corporate social responsiveness orientation. Angelidis & Ibrahim (2004) mention that religiousness related to individual’s CSRO, it have a significant relationship between religiousness and social responsiveness. People with high religiousness attitude change over time which imply of the managerial value as same as religiousness can be altered.
Relationship between a firm's social responsiveness and size of business
Stanwick & Stanwick (1998) indicate that there was an inverse relationship …show more content…
Findings
Corporate social responsiveness is better than the concept of corporate social responsibility. From previous literature review, corporate social responsiveness is a detailed analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and social effective response. For the CSR, it is only classify the types of responsibility in business, it does not encourage and provide information of further responses, which most of the firms have achieve CSR, as it must be attain of legal standard. Corporate should take higher standard though CSR2.
From CSP model, it is to establish a stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. It is a mix from CSR principles and CSR2 process and social related issues, which is a combination from different arguments in CSR concept. It can show that corporate social responsiveness is a complex issue, it involved lots of parties. Business should consider the interests.of the stakeholders to the firm and relevant .community norms carefully. From the approach of “Iron Law of Responsibility”, while corporate continuous expanse in its business, the community requires firms to take more social responsibilities. Otherwise it will lead to strong social criticism and social pressure, so that enterprises lose the power given by