The definition of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been a staple topic of discussion all around the world. CSRs meaning in my research has shown to originate within an organization. In other words, it is business specific. What CSR means to one company is not necessarily what it means to another. For instance, an oil company’s social responsibility to the environment is much different than a business that makes sandwiches. CSR has been discussed for several decades, often heatedly, but still no formal definition is readily available. In searching for a definition of “corporate social responsibility” Merriam-Webster online responds with “Words fail us.” However vague a definition there is for CSR, there are still definitions that can
…show more content…
She states that it is completely unclear what CSR means, any trend taking place, its origins, or its destination, and what parties are involved. Sahlin goes on to explain how different criticisms of corporations tend to drive the trends. When activist groups criticize companies, it creates the trend in the direction of the criticism if the voice is loud enough. She further explains that stakeholder demands can drive the trend. It is possible for any entity with enough clout to drive a trend or create a movement in any direction they wish.
In addition to Sahlin, Hollender (2004) notes that trends can be created within organizations. For instance, he states that executives in corporations have various reasons for their CSR decisions. These can be fiscal or actually, humbly unselfish. Sahlin (2006) further states that there have been bodies such as the United Nations have made previous attempts at regulations and guidelines to control and oversee corporate actions.
Article …show more content…
If these entities have enough pull, they will affect their target corporations. The intensity of all the entities, private, civic, national, or international, is increasing. A corporation not only has a duty to define and adapt to the finding of its CSR, but can be under legal obligation to do so.
Even more interesting in the article is where Sahlin (2006) speaks to what is called “Learning Networks” that assemble together to collaborate, share experience, knowledge and trepidations about specific issues. The parties of these networks are made up of governmental entities, labor organizations, scholastic institutions, non-governmental organizations, corporate leaders, and others. These think tanks then can produce standards and best practices to follow. As Sahlin provides an awareness of these happenings and gives examples of how numerous organization join in these groups and effect change. Too often it is heard, “I didn’t even know it was
She states that it is completely unclear what CSR means, any trend taking place, its origins, or its destination, and what parties are involved. Sahlin goes on to explain how different criticisms of corporations tend to drive the trends. When activist groups criticize companies, it creates the trend in the direction of the criticism if the voice is loud enough. She further explains that stakeholder demands can drive the trend. It is possible for any entity with enough clout to drive a trend or create a movement in any direction they wish.
In addition to Sahlin, Hollender (2004) notes that trends can be created within organizations. For instance, he states that executives in corporations have various reasons for their CSR decisions. These can be fiscal or actually, humbly unselfish. Sahlin (2006) further states that there have been bodies such as the United Nations have made previous attempts at regulations and guidelines to control and oversee corporate actions.
Article …show more content…
If these entities have enough pull, they will affect their target corporations. The intensity of all the entities, private, civic, national, or international, is increasing. A corporation not only has a duty to define and adapt to the finding of its CSR, but can be under legal obligation to do so.
Even more interesting in the article is where Sahlin (2006) speaks to what is called “Learning Networks” that assemble together to collaborate, share experience, knowledge and trepidations about specific issues. The parties of these networks are made up of governmental entities, labor organizations, scholastic institutions, non-governmental organizations, corporate leaders, and others. These think tanks then can produce standards and best practices to follow. As Sahlin provides an awareness of these happenings and gives examples of how numerous organization join in these groups and effect change. Too often it is heard, “I didn’t even know it was