Klonoski’s Approaches
Klonoski had identified four approaches to corporate social responsibilities which are fundamentalism, social institutions (social institutionalism), moral personhood and moral agency (moralism), and other approaches to corporate social responsibilities (Carter & Burritt, n.d.).
“…… In an effort to defuse some of this complexity, I will present an overview of this debate and attempt to sort out the various approaches taken towards determining the responsibilities of business institutions to the broader society. I will also try to group these diverse approaches to CSR within “camps” and make some general observations about the foundations of the debate itself……” (Klonoski, 1991).
The first approach is fundamentalism, it also known as neo-classicism. Klonoski claimed that the corporations do not have any social responsibilities. Even though the corporate have the social responsibilities but it only limited on the payment of taxes and provision of employment (Klonoski, 1991). Yet, Friedman stated that the corporate conduct the social responsibility is to satisfy the owners or shareholders desires to make money (Friedman, 1970). The general rules of society for economic environments are business operate in the free market, geographical regions and …show more content…
The foundation of Corporate Social Responsibility must understand the large part of the company characteristics and how far the “responsibilities” actions can be extent. Once it is established, the corporations will had the ability to “action” and action by a natural person. For those who had adopted the method to determine the CSR argues that the corporations can be morally culpable in the same or very similar way to that natural person (Klonoski, 1991). So, the corporate social responsibilities may concluding whether the corporations are “moral agents”, or full-fledged the “moral
Klonoski had identified four approaches to corporate social responsibilities which are fundamentalism, social institutions (social institutionalism), moral personhood and moral agency (moralism), and other approaches to corporate social responsibilities (Carter & Burritt, n.d.).
“…… In an effort to defuse some of this complexity, I will present an overview of this debate and attempt to sort out the various approaches taken towards determining the responsibilities of business institutions to the broader society. I will also try to group these diverse approaches to CSR within “camps” and make some general observations about the foundations of the debate itself……” (Klonoski, 1991).
The first approach is fundamentalism, it also known as neo-classicism. Klonoski claimed that the corporations do not have any social responsibilities. Even though the corporate have the social responsibilities but it only limited on the payment of taxes and provision of employment (Klonoski, 1991). Yet, Friedman stated that the corporate conduct the social responsibility is to satisfy the owners or shareholders desires to make money (Friedman, 1970). The general rules of society for economic environments are business operate in the free market, geographical regions and …show more content…
The foundation of Corporate Social Responsibility must understand the large part of the company characteristics and how far the “responsibilities” actions can be extent. Once it is established, the corporations will had the ability to “action” and action by a natural person. For those who had adopted the method to determine the CSR argues that the corporations can be morally culpable in the same or very similar way to that natural person (Klonoski, 1991). So, the corporate social responsibilities may concluding whether the corporations are “moral agents”, or full-fledged the “moral