I think they are inseparable in this respect.

From my understanding of the bible, as a Christian, I should seek to honor god in all of my life, personal and corporate.

Fortunately, as I see it, honoring my obligations to all relevant stakeholders is rarely in conflict with my objective to conduct my professional life in a manner which is honorable to god. Indeed, I see the act of honoring obligations to others (within certain boundaries) as also being an act of honoring the lord.

Cheers

Andrew

I’m glad to hear that you are enjoying this series.

In regards to the direction of this series, (this applies to all readers) if you have a particular topic in mind which you would like to see covered, then please let me know and I will try to include it.

Otherwise, the remainder of the series will include discussion on:

(1) The advantages and disadvantages of corporate participation in social projects as opposed to mere corporate donations; (2 posts)

(2) The role of governments in promoting ethical business behavior; (1 post)

(3) Why ethical consumerism is not as significant as many believe promoting responsible corporate behavior; and

(4) Some basic principles toward designing, implementing and managing effective CSR policies.

It’s interesting to hear perspectives from outside the corporate world as to the question of accountability. As I am a Christian, from my own personal perspective, I see myself as being primarily accountable to god first and foremost. After that I see myself as being accountable to a range of others, including family, students & colleages (in my role as a teacher), friends and society at large.

At a corporate level, on one view, managers are responsible first and foremost to their employers, the shareholders. However, others take a broader veiw of management responsibility. Since management are custodians of societies productive resources, perhaps their primary responsibility should be the broader interests of society.

Cheers

Andrew

Andrews last blog post..Corporate Social Responsibility part 5: The case for community business partnerships

so there is this viewpoint that managers are primarily responsible to shareholders. and it’s an interesting point of view.

a few times a week, i work with a very progressive (christian) organization, and we spend a lot of time reflecting on our work. the other day we did an exercise where we each answered the question, “to whom are we accountable?” we had varying interpretations of what it means to be accountable. we also each came up with a list of at least 12 entities, and many of them were different. many of us observed that we were firstly accountable to god an ourselves.

isabella moris last blog post..meditation on a wordless wednesday

Welcome to my blog and thanks kindly for your comment.

I will be very interested to look at your research. As a matter of fact, I am currently preparing a short series of discussions relating to Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), which will immediately follow the current series. So I look forward to reading about your thoughts and insights into the topic.

Cheers

Andrew

See my ethical investing/CSR research page for info at http://investingforthesoul.com/Main%20Pages/ethical-investing-CSR-research-studies.htm#Ethical-Investing

Best wishes, Ron Robins

I suspect that in many cases, ‘Soft’ factors are not given their true weight in business case considerations.

Participation in effectively managed social projects has a range of potential benefits for the company over the long term, and such ‘Soft’ factors cannot be captured in bottom line accounting numbers, particularly over the short term, and so some managers may be tempted to sacrifice such considerations in decision making.

However difficult as it is, ‘soft’ factors should be given their due weight business case considerations, and managers must be willing to make subjective judgement about the long term value of such considerations.

Brad,

In many cases, refraining from certain activities is just as important, if not more important, for a company’s reputation as positive actions such as corporate donations or participation in social projects.

Banks should refuse to lend to certain clientele (e.g. drug dealers), manufacturers of alcoholic beverages should not market to underage drinkers, automobile manufactures should not glorify fast speeding in their advertisements .. and so on and so on. In cases where companies do not refrain from certain unethical practices, then all the corporate donations or social projects in the world will probably not help them.

About your point of the company being doomed unless all stakeholders are considered, I don’t think any critics of CSR would argue with you there. The long term impact upon all stakeholders should ultimately figure in business case considerations.

I think what critics are driving are cases where the long term expected long term business benefits from the donations or social projects concerned are insufficient to justify the company resources expended.

Cheers

Andrew