Friday, March 27, 2020

Definition of Corporate and Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility refers to all the efforts made by an organization to satisfy the interests of the society and its stakeholders. An organization goes beyond the expectations of regulatory bodies to promote the social welfare of its stakeholders and the surrounding community.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Definition of Corporate and Social Responsibility specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Corporate Social Responsibility is not a profit making venture but a way of giving back to the society by guarding stakeholders’ interests. The benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility should trickle down to all the members in the community without any kind of discrimination. Corporate Social Responsibility should begin from within the organization where the welfare of employees is taken care of. Organizations are always under scrutiny by the, government public and other stakeholders with failure to parti cipate in activities that enhance the welfare of its customers, employees and the community at large dents its leading serious consequences. This essay will compare and contrast different Corporate Social Responsibility models used by organizations. The financial power exhibited by organizations means that the national economy of any country depends on their general input (Mallin, 2009). The surplus money that organizations have at their disposal should be used on funding environmental conservation and social welfare programs. The Social Corporate Responsibility concept is understood differently by different organizations. The Corporate Social Responsibility programs and initiatives are implemented using different models that depend on a company’s philosophy on Corporate Social Responsibility (Mallin, 2009). There is always a contention on how far organizations should go when trying to meet societal goals. Many Corporate Social Responsibility models used by organizations are normally integrated with the overall business model of the organization. Organizations are expected to comply with legal and ethical standards when carrying out corporate and social responsibilities. The pyramid of Social Corporate Responsibility is a graphic model that defines Corporate Social Responsibility in four parts. This broad definition has some similarities and differences with other Corporate Social Responsibility definitions (Mallin, 2009). The four facets of the Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid define and explain Social Corporate Responsibility from different perspectives.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The Corporate Social Responsibilities are very wide and this calls for a clear understanding of the four perspectives. The economic facet that represents all the economic responsibilities of an organization forms the base of the pyramid (Mallin, 2009). Or ganizations have shareholders that invest in them with an aim of getting returns from their investment. The economic facet ensures that shareholders do not lose their investments. Companies have the responsibility of ensuring that investors receive rightful dividends and investment returns on time. It is the responsibility of a company to come up with ways of making profits for investors to enjoy the benefits of their investment. The economic facet brings a new dimension to the definition of Corporate Social Responsibility because other definitions do not actually highlight the investors’ welfare (Bacher, 2007). A profitable company ensures continuous supply of important goods and services as well as the creation of employments opportunities for the unemployed. It is the responsibility of an organization to come up with the right strategies and systems in order to improve its revenues for the benefit of shareholders (Bacher, 2007). The second facet of the Corporate Social Res ponsibility pyramid is the legal facet. Organizations have the responsibility of obeying all the regulations that govern its operations. The company has to adhere to all the laws and regulations governing environmental conservation, employee protection, consumer protection and contractual agreements. The legal facet of the pyramid only focuses on the laid down regulations but does not mention the extra effort put in place by organizations beyond the normal legal requirements (Bacher, 2007). Organizations come up with extra initiatives to help the community which supersede the minimal legal requirements. It is important for organizations to adhere to all regulations because failure to do so puts the company at the risk of being shut down and in the process harming investors and employees (Bacher, 2007). The third facet of the Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid is the ethical facet.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Definition of Corporate and Social Responsi bility specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More All the activities of an organization should be just and fair without causing any harm to employees, consumers and the environment. It is the responsibility of an organization to observe the law and demonstrate ethical leadership for the benefit of all stakeholders (Bacher, 2007). Examples of an organization’s ethical responsibilities include waste management, genuine advertisements and how the employees are treated within the organization. It is also ethical for an organization to provide good working conditions for its employees. The ethical facet emphasizes the fact that Corporate Social Responsibility should begin from within the organization as it spreads to the community (Bacher, 2007). The fourth and final facet of the Corporate Social Responsibility is the philanthropic facet. This is the facet that is highlighted in almost all models of Corporate Social Responsibility. According to the philanthropic facet, it is the responsibility of organizations to commit its financial and human resources towards improving the quality of life in the community (Anderson, 1989). Some of the programs that organizations support under the philanthropic facet include health programs, educational programs, civic programs and volunteer programs (Anderson, 1989). The four facets of Social Corporate Responsibility have critical tensions among themselves (Anderson, 1989). There is a strong relationship between the economic facet and the philanthropic facet because the financial position of an organization determines whether it will participate in philanthropic programs or not. Philanthropic initiatives require finances and it becomes difficult for an organization that is struggling financially to sponsor philanthropic initiatives.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The economic and legal facets are dependent on each other since it is difficult for an organization to operate and make profits without having complied with all the laws and regulations (Anderson, 1989). All the components of the Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid are very important in the general running of an organization. The corporate Social Responsibility pyramid forms the basis on which different models are built upon. The similarities between the various Corporate Social Responsibility models are many compared to differences (Bacher, 2007). The objectives of Corporate Social Responsibility are very similar regardless of the model adopted by an organization. It is important to conduct a feasibility study before choosing the type of Corporate Social Responsibility model to use in a particular community. The two most common models are the constituency and the sustainability model (Bacher, 2007). The constituency model classifies an organization into different groups that ha ve similar interests. The company management should work hard to ensure the interests of each group are satisfied. Some of the constituencies under the constituency model include shareholders, employees, consumers, creditors and the outside community (Bacher, 2007). This model can lead to conflicts if an organization satisfies the interests of one group and fails to consider other groups. The interests of shareholders and non-shareholders should be considered in a company’s Corporate Social Responsibility strategies (Bacher, 2007). A company that focuses on making a lot of profits without giving its employees fair remunerations is bound to have conflicts. The idea of splitting an organization into constituencies is what makes this model to be very unique compared to other models (Schwartz, 2011). The Sustainability model takes a different approach by advocating for economic sustainability for the successful implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. Accord ing to the sustainability model, an organization should have long-term strategies to ensure it maintains profitability on a long-term basis (Schwartz, 2011). An organization’s future depends on the economic sustainability of the organization. The well-being of stakeholders is key to an organization’s sustainability. In conclusion, Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives are aimed at ensuring the interests of all stakeholders are satisfied. Corporate Social Responsibility is a way through which an organization can give back to the society. The Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid consists of four fundamental components that are necessary for a company to be fully operational (Schwartz, 2011). Corporate social Responsibility models may have different approaches but the goals and objectives are almost similar. The sustainability and constituency models are the two major models that organizations use when implementing Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. The Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid broadens the definition of Corporate Social Responsibility definition to include the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic components. Corporate Social Responsibility Definitions have many similarities compared to differences because the goals and objectives are almost similar regardless of the model or approach a particular organization adopts. References Anderson, J., (1989). Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidelines for top management. New York, NY: ABC-CLIO. Bacher, C., (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility. New York, NY: GRIN Verlag. Mallin, C. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: A case study approach. New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing. Schwartz, M., (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: An ethical approach. New York, NY: Broadview Press. This essay on Definition of Corporate and Social Responsibility was written and submitted by user Haley Pennington to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Friday, March 6, 2020

Critique for ‘Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching The WritePass Journal

Critique for ‘Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching Introduction Critique for ‘Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching IntroductionDo the authors have the capability to write this thesis?Methodology: is the methodology used able to make a persuasive case?ConclusionBibliographyRelated Introduction Do the authors have the capability to write this thesis? Yes the authors have the capability to write on this thesis; they have the academic experience to make authoritative claims on accounting education. Gray, et al. (1994) have passed their views across based on extensive research and personal experience. Gray, et al. (1994) won the British Accounting Association Special Interest Group Manuscript Award for writing this paper. Rob Gray the main author of this paper is now a Professor of Social and Environmental Accounting Director of the Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research at St Andrews has authored/co-authored over 250 books, monographs, chapters and articles (University of St Andrews School of Management website, 2011). Issues raised by Gray, et al. (1994) in ‘Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: educating for immorality and a possible case for social and environmental accounting education’ An issue raised in this paper is that despite the current success of current accounting there is still evidence of ethical and intellectual failure among accounting practitioners (Gray, et al., 1994). The immediate blame is on the accounting educators as they have seen evidence that accounting education fails to develop students’ intellectual and ethical maturity (Gray, et al., 1994). According to Gray, et al. (1994) educators do not seem to understand the consequences of not having ethics as a core content of an accounting degree; hence graduates are not prepared for employment as an accounting trainee. Along with personal experience and evidence they got from (Sterling 1973, Lehman 1988, AECC 1990, Sikka 1987) Gray, et al. (1994) suggests that university teaching practise tends to be dominated by techniques acquisition. The inadequacy of university accounting education according to Gill, (1993) is the reason why graduates are neither practically trained individuals who canno t evaluate reason conceptualize and evaluate hence cannot be immediately used in the office (Gray, et al.,1994). Methodology: is the methodology used able to make a persuasive case? I will go through the methodology used by Gray, et al. (1994) also bringing in other academic research that agrees, and others that bring another perspective to the issues addressed. Gray, et al. (1994) looks at educational theory and accounting education and have discovered that accounting educators have paid emphasis to teaching method but accounting literature does not emphasize the learning theory in accounting education. They have looked into the work of Shute (1979) and Ainsworth and Plumlee (1992) where Blooms taxonomy of learning is used to look at accounting education and there is evidence that students are not encouraged to progress the levels of taxonomy and may reinforce lower levels of cognition (Gray, et al., 1994). Their findings suggest that accounting education does not make students reach the highest levels of cognition evaluation which involves making judgements on materials, information and method (Ainsworth and Plumbee, 1992 as cited in Gray, et al., 1994). Gray, et al., (1994) states that ideally accounting education should be at the deep approach/deep-elaborative/transforming/formal-operational but instead it is perceived to be on a low level of Entwiste, et al., (1992) adaptation of learning approaches surface; approach/shallow-reiterative/reproducing/concrete-operational. Gray, et al., (1994) have looked at Kohlberg’s levels of ethical development and discovered with backing including (Rest, 1974, 1987; Rohatyn, 1987) age, gender, childhood, background and years in education are the most favoured determinants of ethical maturity. I have found that some researchers even believe that it is too late to teach ethics at university stage and that ethics education does not necessarily translate to ethical behaviour (Bean and Bernadi, 2007).I have found evidence from Ameen, et al. (1996) who surveyed students in upper-level accounting courses in 4 large public American universities that suggests that female accounting students are more e thically sensitive than their male counterparts. Age and gender is another perspective that should be considered when looking at the future of ethics in accounting education. Gray, et al. (1994) find evidence that suggests that accounting education is only on the first two levels of Kohlberg’s level of ethical development which is ‘Heteronomous morality’ and ‘Individualism and instrumentalism’. Educators should be questioned as to why accounting education is not reaching the higher levels of Kohlberg’s. Without ethics in the core curriculum it is not likely that accounting education will ever contribute to ethical development or produce what is necessary for deep learning (Gray, et al., 1994).However I have found other measures of ethics in accounting education that Gray, et al. (1994) has not looked at such as the DIT and the Mach IV scale. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) is the primary measure of ethical concern and is in most accounting ethical research (Pope, 2005). Another measure of ethics is the Mach IV it is well-validated but is not commonly used in accounting ethics research (Pope, 2005). I have found evidence that suggests that accounting academics are less committed to ethics and ethical education is mostly restricted to discussion of professional codes of auditing courses whereas other professions like law and medicine have always had a long tradition of ethics courses (May,1994; Pallegrino, et al., 1990 as cited in Gunz and McCutcheon 1998). McNair and Milam (1993) who did a survey on 202 schools most of which were accredited by AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) found that although majority agreed that ethics should be covered more in accounting education only 8.3% believed it should be taught as a separate course. McNair and Milam (1993) study suggests that accounting education does make ethics significant, with the faculties who already incorporated ethics as part of another course only spending an average of 3.18 hours teaching it. Gray, et al. (1994) find results that reveal that business ethics courses are indeed present in some un dergraduate accounting degrees, and is still growing although at a negligible rate. More recent studies form Bernadi and Bean, (2005) even suggest a three-course system for teaching ethics in accounting education including a foundation course, a general business ethics course and a discipline specific course (Bean and Bernadi, 2007).Up until recent times it has been suggested by a number of researchers that the Anglo-American accounting education constrained approach to accounting and business education to maximising shareholders wealth has limited the supposed benefits of add-on courses in business ethics (Ferguson, et al., 2011). It has been suggested that the ethical lapses resulting in the scandals that embarrassed the accounting profession notably the Arthur Anderson and Enron scandal in 2002 may be as a result of students believing that cheating is an acceptable, and perhaps necessary, form of competition (Bean and Bernadi, 2007). I am happy to have found evidence that suggest s that post-Enron accounting university students are now more concerned about the corporate ethical structure of the firm they choose to work for (Esmond-Kiger, 2004). Loeb’s goals of accounting ethics education is used to show how ethics and morality can be educated in accounting education (Gray, et al., 1994).   Gray, et al., (1994) introduce three ways without any hierarchy of accessing wrongness or action ‘Cosequentionalism’, ‘Motivism’ and ‘Deontological’. Concentration of the accounting profession lies within Consequentionalism which assesses actions by reference to the utility they generate (Gray, et al., 1994). Possible Solutions to the issues raised by Gray et al, 1994 Gray, et al., (1994) suggests that the solution of issues they have raised may lie within social and environmental accounting which challenges much of the approach of traditional accounting education. They find that although the solution would be to incorporate ethics in accounting education the focus is also largely inseparable from (1) ethical responsibility of the teacher to seek maximum educational development in the student and (2) the apparent relationship between ethical and educational development (Gray, et al., 1994). I found evidence too that also suggests social and environmental accounting and alternative forms of accounting should be taught more to accounting students with the same level of emphasis as traditional accounting (Mathews, 1997).Students have resistance to social and environmental accounting because they do not find it to be immediately relevant and it is seen to be about ‘what accounting is not’ and ‘what accounting can be’ as oppos ed to ‘what accounting is’ (Gray, et al., 1994). I have read Webber (1990) who gives evidence that some ACCSB schools have already responded to these challenges by offering business ethics courses and the reason why more business schools may be failing to introduce ethics to their curriculum is because academic literature has failed to evaluate the effectiveness of the courses. Another possible solution to the issues raised by Gray, et al. (1994) that has not been considered in this paper is that there should be more literature that show backed up evidence that ethics in accounting education produces graduates that are more intellectually and ethically capable in their accounting trainee jobs. Conclusion Despite the extensive research Gray, et al, (1994) questions are left unanswered and the paper is concluded in an inconclusive way asking more questions to themselves and other accounting educators. After reading this paper and understanding the issues raised and evaluating the possible case for social and environmental education and other views from academic research I have read I have one questions for Gray, et al. (1994): With Professional Accounting Bodies like ACCA having ethics courses as a requirement to become a qualified accountant is it fair to still blame the accounting university education for the ethical and intellectual failures among accounting practitioners? Bibliography *Gray, R, Bebbington, J, McPhail, K, 1994 Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: educating for immorality and the possible case for social and environmental accounting’ Accounting Education 3 (1), 51-75 ACCA, 2011 Professional Qualification, Business Ethics Course Description [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 March 2011] Adkins. N., Radtke, R.R., 2004 Students’ and Faculty Members’ Perceptions of the Importance of Business Ethics and Accounting Ethics Education: Is There an Education Gap? Journal of Business Ethics 51: 279-300 Ameen, E.C., Guffey, D.M., McMillan, J.J., 1996 Gender Differences in Determining the Ethical sensitivity of Future Accounting Professionals. Journal of Business Ethics   15:   591-597 Bean, D.F., Bernardi R.A., 2007 Ethics Education in our Colleges and Universities: A Positive Role for Accounting Practitioners. Journal of Academic Ethics 5:59–75 Bean, D.F., Bernardi R.A., 2006 Ethics in Accounting Education: The Forgotten Stakeholders. The CPA Journal [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 March 11] Esmond-Kiger, C, 2004 Making ethics a pervasive component of accounting education. Management Accounting Quarterly [online] Available at:;col1 [Accessed 12 March 2011] Ferguson, J, Collison, D, Power, D, Stevenson, L, 2011 Accounting Education, Socialisation and the Ethics of Business. Business Ethics: A European Review [e-journal] 20 (1) 12-29 Available through: Wiley online library [Accessed 12 March 2011] Gunz, S., McCutheon, J., 1998 Are Academics Committed to Accounting Ethics Education? Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1145-115 McNair, F., Milam, E.E., 1993 Ethics in Accounting Education: What is Really Being Done. Journal of Business Ethics 12: 797-80 McPhail, K, 2001 The Other Objective of Ethics Education: Rehumanising the Accounting Profession. A Study of Ethics Education in Law, Engineering, Medicine Accountancy. Journal of Business Ethics 34: 279-29 Mathews, M.R., (1997) â€Å"Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 10 (4), 481-531 Pope, K.L., 2005 Measuring The Ethical Propensities Of Accounting Students: Mach IV Versus DIT. Journal of Academic Ethics (2005) 3: 89-111 University of St Andrews Management School 2011 [online] Available at: [Accessed: 12 March 2011] Weber, J, 1990 Measuring the Impact of Teaching Ethics to Future Managers: A Review, Assessment, and Recommendations. Journal of Business Ethics 9: 183-190