Although Vaz’s (2014, May 14) earlier paper focuses on the modern awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), it seems to be biased, clearly avoiding the ill-effects of corporate branding of CSR, as the friendly new face of capitalism. This paper concentrates on the indirect impacts of CSR, such as increased prices on common consumer goods like organic foods, etc.
In an attempt to answer a new question, “Is Corporate Social Responsibility a myth?” this paper also tries to evaluate what Poruthiyil (2013) eloquently states:
Throughout their long history, business ethicists have been aware that theorizations intending to address societal goals can be rendered ineffectual when ...view middle of the document...
With reference to the examples such as expensive “organic foods,” that seem to imply that the corporation is socially and environmentally responsible, Gasper reminds the readers that, CSR should be critically evaluated, especially where the ability or willingness to pay would exclude a significant section of the population, for instance in access to education, health or the creation of green zones (as cited in Poruthiyil, 2013).
Why is CSR sometimes a myth?
Poruthiyil, (2013) informs the reader that, there are complexities involved in furthering the business objectives in contexts, that are characterized by daunting combinations of resource scarcity, nationalism, ethnic and religious tensions, and pressing needs.
Lorenzo-Molo (2009) cites Neron and Norman to point out that without ethics, CSR sometimes becomes a myth; Maximiano (2006) reminds corporate leadership and management that CSR assumes that practitioners are ethical.
Drydyk, Penz et al., and Goulet state that an important theme in development ethics is a forthright endorsement of those forms of development that offers weaker sections within communities an opportunity to define societal goals and move beyond them if needed (as cited in Poruthiyil, 2013).
Even though Maximiano (2006) is very critical of certain CSR implementations, he conveys the same message as Madrakhimova (2013); he clearly avoids subduing the euphoria surrounding the much needed panacea to modern business trust (as per Khurana, 2012):
CSR, as it should be defined and practiced, is 'business decision-making that is based on ethical values, compliance with legal standards, and solicitude for human dignity, communities, the environment, and other stakeholders of business'. (As cited in Lorenzo-Molo, 2009)
A few lines from Poruthiyil (2013) sum up the larger purpose of CSR and they add perspective to Hart’s (2008)...