Introduction

The term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to business activities and policies intended to impact society positively. Two viewpoints are accepted to help an enterprise’s ethical commitment: broader and narrower views. The narrow view limits an enterprise’s ethical commitment to its proprietors and investors. In contrast, the broad view, which is often used to help “Corporate Social Responsibility” drives, stretches out its ethical commitment to others past its dividers to incorporate all partners, the climate where it works, etc. (Garas & ElMassah, 2018, p. 2). The narrower point of view, otherwise called the investor approach, can be expressed as follows: an organization’s responsibility is to boost benefit while clinging to the guidelines of the game, which incorporate observing the law, holding fast to “moral custom,” and acting without duplicity or untrustworthiness.

The partner approach, otherwise called the broad view, centres on the prosperity of critical partners, including customers, providers, labourers, and investors, just as optional partners like society, government, and worker’s guilds. It suggests that organizations are liable for something other than producing a benefit (Cho, 2020, p.4). As a result of the corporation’s continuous needs, the company tends to take a larger perspective with well-supported arguments. It should be argued that corporations lack expertise. It indicates that businesses cannot engage in “Corporate Social Responsibility” because they lack skilled workers in “Corporate Social Responsibility” in their operations. Moreover, government must be compelled to perform its duties. In this respect, the behaviour of huge businesses may be controlled and monitored by a powerful government because, in general, companies are profit-driven and cannot be trusted to look after the interests of their stakeholders.

Advocating the Broad View as the CEO

CSR has now become a fundamental component of competitiveness and corporate survival. It has evolved into a strategic choice that is frequently approved following a cost-benefit study. As the CEO of a major corporation with many stakeholders, I would adopt a broader perspective of “Corporate Social Responsibility”. If the limited approach is used, most of the stakeholders’ rights would be neglected (Carroll & Brown, 2018, p.1). The broad perspective appears to be backed by rational egoism in that it depicts a corporation’s involvement with individuals outside of its fortress to improve corporate performance, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as its rising worries. This is the most reliable way for business owners and investors to pool their resources.

To be sure, the central rationale of “Corporate Social Responsibility” strategies, as supported by the broad view, reverberates with the central precepts of the restricted view, as in all friendly intercession, programmes, but by implication, are methods of improving the monetary execution and supportability of organizations that work for the general public’s improvement; no business will run on its disadvantage (Apospori, 2018, p. 3). CSR influences the society we live in and helps develop a healthy community, but it can also be used as part of a successful company plan. It establishes a critical ethical stance in which members are held accountable for carrying out their public responsibilities.

It is evident from the debate that “Corporate Social Responsibility” is not altruistic in the broad sense. Instead, the big picture looks to be an excellent strategy for investor profit maximization. It is clear from the preceding explanation that major and active CSR benefits not just society but also the firm, workers, and government (Alakent, Goktan, &Khoury, 2020, p5). As a result, CSR should be regarded one of the company’s core principles and values, and this idea would make organisations even more accountable by putting less pressure on the authorities.

Ethical Theory to Support the Position

The broader view of CSR should be supported from the perspective of the utilitarian ethical theory. This is primarily because the broader view of CSR entails the greatest number of stakeholders and ensures the greatest good for them, which is the primary tenet of the utilitarian ethical theory. Greatest good for the greatest number of people that constitutes the primary objective of the consequentialist theory of utility assumes any action to be ethical if that consequence of such action eventually embodies benefits for the greatest number of stakeholders to the action (Robertson & Walter, 2007). The ethical theory of utilitarianism promotes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people and it aims at, in the social and political contexts specifically, bringing about betterment for every member of the society (Robertson & Walter, 2007). As a reason-based ethical approach, categorized under the consequentialist genre of ethical theories, the utilitarian ethical theory determines right or wrong in an action on the basis of the consequences it renders. From this perspective, when analyzed, it can be seen that the utilitarian theory of ethics gives more importance to the end than to the means and hence, the consequence of an action, within the framework of utility, is given more importance than the action, irrespective of its nature. In this regard, utilitarianism is an antithesis to deontological theory of ethics, which gives more importance to the means than the end and hence, put much emphasis on the rightness or wrongness of an action than its consequences. Jeremy Bentham, the progressive British philosopher and a jurist of the Enlightenment period is considered to be the father of utilitarianism and in his philosophy the inception of the notion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to be found (Robertson & Walter, 2007).

Now, coming to the context of applying the broader view of CSR in action, as the CEO, I must convey that this choice is rational and in through alignment with the ethical theory of utilitarianism. This should be argued by citing the fact that the broader view of CSR advocates inclusiveness. The broad view centres on the prosperity of the stakeholders, including customers, providers, labourers, and investors, just as optional partners like society, government, and worker’s guilds. In this respect, it has to be taken into account that the broader view of CSR should be implemented to ensure that the well-being of all the stakeholders, the partners, the climate, and the environment with and in which a business performs is ensured in a thorough and explicit manner and this is essential to contribute to the emergence of an egalitarian society where businesses act as facilitators to the equitable distribution of social, economic, and natural resources. This resonates with the basic tenets of utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham initially, which entailed the notion that all social and moral government legislation should be meant for producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people and hence, the purpose of every act of a government should be to improve the lives of the majority of citizenry (Robertson & Walter, 2007). This objectivity of utilitarianism is thoroughly embodied by the broader view of CSR and that is the pivotal reason why the application of the ethical theory of utilitarianism justifies the application of the broader view of CSR. And that is one primary reason why it can be argued that the choice made in terms of selecting the broad view of CSR in practice is rational because It is backed by rational egoism. It demonstrates a business organization’s involvement with individuals outside of its domain to improve corporate performance, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as its rising worries.

References

Apospori, E. (2018). Regional CSR policies and SMEs’ CSR actions: Mind the gap — The case of the tourism SMEs in Crete. Sustainability, 10(7), 2197.
Alakent, E., Goktan, M.S., & Khoury, T.A. (2020). Is venture capital socially responsible? Exploring the imprinting effect of VC funding on CSR practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(3), 106005.
Carroll, A. B., & Brown, J. A. (2018). Corporate social responsibility: A review of current concepts, research, and issues. Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved July 6, 2021, from https://www.academia.edu/download/57153739/CarrollBrownCh2_2018.pdf
Cho, C. H. (2020). CSR accounting ‘new wave’ researchers ‘step up to the plate’… or ‘stay out of the game’. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(4), 626-650.
Garas, S., & ElMassah, S. (2018). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: The case of GCC countries. Critical perspectives on international business.
Robertson, M., & Walter, G. (2007). A Critical Reflection on Utilitarianism as the Basis for Psychiatric Ethics. JEMH, 2(1), 1-4.