Corporate Social Responsibility in USA

4

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Corporate Social Responsibilityin USA

Author’s Argument

CSR is a major concern ofcorporations, and an increasing global trend. David in his bookargues that the business leaders should be concerned about more thanprofit and loss, that they feel responsible to the society as a whole(David, 2009, p.689). The creed allows companies to be responsive tothe impact of their activities to the environment by mitigating theimpacts in the most environmentally friendly approach.

CSR, as the author suggests, hasbecome a global concern, not only to corporations but to governmentsas well. As President Bush reiterates, CSR is a fundamental businessvalue, indeed a patriotic duty that corporations should embrace(689). William Ford further supports the author’s argument thatcompanies could be and should be the major driving force forresolving environmental and social concerns in the 21stcentury.

Persuasive Strategies Used

The main persuasion emanates fromthe conviction that the author is knowledgeable about the theme ofdiscussion. The author has shown mastery of both sides of an argumentand presenting each of them perfectly (689).

In addition, the author has adeep understanding of the audience he/she is communicating to. Byhaving this set knowledge, the writer did research their subjectmatter, and then presented the message in an interactive manner tothe audience (690).

Lastly, citing plausible sourceswas an ultimate conviction. The writer has used President Bush, McKinnell (Pfizer CEO), Ford (Ford CEO), among other businessintellectuals to support his/her argument (691).

The Persuasion of the Author’sScript

The first persuasion involves theuse of President Bush’s remarks on CSR – CSR is a fundamentalbusiness value, indeed a patriotic duty that corporations shouldembrace. The inclusion cements the author’s support of CSR becauseit is clear that despite other diverting opinions about the novelidea, the political elite are rallying behind the course.

The second persuasion involvesincluding large business corporation chairpersons and C.E.Oscommitment on the agenda. The introduction of Pfizer’s CEO, Mr. McKinnell’s corporate commitment bolsters the support of the author’sargument: the business leader affirms that Pfizer should do more thanjust make the cities safe (691).

The author uses websites as a wayof sharing corporations’ CSR agenda online to show theircommitment. This is good, especially for the image of a company, andmay have direct influence on its profitability.

Assumptions of the Argument

The first assumption involvesthe use of social morality as a method on effecting CSR. Most of thecorporations in the world are using CSR as a way to show their socialconcern, and not just their profit-making responsibility (693).

The second assumption involvesthe use of CSR as a way to show environmental responsibility. Ford’sCEO argues that corporations should be leaders in mitigatingenvironmental problems that mostly occur because of their activities(693). The argument is valid because in the contemporary world,corporations constitute over 75 percent of global environmentaldegradation activities.

The last assumption suggeststhat CSR is illegal, citing Milton Friedman’s professional belief.The renowned economist asserts that corporate should retain theirinitial objective that is making profit for its shareholders, and notengaging in CSRs (695).

Evaluation of Context

The context is very convincing,especially when the writer cites credible sources of reference tosupport his/her argument. The CSR has continued to take root in thecurrent business environment, as seen by the emergence of newinstitutions with a course specializing on CSR. However, the authorhas castigated the opposition side of the subject by taking sides onthe proponent direction.

The use of powerful referenceslike the respected economist, Mr. Milton Friedman to oppose theinitiative leaves more doubt about the credibility of CSR (693). Inaddition, the author has outlined parts of the law that governcorporate business as not supporting the move. The law recognizes thecorporate core mandate that is making profit, and CSR is an illegalentity.

In summary, the author leavesan open-ended question to the audience to make decision on theintegrity of CSR and whether companies are justified to partake it.

References

David, M. (2009). NavigatingAmerica: InformationCompetency and Research for the Twenty- First Century. McGraw-HillHigher Education.