BF2S Forums Corporate Responsibility

In practice, profit is really the only thing that corporations care about, aside from maintaining and gaining market share.

It would be nice if societal betterment were a corporate ideal, but sadly, few corporations support such things.

A lot of them like to fake it though....  (see the Red scam for a good example of this)

They dont, but anyone on a board should be moral obliged to not fuck things up for people just because of money.

Vilham wrote:

They dont, but anyone on a board should be moral obliged to not fuck things up for people just because of money.

So for example is Al Gore's pushing Apple Inc.,  who's board he is a member of,  to use more environmentally friendly components in their products and shipping an appropriate thing?  I'll admit if I was an Apple stockholder right now I wouldn't give a shit about paying a little extra for eco-friendly products while the stocks shoot through the roof thanks to the iphone, ipod, and huge upswings in new mac users, however, if they were really suffering to turn profits I might not be so enthusiastic about such reforms.

Last edited by cryptofcolumbus (2007-05-06 20:16:26)

If it is a publicly owned company, the primary responsibility of the corporation is to keep the value of its stocks high.  Traditionally, this is done by maintaining confidence in the value of its stocks by keeping profits up.  However, the value of their stocks, like all stocks, are illusionary, and only display the value other people place on it. 

If there was a proper atmosphere for the change, it is entirely possible for people to want to buy stocks based not only on profit, but on how 'enviromentally friendly' the company is.  It is not the coorperation you have to teach new methods to.  It is the people who buy the stocks.  The company will do whatever it needs to do to keep or raise the value of its stocks.  If the company feels that they can raise their stocks by being more green, the CEO and CFO will very well paint themselves green for another couple points.

imortal wrote:

If there was a proper atmosphere for the change, it is entirely possible for people to want to buy stocks based not only on profit, but on how 'enviromentally friendly' the company is.  It is not the coorperation you have to teach new methods to.  It is the people who buy the stocks.  The company will do whatever it needs to do to keep or raise the value of its stocks.  If the company feels that they can raise their stocks by being more green, the CEO and CFO will very well paint themselves green for another couple points.

Ok, I understand your point that sometimes social change can raise stock prices, but my question is should a company make reforms that are socially responsible even if it will hurt profits and stock prices?

So I'll go back to one of my original examples.  Should a company such as Nike, JC Penny, or any of the other sweat shop labor companies be good global citizens and move their production factories back to the U.S.?  Of course, paying someone $10/hour is worse for profits than paying someone else $1 or $2/hour, but I think most people would agree having those jobs in this country is better for America as a whole.  Should government step in and require them to produce goods here or hit them with much higher taxes?

cryptofcolumbus wrote:

So I'll go back to one of my original examples.  Should a company such as Nike, JC Penny, or any of the other sweat shop labor companies be good global citizens and move their production factories back to the U.S.?  Of course, paying someone $10/hour is worse for profits than paying someone else $1 or $2/hour, but I think most people would agree having those jobs in this country is better for America as a whole.  Should government step in and require them to produce goods here or hit them with much higher taxes?

Well, I don't think the government should step in on this particular case, but I do think American consumers could stand to care about more than just buying whatever is cheapest or from companies that exploit Third World nations.

In the end, consumers have more influence than anyone else.  For example, if the average American really cared more about these things, they would buy American made products only -- except for items that aren't made here at all.

cryptofcolumbus wrote:

Is the sole responsibility of a publicly owned corporation to return the highest profit to its shareholders?  Do major corporations have a responsibility to use their power to create a better world for us to live in?  For example should a clothing company that makes its clothes in Asia pay their workers a livable wage even though it is not breaking any laws not to do so?  More so, should an American company keep it's jobs in America at the expense of profits to help our middle and lower class workers find jobs?

I am fairly new and I searched a little to see if this topic had already been discussed but I didn't see anything, bu if it has then my bad.

/discuss


edit-spelling

1. Yes
2. No
3. Depends - am I asian?
4. No

Research - see global competition.

cryptofcolumbus wrote:

Is the sole responsibility of a publicly owned corporation to return the highest profit to its shareholders?  Do major corporations have a responsibility to use their power to create a better world for us to live in?  For example should a clothing company that makes its clothes in Asia pay their workers a livable wage even though it is not breaking any laws not to do so?  More so, should an American company keep it's jobs in America at the expense of profits to help our middle and lower class workers find jobs?

I am fairly new and I searched a little to see if this topic had already been discussed but I didn't see anything, bu if it has then my bad.

/discuss


edit-spelling

First and foremost, yes. It is the not just the sole responsibility of a company, it is the very raison d'etre of its being.

Second, no, they don't have that responsibility. However, the products they produce often fufill that role. I personally think that large, widescreen TV's make my world better to live in. As do the guys that invented, say, cell phones. They make my world better.

Now, you talk about a living wage. I would argue that the reason companies succeed when moving their production overseas is that they present jobs that pay more than whatever those workers did before they went to work at that factory. Just because they're making a dollar an hour doesn't make it not a living wage. People wouldn't work at the factories if they could find a better, higher paying job elsewhere. Hell, in Thailand, you can have a very nice dinner for around $6. That's 6 hours of work at $1 an hour. Here, a nice dinner will set me back $75 bucks. If I'm making $10 an hour, that's 7.5 hours of work. They might be better off than I.

Finally, no, they shouldn't keep their jobs in the US at the expense of profits. And I'll never understand this argument. We have lots of jobs here. We just expect you to work for them. Sure, the days of a high school dropout going to work for GM at $30 an hour are over. Our economy is changing. Education is important. There will always be a market for skilled labor. Hell, look at electricians. Those guys make $60 an hour. And you don't have to have a degree to be an electrician.

In this country, you will rise to the limits of your abilities, and fall to the limits of your laziness.

There is and should be no such thing as corporate responsibility. It should be the job of the government to address issues arising from corporate 'irresponsibility'.