Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

Microsoft is one of the successful corporations making profits. By the close of the financial year ending December 2023, Microsoft Inc. made $42.397 in profits, representing a 20.24% yearly profit increase. The company sells electronic devices, software, cloud systems, and services, among other products. The profits generated by Microsoft support its expansion strategy in terms of services, workforce, and global entry. In particular, the company uses its profits to enhance technological research. For instance, the company’s research initiatives have come in handy in supporting technological innovations in healthcare and disaster response. By undertaking these initiatives, Microsoft enhances societal welfare by using profits to implement technological initiatives for social good.

The case above can be used to argue against expecting corporations that make profits to engage in corporate social responsibility. First, Microsoft is doing what it does best: making profits and excelling economically (Brusseau, 2011). Once the company makes these profits, the money does not disappear into the pockets of the super-rich. Instead, the company reinvests the profits into expanding its portfolio, thus creating new job openings. Besides, increased revenue translates into increased security for the current job holders. As corporations become more successful, they grant more freedom to their workers, positively contributing to society’s well-being.

Furthermore, Microsoft’s success as a business means that consumers are also doing well. The company does not generate profits through luck but by delivering quality products and services (Brusseau, 2011). Microsoft improves its clients’ quality of life by offering great products. For Microsoft to continue delivering quality products and services, it should be left to compete as freely as possible with other companies. To that end, tying the company’s revenue to CSR initiatives may lead to Microsoft not offering quality products and services.

Regarding the company’s contribution to the general public, concentrating on its bottom line will enhance its positive contribution to society. As the company focuses on its bottom line, it makes more profits and creates jobs, increasing government tax remittances (Brusseau, 2011). A government is the entity most suited to engage in public. The most Microsoft can hope for is that the elected officials will manage the resources it remits to improve the welfare of the general public.

In summary, corporations like Microsoft should not be expected to contribute to CSR initiatives unless they do so out of free will. As stated, business companies improve society’s welfare by creating jobs. Besides, they enhance the public good by delivering quality products and services. Another argument against the CSR obligation is that companies already contribute through tax remittances.

Reference

Brusseau, J. (2011). The Business Ethics Workshop, v. 1.0. Flat World Knowledge. Retrieved.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

2-3 paragraph response. What is an example of a company doing good by doing well is, making profits—and for that reason improving the general welfare? How can the example be converted into an argument against the theory of the corporation as having social responsibilities?

Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

A meaningful response is needed from at least two of your peers. It is required that you make your initial post by Weds at 11:59 pm.