4 ms·

The social responsibility of a private company is actually very straightforward. It is to make a decent product, which does what it says it will, and isn’t dang

The social responsibility of a private company is actually very straightforward. It is to make a decent product, which does what it says it will, and isn’t dangerous in any unexpected way. It is to charge a fair price. It is to honour its contracts. And it is to pay its staff and suppliers on time – and, within reason, to pay its taxes promptly as well. If it can do all of those things, and do them well, it is already making a hugely responsible contribution to society. While I do agree with this premise, I also believe that most, especially here in the US, would recoil from a company that declares a limited CSR. The common mentality would probably be: "Those fatcats should be using a sliver of their mountains of money to help humanity!" What's interesting is that once you've popularized, formalized and then legislated CSR... what would would have is a set of regulations. In my view, the pressure on corporations to bullshit CSR has everything to do with our collective absence-of-faith in regulations/public sector: "The government will just screw the system up even more if they take more money. But this sneaker company is super amazing at making sneakers: surely some of that ingenuity will translate into the betterment of our society!" Needless to say, smartness in one area is not smartness in all, and the person who is focused on business is not necessarily going to deploy her or his best efforts on doing what is essentially the government's job. Summarized by Larry Ellison (I can't believe I'm quoting him): "A corporation's primary goal is to make money. Government's primary role is to take a big chunk of that money and give it to others."

evolve2k 11y ago
I agree with your assessment on limited CSR and think this is just a poorly written article. The logic flaw here is the categorization of CSR as somehow separate to the scandal. The reason there is a scandal is because the company has failed in its basic responsibility to society. The article raises a very limited definition of responsibility which by application would actually imply that no wrong doing had occurred. The authority of the article contained within the line "The social responsibility of a private company..". Is actually the journalist just quoting their own words from two sentences down as a means of reinforcement. The fact that the journalist thought it appropriate to quote themselves on their own opinion piece makes this whole piece especially dubious.
grecy 11y ago
>The social responsibility of a private company .. is to charge a fair price. . (And I believe implicitly it's to make a decent profit) I believe that statement is reminiscent of a world that no longer exists. While this may have been true in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, it's simply not true of the world anymore. No company charges a "fair" price anymore. The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. The price a consumer pays has been maximized to "whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay". Similarly for making a "decent" profit - companies did this for years, even decades, and each year they were expected to make more profit than the previous year. Now, the expectations are completely out of control. That's why when a Bank or big company "only" make billions in profit it can be called a failure.
- gwright 11y ago
  > The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. So what? Never mind that any viable company has to charge more than the 'cost to manufacture', unless there is coercion or fraud involved, an agreed to price by the buyer and seller is automatically a legitimate price for that buyer and seller, otherwise they wouldn't have come to an agreement. Obviously a different buyer might think differently, but that doesn't change the legitimacy of someone else's transaction.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > No company charges a "fair" price anymore. The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. The price a consumer pays has been maximized to "whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay". Yeah, that's true, but hasn't it been always? "Whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay" is pretty much the definition of "price" in Econ 101.

evolve2k 11y ago

I agree with your assessment on limited CSR and think this is just a poorly written article. The logic flaw here is the categorization of CSR as somehow separate to the scandal. The reason there is a scandal is because the company has failed in its basic responsibility to society. The article raises a very limited definition of responsibility which by application would actually imply that no wrong doing had occurred. The authority of the article contained within the line "The social responsibility of a private company..". Is actually the journalist just quoting their own words from two sentences down as a means of reinforcement. The fact that the journalist thought it appropriate to quote themselves on their own opinion piece makes this whole piece especially dubious.

grecy 11y ago

>The social responsibility of a private company .. is to charge a fair price. . (And I believe implicitly it's to make a decent profit) I believe that statement is reminiscent of a world that no longer exists. While this may have been true in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, it's simply not true of the world anymore. No company charges a "fair" price anymore. The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. The price a consumer pays has been maximized to "whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay". Similarly for making a "decent" profit - companies did this for years, even decades, and each year they were expected to make more profit than the previous year. Now, the expectations are completely out of control. That's why when a Bank or big company "only" make billions in profit it can be called a failure.

gwright 11y ago
> The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. So what? Never mind that any viable company has to charge more than the 'cost to manufacture', unless there is coercion or fraud involved, an agreed to price by the buyer and seller is automatically a legitimate price for that buyer and seller, otherwise they wouldn't have come to an agreement. Obviously a different buyer might think differently, but that doesn't change the legitimacy of someone else's transaction.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> No company charges a "fair" price anymore. The price a consumer pays for a product is entirely divorced from the cost to manufacture said product. The price a consumer pays has been maximized to "whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay". Yeah, that's true, but hasn't it been always? "Whatever consumers are willing (and able) to pay" is pretty much the definition of "price" in Econ 101.