viernes , enero 27 2023
Inicio / Social and Legal Obligation

Social and Legal Obligation

The pyramid should be considered sustainable because these responsibilities represent long-term commitments that also extend to future generations of stakeholders. While the pyramid can be seen as a static snapshot of responsibilities, it should be seen as a dynamic and adaptable framework whose content focuses on both the present and the future. Taking into account stakeholders and sustainability is now inextricably linked to CSR. In fact, some calls have been made in the literature to redefine CSR as the responsibility of corporate stakeholders, and others have advocated corporate responsibility for sustainability. These calls underscore the intimacy of these interrelated issues. In addition, Ethical Corporation Magazine, which focuses on CSR in its Responsible Summit conferences, integrates these two topics – CSR and sustainability – as if they were one, and in fact, many companies today perceive them in this way; In other words, being socially responsible means investing in the importance of sustainability, which is implicitly linked to the future. The company`s annual social performance reports are often referred to as CSR and/or sustainability reports, but their content does not differ from each other. In other words, the concepts are used interchangeably by many. The CSR pyramid needs to be seen from the perspective of stakeholders, focusing on the whole rather than the individual parts. The CSR pyramid states that companies must make decisions, actions, policies and practices that simultaneously address all four components.

The pyramid should not be interpreted to mean that companies are supposed to assume their social responsibilities sequentially and hierarchically, starting from the bottom up. Rather, companies are expected to assume all their responsibilities at the same time. The positioning or order of the four categories of responsibility is intended to represent the fundamental or fundamental character of these four categories for the existence of companies in society. As already mentioned, economic and legal responsibilities are required; Ethical and philanthropic responsibility is expected and desired. The presentation presented is therefore that full corporate social responsibility implies the simultaneous fulfillment of the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility of the company. Expressed in the form of an equation, it would be: Economic responsibility + Legal responsibility + Ethical responsibility + Philanthropic responsibility = Total corporate social responsibility. In more practical and managerial terms, the CSR-focused company should strive to make profits, abide by the law, apply ethical practices and be a good corporate citizen. Seen from this angle, the pyramid is considered as a unified or integrated whole. One measure of success in today`s world is corporate social responsibility.

As a manager, you integrate corporate social responsibility (CSR) into your business plans. You think of your brand image in terms of CSR. You think about your employees and your company`s mission. This includes CSR. The normative expectations of most societies consider laws to be essential, but not sufficient. In addition to what is required by laws and regulations, society expects companies to conduct and conduct their business ethically. Ethical accountability means that organizations adopt activities, norms, standards and practices that, while not codified by law, are nevertheless expected. Part of the ethical expectation is that companies respond to the “spirit” of the law, not just the letter of the law. Another aspect of ethical expectations is that companies conduct their business fairly and objectively, even in cases where laws do not provide guidelines or prescribe action plans. Therefore, ethical responsibility includes activities, standards, policies and practices that are expected or prohibited by society, although they are not codified by law. The goal of these expectations is for companies to be responsible and meet all norms, standards, values, principles and expectations that reflect and respect what consumers, employees, owners and the community consider compatible in terms of protecting the moral rights of stakeholders. It can often be difficult to distinguish between legal and ethical expectations.

Legal expectations are certainly based on ethical premises. But ethical expectations take them further. Therefore, both essentially contain a strong dimension or ethical character, and the difference depends on the mandate that society has given to the economy through legal codification. What is legal authority and how does it relate to obligations? It is a kind of practical authority, that is, authority over action. From an influential point of view: “To claim authority is to claim the right to be obedient” (Wolff 1970, 5). There are, of course, authorities who do not make such a claim. The theoretical authorities, i.e. the experts, are not characterized by claims of obedience – they do not even need to claim the right to be believed. And there are weaker forms of practical authority. Giving someone permission to use your car is simply allowing them.

But political authority, of which legal authority is a kind, is generally regarded as a right to govern, with a corresponding duty to obey. For this reason, the law claims the right to obedience wherever it imposes obligations. And to obey does not only mean to obey the law; It should be guided by it. Max Weber says that it is “as if the governed had made the content of order the maxim of their behavior for their own good” (Weber 1963, 946). Or, as Robert Paul Wolff puts it more bluntly: “Obedience is not about doing what someone tells you. It is about doing what he tells you to do, because he tells you to do it” (Wolff 1970, 9). This does not mean that one obeys only if one considers the right of authority to have a say as an inviolable cause of action; However, it must be treated as a binding substantive justification. Whether there is an obligation to obey the law is a question of whether we should act from a legal point of view and obey the law as it claims to obey (Raz 1979, 233-49). Since social responsibility was first mentioned in the 1960s, companies have felt the pressure from society to behave more socially responsibly. Social responsibilityThe duty of companies not to harm society. is the duty of the economy not to harm society. In other words, companies should take care of the well-being of society in their day-to-day operations and pay attention to how their actions might affect society as a whole.

We know that social responsibility does not always arise, despite the best efforts of a company. For example, court documents accuse British Petroleum (BP) of gross negligence for security breaches and knowingly failing to maintain the oil rig, causing the deaths of eleven workers and spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico for eighty-seven days. United Press International. (February 24, 2012). BP`s trial will advance the trial for gross negligence, accessed 24. February 2012, www.upi.com/Business_News/2012/02/24/BP-trial-will-push-gross-negligence-claim/UPI-22771330126860/ In this and similar cases, people question the ability of companies to fulfill their duty to society. Ideally, companies should look at four main areas of social responsibility and act ethically in these four areas. In fact, as individuals, we should also be aware of these areas of social responsibility, which we will discuss in this section.

These four areas are:Carroll, A. (n.d.). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Retrieved 24. February 2012, cf.linnbenton.edu/bcs/bm/gusdorm/upload/Pyramid%20of%20Social%20Responsibility.pdf Austin, John | Bentham, Jeremy | Stowaway problem| Law: and language| Nature of the right | Nature of Law: Interpretivist Theories | Nature of the law: legal positivism | Nature of the law: pure legal theory It is an interesting feature of this presentation that it assumes that it can be said independently of what the authority requires, whether or not the requirement is justified in substance.