The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique

Abstract

Lane, and an editor and the referees of this Journal for their comments and suggestions. We are responsible for all remaining errors.

Are the Organizations Prepared for a Real Efficacy of the Socail and Collective Development? A Critical Reflexion in a Latin American Context

“…Alvesson and Willmott (1996), Chia (1996)) denounce the previous situation as an organizational reality with a lack of social bound and reciprocity. In addition, Coelho et al (2003) states, that when nowadays organizations implant the concepts of corporate governance, as well as the concept of shareholder (Davila , they do it because those approaches could help them to respond to governmental demands and laws, but not necessarily because they seek social contribution as a finality. There is a difference between performing actions because there is a conscious and acknowledged identification concerning the consequences of those actions, rather than performing those actions merely because it is a governmental requirement.…”

Towards Understanding Stakeholder Salience Transition and Relational Approach to ‘Better’ Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case for a Proposed Model in Practice

“…Reflecting on broader debates within business and society literature about CSR and business contributions to local development (Slack 2011), the crux of the disagreement between critics and advocates of CSR relates to the nature and scope of these responsibilities. Critics have argued that CSR is an inefficient means of allocating scarce resources, and that business lacks the legitimacy and competency to take on any such responsibility outside its primary area of expertise (McWilliams et al 2006;Coelho et al 2003;Henderson 2001). Christian Aid (2004) further noted that companies undertake CSR as a form of insurance against disruption and reputational damage as well as to avoid mandatory regulation, rather than as a genuine attempt to facilitate development that benefits the poor and marginalised.…”

The Land of Realism and the Shipwreck of Idea-ism: Thomas Aquinas and Milton Friedman on the Social Responsibilities of Business

“…The neo-classical economic worldview will just not die, despite its being ''devoid of any real moral substance'' (Post, 2003, p. 31). Coelho et al (2003) reiterate the essential elements of the paradigm to the blessing of Friedman himself, with the further claim that theirs is ''the only intellectually defensible'' (p. 16) position there is. This doesn't leave a lot of room for dialogue but we can examine the ideas of Coelho et al nevertheless. In the article, the authors do not express an awareness of the progression of philosophical thought from Descartes and Hobbes to the present and how this intellectual thrust has shaped their own ideology.…”