How Should American Businesses Approach Social Responsibility?

In the wake of shocking corporate scandals such as WorldCom and Enron, it is not that difficult to view businesses in the United States as greedy and self-centered, trampling on everyone and everything else to make more profit. Consequently, countless American businesses are doing everything within their power to once again build trust and credibility with the general public. One of these ways is through emphasizing their social responsibility (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 43-46).

Definition of Social Responsibility

Essentially, social responsibility refers to "the attempt of a business to balance its commitments to groups and individuals in its environment, including customers, other businesses, employees, investors, and local communities (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 46). Many of these companies have realized that those outside a business rely heavily on an organization's actions to form their overall opinions of that particular company. Consequently, such companies understand that it is generally in the best interest of all parties for a business to practice an adequate level of social responsibility (Baker, 2008; CTU Online, 2006).

Four General Approaches to Social Responsibility

Despite the American public's growing belief that companies should consider much more than just finances when making business decisions, companies tend to disagree as to the appropriate level they should be held accountable. Therefore, each organization has its own approach to social responsibility. Fundamentally, all of these various approaches can be divided into four basic stances: (1) obstructionist (2) defensive, (3) accommodative, and (4) proactive.

Obstructionist and Defensive Businesses

On the lesser end of the spectrum, we have the obstructionist and defensive types of approaches to social responsibility (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). An organization that holds an obstructionist stance "tries to stop or block what is going on" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). In contrast, one that takes a defensive stance "argues that nothing has been done wrong by them despite possible bad outcomes" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Obviously, both of these first stances can cause a lot of suspicion and accusations among the general public. For example, consumers may wonder what questionable practices the business is attempting to hide. Or they might begin to believe that the company has no concern whatsoever for its customers and is merely worried about how much money it can make in as little time as possible. In the end, a business should realize that severe consequences can erupt if it chooses to take one of these approaches to social responsibility, particularly when a serious crisis or accident occurs because of the company's actions.

Accommodative & Proactive Businesses

On the other hand, though, those businesses that have a firmer belief in social responsibility typically develop approaches that fit in either the accommodative or proactive categories (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 60). A business that employs an accommodative stance to social responsibility "provides information and facts and doesn't try to hide things" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). A company that takes a proactive stance, though, takes social responsibility to an even higher level. Ultimately, a proactive organization "actively provide[s] and tr[ies] to figure out how to help instead of being reactive" (Steege, 2008, Slide 9). Logically, customers are much more trusting of such companies. An accommodative or proactive business appears to truly care about the consumer and appreciate that every individual should be held accountable for how he or she affects society and the world as a whole. Ultimately, these two approaches to social responsibility fit nicely into what consumers need to help them overcome their disillusionment with American businesses (CTU Online, 2006; Ebert & Griffin, 2007, p. 43-46).

References:

Baker, M. (2008). Corporate social responsibility - What does it mean? Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/definition.html

CTU Online. (2006). Phase 1 course materials. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online, Virtual Campus, MGM110-0803A-12: Principles of Business: https://campus.ctuonline.edu

Ebert, R. J., & Griffin, R. W. (2007). Business essentials (6^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Steege, D. (2008). Chat 1 powerpoint presentation. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online, Virtual Campus, MGM110-0803A-12: Principles of Business, Instructor Files: https://campus.ctuonline.edu