argument against csr

In this article, Tushar Dey pursuing M.A, in Business Law from NUJS, Kolkata gives Legal arguments against the concept of CSR.


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the recent time has become a much-debated topic. What is the business of business is the prime question? Should corporations/businesses try to solve ills of the society? Or should corporations/businesses exist only to maximize the wealth of shareholders? All sides of the Corporate Social Responsibility debate have been forcefully attacked and vigorously defended by each other. Do the warnings concerning Corporate Social Responsibility given by the noted economists Theodore Levitt and Milton Friedman become irrelevant in the modern Age? Up until recently, there was hardly any dispute that the only aim and objective of corporations/businesses was to maximize shareholder wealth in the long term. However, the debate concerning the role that corporations/business should play in the society at large has undergone a massive change.

What is Corporate Social Responsibility

The widest definition of Corporate Social Responsibility concerns with what is or shall be the relationship between individual citizens, global corporations and governments of countries.  More importantly and when understood in the local terms, the definition is concerned with the relationship between a business/corporation and the society in which it resides or operates locally.

One more definition concerns itself with the relationship that exists between a business/ corporation and its stakeholders.  For a distant observer all of these definitions are relevant and each one of them reflects a dimension of the issues at large.  A co-existing debate is taking place in the area of ethics. Should increased regulation on corporations be applied for more control or has the very basis of citizenship been lost and needs replacing before socially responsible behavior by corporations/businesses will ensue? This debate however as represented above, seems to be the one concerned with some type of social contract existing between society and corporations.  

Roughly put, the idea of corporate social responsibility  involves the expenditure of resources of the corporations/businesses at the whims of the management on doing “good works” for the society at large (like sponsoring projects for the community or funding charitable institutions) or prohibiting themselves from doing “wrong things” (like polluting water or air or stopping deforestation) instead of using these same resources towards the goal of profit maximization for the corporations/businesses .

Corporate Social Responsibility is, in fact, a punch line for the role that corporations/businesses are now being asked to play in resolving the collective problems of the society. Such a role does not involve corporations/businesses shunning their pursuit of profit in Toto – but merely that the corporations/businesses should be willing to accept returns on expenditure that are lower than the returns available from some other alternate expenditures. In simpler words, it is being argued that companies should now be themselves satisfied with making a little less profit (not that they necessarily give up all profit) as the diminished returns will be more than adjusted against by the social Profits that they will generate.

A good example recently of this type of Thinking is the shifting to renewable sources of energy by Power corporations. Although the corporations/businesses claimed it was a fine example of their sensitivity towards global warming, the move was actually mandated by the hardcore commercial reality that cost of renewable power had gone down dramatically, and that it was in the interests of their profitability to make the change to renewable power.

In light of the above mentioned, it seems the most pertinent working definition of Corporate Social Responsibility : it  signifies  the obligations and inclinations, if any, of corporations/businesses existing  for profit, voluntarily or under the duress of law,  to take aim of achieving  social objectives  that conflict with their natural  desire to maximize profit for the shareholder.

Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

For the traditional businessmen, the natural and proper role of a corporation/businesses was always clear-cut simple and That the corporation/businesses for traditional businessmen  was always “an association of persons or shareholder  formed for their respective private profit  and which is to be managed by its concerned Board of Directors with a sole aim of doing the same”.

The powers of the Board of Directors were exercisable only for the joint Profit of all the shareholders according to their respective shareholding. Roughly saying, the objective was only to maximize profits so as to give shareholders the best possible return on their investment. This objective not only absolute but also a paramount and unqualified, however the same was pursued subject to the law and regulations, and due consideration was always given to moral and ethical principles normally regarded as being relevant to the conduct of the corporation/businesses. Other than the abovementioned constraints, though, the businessmen were always free and unconstrained to pursue the profit maximization objective. However the advocates of Corporate Social Responsibility do not view the role of corporation/businesses in such a dim light. The emergence of large-scale mega industry has made corporations/businesses into huge ’holder of power and the most important centers of non-governmental power in our society at large.

An argument is also put forth that corporations/ business have a social as well as an economic dimension since they have the capacity and power to affect and influence the lives of many their employees, their customers and the local community generally.

The Economist, Keith Davis has argued in his thesis that all economic decisions of whatever sort must necessarily have social consequences, and that corporation/businesses must be expected to conduct themselves in a responsible manner just as any other person resident in society in possession of such power would be expected to behave.

Other arguments which are produced in favour of Corporate Social Responsibility for example, it is suggested that by putting resources to the fight against social problems, the local community in which the corporation/businesses exists and operates will become better place in which to do business in as the social environment will be more conducive to commerce, with happy and healthy customers, easy recruiting, lesser crime and so forth. Another line of argument suggests that by acting in a socially responsible manner, the corporation might preempt an expensive government intervention.

In the final analysis, however, the principal argument always remains that the corporations has having vast resources at its disposal, should not be devoted exclusively for the Profit of stockholders, but rather for the Profit of the wider society and its various group that constitute it. This broader view of the corporate social responsibility is based on the assumption that the corporations are consuming resources belonging to the wider society, and is therefore expected to use such resources in interest of wider society.

Economic Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

In each and every society, some form of a rationing system is required to distribute limited resources amongst the unlimited demands of the members of the community. Rationing systems come in many shapes. During World War II, for example, many domestic goods were distributed by means of administrative fiat. These systems very wasteful because of the absence of data about buyer needs. In the free endeavour economy that is common to most parts of the Western world, the chosen means of rationing is the price mechanism.

Profit assumes a focal part in the operation of the price mechanism. It is the presence of (or potential for) profit, or its absence, that determines the dispersion of resources in a free market Profit serves as the primary source of information for producers.

The viability of the price mechanism rests on the assumption that organizations will actually pay heed to the signals provided in the form of profit. A profit maximizing firm does this and it results in maximum efficiency in the use of its resources, and cheaper and more plentiful goods and services for the wider consumer. A socially responsible corporation, however, would only follow those signals up m a point. The inescapable outcome is an exchange off in effectiveness and the more constrained accessibility of products and enterprises (which will influence their cost). In more outrageous cases, overlooking Profit will prompt shortcomings, lines and underground markets.

One must pose the inquiry: what do we need from an economic system? This question is of paramount importance since the manner in which a society chooses to distribute or redistribute its scarce resources will shape the very nature of the society.  The proper object of an economic system is the fulfillment of the financial needs of the person. On the off chance that one acknowledges that question (which infers the supply of merchandise in sufficient sums and at sensible costs) at that point the trial of the framework lies in the effectiveness with which it fulfills person’s needs. For the reasons clarified above, on this test an approach of Profit boost is obviously better than an arrangement of “social responsibility.

In short, Corporate Social Responsibility is on a very basic level subversive of the capitalist free enterprise system – a system that has so successfully done the job of satisfying the material needs of the community.’ Certainly, there are those in the group who are happy with material belonging and feel that our financial system ought to be set up to exchange off productivity for social duty. Economist Rancher and Hogue contend that such people are in a little minority with most individuals from society as yet needing the material advantages that expanded financial development gives.

Another oft-advanced point of a monetary framework is social combination. At the end of the day, the self-enthusiasm of people can be made to agree with the bigger interests of the group. The bad habit of voracity, as indicated by Bernard Mandeville, ‘places a want in every individual to gain more advantages. In seeking after this target, it is contended, new thoughts are orchestrated, new items are created and better strategies for fulfilling the necessities and needs of the group are produced. This prompts financial development, expanded proficiency in the utilization of assets and rising business – all of which are open advantages. Man’s want to serve his own self-enthusiasm by seeking after Profit will prompt a more effective utilization of restricted assets which will create the best advantage for the aggregate group.

Practical Arguments against Corporate Social Responsibility

There are various practical objections to Corporate Social Responsibility. One of these stems from the trouble of characterizing correctly what the term social obligation implies by and by. Hayek proposes that the term social reason for existing is so indistinct as to be futile by and by. Recognizing the suitable beneficiaries for corporate largesse is best case scenario problematical. The peril is that directors may have the capacity to stretch out the definition to for all intents and purposes any reason that they favor.’ Managers, specifically, are not prepared to distinguish proper items for Corporate Social Responsibility, very separated from the definitional laxity. They are prepared in the speciality of business, not social welfare. They don’t have the master aptitudes important to distinguish social purposes (on the off chance that they can be recognized!) nor do they have the allotment abilities required to successfully apply the organization’s assets? Further, such a procedure would strife with the corporate culture of generally organizations. For the reasons expressed in Part One, most directors are orientated towards profiting, and it conflicts with the grain to give it away.

There is no perceived estimation standard by which the adequacy or generally of Corporate Social Responsibility exercises can be judged. At the point when objectives are absolutely monetary, surveying the execution of the organization (and of its administration) is just an issue of taking a gander at the base line. But in the event that cash is gone through on social destinations with no sign for the investors concerning whether they are getting an incentive for cash, the share trading system’s employment of esteeming the offers turns into that substantially harder. This disables capital market productivity; Corporate Social Responsibility is ostensibly a wasteful method for tending to social issues in that business’ approach is probably going to be specially appointed, and ungraceful. Enterprises, albeit part of a bigger business arrange, are as yet autonomous units. They think that it’s hard to co-work and Marshall Resources so they might be connected in a productive approach to address issues. There is additionally the topic of the amount Corporate Social Responsibility singular partnerships ought to embrace. There is no commonsense guide in the matter of what offer of its Profits an organization should commit to social articles Corporations can’t be left in limbo in this mold.

Philosophical Objections to Corporate Social Responsibility

Various contentions of a comprehensively philosophical nature are progressed contrary to Corporate Social Responsibility. The focal contention is a basically political one and sits decisively in the liberal-law based custom of worry about restriction on the activity of energy. The advocates of Corporate Social Responsibility and the traditionalists concur that enterprises have incredible power, despite the fact that they differ on the degree of opportunity to practice that impact. The Corporate Social Responsibility advocates are worried to see that power is utilized for good. The traditionalists’ accentuation is unique, be that as it may: they are worried to see that the power not be practised for terrible purposes, particularly given the troubles (examined above) of characterizing what is great. On the traditionalist view, the enterprise fills an entirely constrained need – making greatest Profits. Hayek recommends that inasmuch as corporate power is coordinated towards a particular reason, nobody require have any dread of its abuse? On the off chance that the end is clear, and the standard of execution promptly connected, at that point any uniqueness from quest for that end for undesirable purposes can be promptly checked. Profit is a high contrast standard; value is most certainly not. Whatever its different deficiencies, Profit amplification, in any event, fills in as an enforceable and lucid standard.’ Dodd contended that, until ‘a viable and enforceable option plan of duties to another person’ can be created, it is excessively unsafe, making it impossible to desert or even debilitate the Profit boost objective?” Without a particular execution measure, implementing responsibility turns out to be considerably harder. Supervisors would viably be left everywhere in their activity of energy. The presence of focuses of uncontrolled power has dependably been dreaded in a majority rule society, notwithstanding when the individuals who have that power purport to utilize it for the general population great. The worry is that their origination of what is “great” may not accord with that of the general population? Cases flourish of harming activities of enterprises in insubordination of the Profit amplification standard for the sake of people in general great. Amid the Vietnam War, the Dow Chemical Company kept on delivering napalm, despite the way that it was unrewarding, in light of the fact that administration viewed the activity as ‘ethically and politically desirable’.”‘ Similarly, in Weimar Germany, numerous intense industrialists considered it to be their devoted obligation m effectively bolster the exclusive that they earnestly accepted could lead their financially weakened district into another time of thriving. One need not list the abhorrence of World War Two to show the habit of their social obligation.

The contention is best summed up by Milton Friedman, who said that ‘In a free society, it is hard for good individuals to do great, yet that is a little cost to pay for making it hard for ‘underhanded individuals to do ‘abhorrent’, particularly since small time’s great is another man’s malevolent’. This contention suggests acknowledgement of partitioned and unmistakable parts for business and government. Friedman, Lodge and others contend that the way toward recognizing social items ought to be an open one. They propose that ‘esteem setting is the capacity of legislative issues, not of private business. Similarly, they see the way toward consuming assets upon those qualities as an open capacity, best left to open bodies.

The ability to act in people in general intrigue should be kept to the legislature. Governments are responsible to the group for their activities, and are liable to built up systems controlling the activity of their forces. They are far superior suited to the matter of dealing with the welfare of society than are partnerships. So, in a popularity based society, the matter of business ought to be business alone, not social designing. People in general elements of distinguishing and seeking after social goals should be left to openly choose authorities, not secretly designated ones. While the political procedure may regularly be a frustratingly bulky method for accomplishing a similar outcome, it has the excellence of being popularity based.

A different line of contention is progressed by Keith Gibson who portrays the requirement of a lessening in the part of Profit as an arrival to the Dark Ages. Gibson clarifies that financial (and thus political) action was truly hindered amid the Dark Ages by the accentuation on thriftiness and humility in inclination to the quest for Profit. Roused by the Church, agents were urged to charge a reasonable cost for products and to look for no more return than was important to live. The consequence of this marvel was social and financial stagnation. It was not until the Reformation – when Profit ended up noticeably respectable by and by that huge monetary or political advance was made. The Reformation expedited an expanded accentuation of independence. Indivisibly associated with this rationality was the part of private property. One of the key protests to Corporate Social Responsibility is that it includes directors who, are just trustees of the investors’ riches, burning through another person’s cash for purposes detached with the business’ targets Friedman proposes that an enterprise is only an instrument of the investors who possess it, and ought not be viewed as having unique duties only in light of the fact that it has gone up against corporate form? The reality of fuse ought not to contribute the property held by the organization with some kind of open commitment that does not make a difference to a person’s property? In addition, any demonstrations of social obligation that devour assets successfully deny singular investors of the opportunity to be socially mindful themselves. The investors are the suitable ones to use assets on magnanimous commitments, political gifts and so forth. It is their privilege to give separately, since it is their property.


In the final analysis, then, it is submitted that business and corporations should confine itself to fulfilling its economic function. One is reminded of the Biblical o remember the Biblical directive against serving two experts the organization that looks to seek after benefit and do ‘benevolent acts’ in the meantime is probably going to do neither exceptionally well. Besides, the potential for misuse of energy is more constrained when there is an entirely characterized protest and perceived standard of execution against which administration can be measured, benefit amplification plays out this capacity. Until the concept of social responsibility can be defined with equivalent precision, it is simply too dangerous to release corporate management from the profit maximization object.

This does not imply that companies are allowed to stomp everywhere throughout the community’s social interest in the quest for profit. Non-intentional social obligation, where organizations are constrained to act in a specific form accordingly especially to shopper concerns, ensures responsiveness of business. Besides, there is dependably the alternative of upholding social obligation by outside direction by government. Whatever the benefits of government mediation, it is in any event the result of a popularity based process: the group can pick its social objectives for itself, at that point choose how they are to be sought after. Organizations ought not to be left to do this without anyone’s help. At whatever point the quest for profit happens to create socially undesirable outcomes, their conduct can be adjusted by outer weight. With regards to a liberal, just free endeavor society, this is the far prevalent option.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here