Student :1 MK
Socially Responsible Strategies
Rob Asghar( 2015), in the his article How Corporate Social Responsibility Is Moving From Optional To Mandatory,published in Forbes nicely addressed the new role of Corporate Social Responsibility and its implication in complex global environment today. Overtime, the definition, role and concept of corporate social responsibility have changed to a substantial extent. The concept of corporate social responsibility does not limit its meaning to mere donating money or charity for noble cause. It moves beyond the idea philanthropy and becomes imperative for every business in the global environment today. Environmental degradation and rising income inequality gap are two key challenges facing by the global society today. Corporate social responsibility, in the perspective of today’s complex globalized world, is recognized as the multifaceted process that would offer a positive impact to both the environment and society. Rob Asghar advocated that every business must have a stronger commitment and greater care for the community. He believed that Corporate Social Responsibility must not be pursued as separate course of action by an isolated department rather it must be instilled in every core act of the organization (Asghar.R.2015).
The concept and approach towards CSR is very much different in Middle East. As a part of corporate social responsibility initiative, they primarily address the issues that hinder the social and economic development of the region. Strong and sustained job creation plays a critical role in the corporate social responsibility initiative in MENA region. SME is the lifeblood and plays the key role Middles east economy. Growing number of large companies in Middle East are taking great initiatives to nurture the entrepreneurial ecosystem and to promote the pace of SME creation. For example, SEDCO Holding, a private wealth management company, launches a financial literacy program called Riyali. The key objective was to enroll tens of thousands of students in the program and make them financially literate to take the entrepreneurial challenges in the foreseeable future (Ramez T. Shehadi and Mounira Jamjoom,2014).
Asghar.R(2015). How Corporate Social Responsibility Is Moving From Optional To Mandatory, Retrieved from
Ramez T. Shehadi and Jamjoom M. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility’s New Role in the Middle East, Retrieved from
Student : 2 SF
Discussion Board Module 14
December 13, 2015
Socially Responsible Strategies
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the way a corporation achieves a balance among its economic, social, and environmental responsibilities in its operations so as to address shareholder and other stakeholder expectations (Hunnicutt, 2009). It is known by many names, including corporate responsibility, corporate accountability, corporate ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, stewardship, and triple-E bottom line (economical, ethical, and environmental). CSR is a general management concern; that is, it is important to all aspects of business, and it is integrated into a corporation’s operations through its values, culture, decision making, strategy, and reporting mechanisms.
Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others (Gandolfo, 1999). Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions (Kipnis, 1985). These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.
There are three principles of economic justice like every system. Economic justice involves input, output, and feedback for restoring harmony or balance between input and output (Kipnis, 1985). Within the system of economic justice as defined by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, there are three essential and interdependent principles: Participative Justice (the input principle), Distributive Justice (the out-take principle), and Social Justice (the feedback principle). Like the legs of a three-legged stool, if any of these principles is weakened or missing, the system of economic justice will collapse.
Participative Justice describes how one makes “input” to the economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive work. The principle of participation does not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a worker) and through one’s productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic self-reliance (Gandolfo, 1999).
Distributive Justice defines the “output” or “out-take” rights of an economic system matched to each person’s labor and capital inputs. Through the distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit (Kipnis, 1985).
Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. Charity involves the concept “to each according to his needs,” whereas “distributive justice” is based on the idea “to each according to his contribution.” Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to intervene excessively to maintain social order. Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down when all persons are not given equal opportunity to acquire and enjoy the fruits of income-producing property (Hunnicutt, 2009).
Social Justice is the “feedback” principle that detects distortions of the input and/or out-take principles and guides the corrections needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all (Gandolfo, 1999). This principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit others.
Economic harmony results when Participative and Distributive Justice are operating fully for every person within a system or institution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “economic harmonies” as “Laws of social adjustment under which the self-interest of one man or group of men, if given free play, will produce results offering the maximum advantage to other men and the community as a whole.” Social Justice offers guidelines for controlling monopolies, building checks-and-balances within social institutions, and re-synchronizing distribution (outtake) with participation (input) (Hunnicutt, 2009). The first two principles of economic justice flow from the eternal human search for justice in general, which automatically requires a balance between input and outtake, i.e., “to each according to what he is due.” Social Justice, on the other hand, reflects the human striving for other universal values such as Truth, Love and Beauty. It compels people to look beyond what is, to what ought to be, and continually repair and improve their systems for the good of every person.
It should be noted that Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler referred to the third principle as “the principle of limitation” as a restraint on human tendencies toward greed and monopoly that lead to exclusion and exploitation of others. Given the potential synergies inherent in economic justice in today’s high technology world, CESJ feels that the concept of “social justice” is more appropriate and more-encompassing than the term “limitation” in describing the third component of economic justice. Furthermore, the harmony that results from the operation of social justice is more consistent with the truism that a society that seeks peace must first work for justice.
Gandolfo, G. (1999). Economic theory and social justice. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press.
Hunnicutt, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Kipnis, K. (1985). Economic justice: Private rights and public responsibilities. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.