Are Entrepreneurs Responsible for Taiwan’s Society? (revised)

In Taiwan, students have learned the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) since junior high school. According to EU, the definition of CSR is the concept of coing entrepreneurs’ concern to the society and environment to their company’s commercial activities and the relationships with shareholders. But in Taiwan, it become a restriction to demand corporation paying the price for harming the environment or other things that aren’t good for society.

The prerequisite of CSR is that entrepreneurs volunteer to do this, but the problem is enterprisers are not very happy about this inexplicable burden, whereas the public want them to take charge of more responsibility.

Entrepreneurs are like all the other jobs, what’s different is that they probably earn much more money, or their factories are distributed over the world. Enterprisers are humans, they are not great men. Publics should not add responsibility that have nothing to do with them.

There are four reasons why I reject to apply corporate social responsibility in Taiwan’s society.

First, the purpose of establishing a company is to earn money, and what managers should care is the interests of their shareholders. Social responsibility is not their purpose to establish a company, and when companies have financial problems, the society tend to leave them alone and run their course.

Second, entrepreneurs are not professionals that know how to solve social problems. It is not important that whether managers have the ability to deal with social problems.  The government is the one who is responsible for social problems. Instead of asking enterprisers to take social responsibility, governments should increase their taxes. Then the money will distribute to different departments that in charge of different problems.

Third, corporate social responsibility is a very vague concept now. Although there are some compacts or disciplines that have relations with this, these are just codes that we can cite from. If the government does want entrepreneurs to take social responsibility, then the legislature should legislate for this duty.

Fourth, if enterprisers focus on social responsibility actively and invest in too much capital on it, there are possibilities to dilute the main purpose of profit-seeking business. To make matters worse, it will weaken the nation’s competitiveness on economy.

To sum up, corporations are not responsible for government’s social problems, and they do not have related professions. What businessman have to do is to seek profits for stockholders and staffs. If they spend too much capital on corporate social responsibility, it might weaken the competitiveness of the company.

Another problem is that we shouldn’t see social responsibility as a reward measure for entrepreneurs. It is because they get nearly everything they want from society that people start to think about this new duty. Then why should they get rewards from fulfilling their obligation?

The main point of this article is not to deny the concept of this responsibility, but how we think about it and how government have to react about it. Everyone is responsible for this society. The point is how to manage it well.


The Reject Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from Docin:

Corporation’s Social Responsibility and their reactions. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from A-Kong’s classroom:!b17nxUGRGB5rcCdttdRaqC8-/article?mid=183

0 意見: