Pages

2013年12月26日

Legal Responsibility of CSR (revised)

Legal responsibility is a fundamental and essential responsibility not only for entrepreneurs but for all the citizen in the world. But law is inadequate in many ways especially in Taiwan.
First, “the law cannot possibly address all the topics or issues that business may face.” (Business & Society, p.41) Legislative Procedures are inextricable and time-consuming; its clauses cannot contain all the possible circumstances all the time, but that doesn’t mean we can exploit legal loopholes. This situation happens almost every time when a new technology or a new condition burst out and thus brings out the following problems that make law inadequate.
Second, “the law often lags behind more recent concepts of what is considered appropriate behavior.” (Business & Society, p.41) People’s values change over time, but the distinct of law mentioned above restrict it to respond accordingly to the problems, thus lead to in appropriate judgments.
Third, “laws are made by lawmakers and may reflect the personal interests and political motivations of legislators rather than appropriate ethical justifications.” (Business & Society, p.41) This is especially serious in Taiwan. “A sage once said: ‘Never go to see how sausages or laws are made.’ It may not be a pretty picture. Although we would like to believe that our lawmakers are focusing on ‘what is right,’ potential maneuvering often suggest otherwise.”(Business & Society, p.41) The officials and businessmen stand on the same front and formed the mutually beneficial bond, the law thence focus on their profits instead of people’s goods.
The collusion between government and enterprise has been a not-so-amazed issue for Taiwanese people, not because our judiciary can handle this situation at ease, but we already feel numb and disheartened for the predictable outcome. The law, the legislators, and the government do not stand in our side, but supporters of entrepreneurs, then how could they back up the impotent people, whom are stand on the opposite side from entrepreneurs?
Picture 1
Take Taiwan’s food scandal in 2011 for example, CFCT[1]brought up a lawsuit for the victims and sought compensation for 2400 million NT dollars, but the court eventually announced that Yu Shen Company and other companies should indemnify1200 thousand NT dollars, which is far less than the original request. The situation is entirely different for Uni-President Enterprises Corporation, it sought compensation for 8900 million NT dollars and the court sentenced Yu Shen Company to pay 1300 million NT dollars.
From the case above, we can reasonably refer that our judiciary is in fact the people’s enemy. The government, the judiciary, and the enterprise stand together as alliance, left the people stand on the other side alone. How can we expect enterprisers to fulfill their responsibility under this situation?
Last but not least, people in Taiwan should change our attitude toward things entirely. The law gives us enough freedom to fight for our right, but we didn’t use it in an effective way. If we need the law, we have to fight for the law; if the law is harmful to us, we should fight against it. If we can’t depend on the powerful people, we have to unit and form the power by ourselves, not just endure and complain on the internet.

[1]CFCT is the abbreviation of Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei. It’s the major non-profit organization which fights for consumer’s right in Taiwan.

Reference

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Corporate citizenship: social responsibility, responsiveness, and performance: the corporate social responsibility concept. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.41-45). Mason: South-Western

2011 Taiwan food scandal. (n.d.). Retrieved December18, 2013, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Taiwan_food_scandal 

Min Jou Wu (吳旻洲,2013). Ridiculous!39 companies in Taiwan whom sold the plasticizer only have to pay 1200 thousand NT dollars for 7800 million NT dollars! Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EpochTimes: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/13/10/17/n3989112.htm



Philanthropic Responsibility of CSR (revised)

The dictionary defines philanthropy as “a desire to help mankind as indicated by acts of charity; love of mankind.” (Business &Society p.626)The philanthropic responsibility is desired of business by society, but when this desire become a pressure, a force, what will it be? Does our society turn out to promote hypocrisy?
picture 1
  In these days, entrepreneurs become more and more aware of public welfare. It’s not because businessmen finally learn that they’ve earned a lot of money plus brought much harm to society, but they have learned that the more they donate, the more they earn. Robert H. Lorsch, an entrepreneur in Los Angeles, admitted that every dollar he donate can turn into 1.01dollars to two dollars profit. Moreover, entrepreneurs build better corporate images through engaging in charitable activities which convinces consumers to believe that they are conscientious firms. Another shocking fact is that entrepreneurs can have tax credit by donating money: in Taiwan, if they give disaster relief to the government, they can have the deduction rate up to 100%!
  Some people would say that although corporation do charity to promote their image not because they are kind-hearted, it still bring good effects for our society. After all, it’s better than nothing! But the problem is that the moment when they show their charitable moves to us, their firms still do things that will harm our society; this brings out two problems: one is they don’t really pay responsibility for their harm, but donating their money to those issues that are more noticeable and more appealing, which will gain public notice more effectively. The other is that through doing charity, corporations can blur the point that they are the origin of these problems. Because we often see their benevolent moves but the wicked behavior is left unsaid, publics will gradually have false notions that businessmen may have conscience: good corporations can help government build a better society.
  For the company, the problem is that they have to pay extra expense to fulfill this responsibility. The profit is unclear but the expenses are real, especially for smaller companies.

Representative Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) said that he introduced the disclosure bill, which was cosponsored by Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) and Representative Thomas Manton (D-New York), because he had set on corporate boards and observed executives distributing corporate assets to their pet charities while ignoring shareholders.
Gillmor’s concern was shared by law professors such as Charles M. Elson of Stetson University, who argued that philanthropy often only serves to glorify corporate managers and that, unless the philanthropy clearly benefits the company, it represents a waste of corporate assets. (Business &Society p.628)

Plus, the more you devote on social responsibility, the more the public want you to do.
Executives increasingly see themselves in a no-win situation, caught between critics demanding ever higher levels of ‘corporate social responsibility’ and investors applying relentless pressure to maximize short-term profits. Giving more does not satisfy the critics—the more companies donate, the more is expected of them.
  All in all, philanthropic responsibility brings more disadvantages than benefits. To big corporations, it is the opportunities to promote the image but they have to take the risk of wasting money. To medium and small firms, it’s a big burden to fulfill this kind of responsibility. To the public, we only got facial benefits and their hypocrisy, but miss the chance to solve the basic problems.

Reference

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Corporate citizenship: social responsibility, responsiveness, and performance: the corporate social responsibility concept. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.43-45). Mason: South-Western

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Business and community stakeholders: corporate philanthropy or business giving. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.626-630). Mason: South-Western

Bo Yi Lin (林柏儀,2012). Facing Youths Impoverishment: The Limit of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Lihpao: http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-117568

Porter M.E. and Kramer M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from Expert2business.com: http://www.expert2business.com/itson/Porter%20HBR%20Corporate%20philantropy.pdf

Mei Jen Chen (陳美珍,2011). Deduct Tax Through Public Interest Organization When Donating Abroad. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Chihlee Institute of Technology: http://ai100.chihlee.edu.tw/files/16-1018-8021.php

Shau Chiang Yang(楊少強,2006). Rich people earn money and reputation through donating while poor people aren’t necessarily benefit. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Business Weekly: http://www1.businessweekly.com.tw/article.php?id=22364

Picture 1: http://blog.zopim.com/2013/09/10/the-bottom-line-of-corporate-social-responsibility/


Legal Responsibility of CSR

Legal responsibility is a fundamental and essential responsibility not only for entrepreneurs but for all the citizen in the world. But law is inadequate in many ways especially in Taiwan.
First, “the law cannot possibly address all the topics or issues that business may face.” (Business & Society, p.41) Legislative Procedures are inextricable and time-consuming; its clauses cannot contain all the possible circumstances all the time, but that doesn’t mean we can exploit legal loopholes. This situation happens almost every time when a new technology or a new condition burst out and thus brings out the following problems that make law inadequate.
Second, “the law often lags behind more recent concepts of what is considered appropriate behavior.” (Business & Society, p.41) People’s values change over time, but the distinct of law mentioned above restrict it to respond accordingly to the problems, thus lead to in appropriate judgments.
Third, “laws are made by lawmakers and may reflect the personal interests and political motivations of legislators rather than appropriate ethical justifications.” (Business & Society, p.41) This is especially serious in Taiwan. “A sage once said: ‘Never go to see how sausages or laws are made.’ It may not be a pretty picture. Although we would like to believe that our lawmakers are focusing on ‘what is right,’ potential maneuvering often suggest otherwise.”(Business & Society, p.41) The officials and businessmen stand on the same front and formed the mutually beneficial bond, the law thence focus on their profits instead of people’s goods.
The collusion between government and enterprise has been a not-so-amazed issue for Taiwanese people, not because our judiciary can handle this situation at ease, but we already feel numb and disheartened for the predictable outcome. The law, the legislators, and the government do not stand in our side, but supporters of entrepreneurs, then how could they back up the impotent people, whom are stand on the opposite side from entrepreneurs?
Take Taiwan’s food scandal in 2011 for example, CFCT[1]brought up a lawsuit for the victims and sought compensation for 2400 million NT dollars, but the court eventually announced that Yu Shen Company and other companies should indemnify1200 thousand NT dollars, which is far less than the original request. The situation is entirely different for Uni-President Enterprises Corporation, it sought compensation for 8900 million NT dollars and the court sentenced Yu Shen Company to pay 1300 million NT dollars.
From the case above, we can reasonably refer that our judiciary is in fact the people’s enemy. The government, the judiciary, and the enterprise stand together as alliance, left the people stand on the other side alone. How can we expect enterprisers to fulfill their responsibility under this situation?
Last but not least, people in Taiwan should change our attitude toward things entirely. The law gives us enough freedom to fight for our right, but we didn’t use it in an effective way. If we need the law, we have to fight for the law; if the law is harmful to us, we should fight against it. If we can’t depend on the powerful people, we have to unit and form the power by ourselves, not just endure and complain on the internet.

[1]CFCT is the abbreviation of Consumers' Foundation, Chinese Taipei. It’s the major non-profit organization which fights for consumer’s right in Taiwan.

Reference

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Corporate citizenship: social responsibility, responsiveness, and performance: the corporate social responsibility concept. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.41-45). Mason: South-Western

2011 Taiwan food scandal. (n.d.). Retrieved December18, 2013, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Taiwan_food_scandal

Min Jou Wu (吳旻洲,2013). Ridiculous!39 companies in Taiwan whom sold the plasticizer only have to pay 1200 thousand NT dollars for 7800 million NT dollars! Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EpochTimes: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/13/10/17/n3989112.htm


2013年12月7日

Transcription 2

Vivien: Hi! Everyone! Welcome to our two o’clock live show: Understand Philanthropic Responsibility for Corporate in 8 minutes. I’m Vivien.

Lisa: I’m Lisa.

Vivien: First, what is philanthropic responsibility, Lisa?

Lisa: Umm… Philanthropic responsibility in Carroll’s pyra...pyramid of corporate social responsibility is umm…the highest level. It unlike the economic and legal responsibility, which are required by society, but if…but the society will...will be glad if you take it.

Vivien: Umm…The goal for philan, for this responsibility is to be a good corporate citizen. It asks you to give back. Provide programs to support your community and engage in volunteerism, volunteerism. For example, corporate can help local to build hospitals, or schools, or sponsor cultural affairs. And, all in all, the purpose is to improve the quality of life.

Lisa: I’m support...support the philanthropic responsibility. The…this responsibility reflects the current public expectations for entrepreneurs. Umm…Philanthropic responsibilities are voluntary and benevolent activities. Entrepreneurs will…are willing to help and improve the society, including civic activities and development, by…by their desire. Nowadays, these…these philanthropic responsibilities become a kind of strategies umm…for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs would think…would think about the profits, plan…make a plan which can balance…balance between financial and social goals, and manage it. Unquestionably, entrepreneurs want the si…win-win situation on the business. But they should refer philanthropy into actions, then they can really get what they want.

Lisa: Umm…then I want to talk about the idea of “community involvement.” Community involvement is a conception, which means that entrepreneurs and the general public is…are members of the community. That is, they are influenced by each other. Umm…This relationship is like jigsaw puzzle, which…which would be incomplete without only one piece. Therefore, entrepreneurs should make efforts with the general public umm…hand in hand. Having the philanthropic responsibilities not only benefit the society but also the companies. Because the healthier society can bring more profits to the companies.

Lisa: There are four points important in the philanthropic responsibility, including help, share, donate, and give back. The style of helping others is mostly the foundation or financial donation, people…which helps people who are disadvantaged minority in the society. If entrepreneurs can provide good systems, good facilities, and good programs to people, then the…the quality of people’s life can be promoted.

Lisa: Why entrepreneurs need to have the philanthropic responsibility? Of course they have advantages appealing to entrepreneurs. The first one is it is the effective advertising way that can promote companies’ images. Umm…Make more people see the companies. The second one is the companies can gain greater acceptance because most people would accept the have the…which companies have good images. They are more willing to work for the…for this kind of companies. The third one is well-being and quality of people and life. If people and life can be promoted higher, and they can pro…bring more profits to entrepreneurs. If entrepreneurs want business to grow bigger and stronger like this flourishing tree, they should cultivate it with corporate responsi…corporate social responsibility.

Vivien: And I’m on the against side. The dictionary defines philanthropy as “a desire to help mankind as indicated by acts of charity; love of mankind.” The philanthropy responsibility is desired of business by society, but when the desire becomes a force, or a pressure, what will it be? Or when an entrepreneur said “Why do I have to pretend to care when I don’t? I don’t!” Are we going to force him to take the responsibility? Umm…does our society turns out to promote hypocrisy?

Vivien: Well, there is some advantages for businessmen if they take this responsibility: umm…first, they can promote their corporate image. When you do charity, people will think that wow you’re a good man, and your company must be a conscientious company, and then people will think that your pro…that are…people are more willing to buy your product because they think you are a good person. And…umm…second, do…do charity can deduct tax! In Taiwan, if businessmen give disaster relief to the government, their tax, their deduction rates can...umm… up to 100%! That means they don’t have to pay any tax.

Vivien: But there’s also some disadvantages for entrepreneurs. If you take this responsibility, it is for sure that you will have extra expenses. But maybe you’ll say extra expenses is not a big deal, because it’s just like another investment! But the problem is, umm… doing charity is not like buying shares or open another company, its profit is unclear. And, I think when you think…when you think of how much profit you will earn when doing charity, you…you’re already turn aside from the original spirit of corporate social responsibility. Umm… besides, this notion is conscienceless! So why force corporation to do things that the…ok! will against their basic goal to gain profit?

Vivien: To the public, maybe you’ll say I don’t care they are umm…kind-hearted or not, whatever their intention are, it’s better to…it’s better than nothing! Some people do, do get the sub…subvention! But the problem is that they show their charitable, charitable moves to us, but their firms still do things that will harm our society! This brings out two, two problems, first is that they do not really pay responsibility for their harm…for the harm they cause, and…but donate money to umm…more noticeable and more appealing issues to, in order to catch our attention. The second problem is that businessmen can blur the point that they are the origin of the problem. We always see them doing good things, but the wicked part are left unsaid. So, this will gradually make public think that corporations may have conscience—they can help the, help government build a better society! But is that really so?

Lisa: The conclusion of approving the philanthropic responsibility is that business has a responsibility to give back to the community, and besides, although the contribution is so small, it also can change the society.

Vivien: As for, for my conclusion, philan…I think philanthropy responsibility brings more disadvantages than advantages. Umm…for big company, they can, it’s the opportunity for them to improve their image, but they also have to take the risk of wasting money. To smaller company, this, this…umm…responsibility is a big burden for them. And for the public, we only get facial benefits and their hypocrisy, but the real basic pro, problems is left unsolved. And… this is our presentation, thank you for listening.

Question time:
Alice: Umm, I want to ask Vivien. Do you have any examples that, umm…some entrepreneurs umm… they do, they look like they are doing good things but they’re actually having bad intentions?

Vivien: Do you mean the thing it, itself have bad intentions?

Alice: Yes.

Vivien: I don’t know if there’re, if there has examples like this. But what I mean before is they do good things but they…the…umm…they show to public that they are doing good things. But, umm…the problem in their company that will harm our society is still… they still do this kind of things. So, the two things is different.

2013年12月4日

Philanthropy Responsibility of CSR

  The dictionary defines philanthropy as “a desire to help mankind as indicated by acts of charity; love of mankind.” (Business &Society p.626)The philanthropy responsibility is desired of business by society, but when this desire become a pressure, a force, what will it be? Does our society turn out to promote hypocrisy?

Picture1
  In these days, entrepreneurs become more and more aware of public welfare. It’s not because businessmen finally learned that they’ve earned a lot of money plus brought much harm to society, but they have learned that the more they donate, the more they earn. Robert H. Lorsch, an entrepreneur in Los Angeles, admitted that every dollar he donate can turn into 1.01dollars to two dollars profit. Moreover, entrepreneurs build better corporate image through engage in charitable activities thus convincing consumers to believe that they are conscientious firms. Another shocking fact is that entrepreneurs can have tax credit by donating money: in Taiwan, if they give disaster relief to the government, they can have the deduction rate up to 100%!

  Some people would say that although corporation do charity to promote their image not because they are kind-hearted, it still bring good effects for our society. After all, it’s better than nothing! But the problem is that the moment when they show their charitable moves to us, their firms still do things that will harm our society; this brings out two problems: one is they don’t really pay responsibility for their harm, but donating their money to those issues that are more noticeable and more appealing, which will gain public notice more effectively. The other is that through doing charity, corporations can blurred the point that they are the origin of these problems. Because we often see them doing benevolent moves but the wicked conduct was left unsaid, publics will gradually think that businessmen may have conscience; good corporations can help government build a better society.

  For the company, the problem is that they have to pay extra expense to fulfill this responsibility. The profit is unclear but the expenses are real, especially for smaller companies.

Representative Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) said that he introduced the disclosure bill, which was cosponsored by Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) and Representative Thomas Manton (D-New York), because he had set on corporate boards and observed executives distributing corporate assets to their pet charities while ignoring shareholders.
Gillmor’s concern was shared by law professors such as Charles M. Elson of Stetson University, who argued that philanthropy often only serves to glorify corporate managers and that, unless the philanthropy clearly benefits the company, it represents a waste of corporate assets. (Business &Society p.628)

Plus, the more you devote on social responsibility, the more the public want you to do.

Executives increasingly see themselves in a no-win situation, caught between critics demanding ever higher levels of ‘corporate social responsibility’ and investors applying relentless pressure to maximize short-term profits. Giving more does not satisfy the critics—the more companies donate, the more is expected of them.

  All in all, philanthropy responsibility brings more disadvantages than benefits. To big corporations, it is the opportunities to promote the image but they have to take the risk of wasting money. To medium and small firms, it’s a big burden to fulfill this kind of responsibility. To the public, we only got facial benefits and their hypocrisy, but miss the chance to solve the basic problems.

Reference

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Corporate citizenship: social responsibility, responsiveness, and performance: the corporate social responsibility concept. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.43-45). Mason: South-Western

Caroll A. B. & Buchholtz A. K. (2008). Business and community stakeholders: corporate philanthropy or business giving. In M. Acuna (Ed.), Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 7th edition (pp.626-630). Mason: South-Western

Bo Yi Lin (林柏儀,2012). Facing Youth’s Impoverishment: The Limit of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Lihpao: http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-117568

Porter M.E. and Kramer M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from Expert2business.com: http://www.expert2business.com/itson/Porter%20HBR%20Corporate%20philantropy.pdf

Mei Jen Chen (陳美珍,2011). Deduct Tax Through Public Interest Organization When Donating Abroad. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Chihlee Institute of Technology: http://ai100.chihlee.edu.tw/files/16-1018-8021.php

Shau Chiang Yang(楊少強,2006). Rich people earn money and reputation through donating while poor people aren’t necessarily benefit. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from Business Weekly: http://www1.businessweekly.com.tw/article.php?id=22364

Picture 1: http://blog.zopim.com/2013/09/10/the-bottom-line-of-corporate-social-responsibility/

Reflection 1

  Lisa and I already make out the direction of our essay in the beginning, but our essay is still not convincing enough. In our first and second annotation, we mainly use the materials from Carroll, whom is a professor of business and economics, so we decide to find more materials to support our contention.
  The trunk of our essay still based on the pyramid of CSR by Carroll, which included economics, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, and we will add other related theories in the later essays and revised version.
  When hearing other groups’ problem, we have come up with questions about questions like why corporate social responsibility become a popular trend through the capitalistic world? Why would people want firms to take responsibilities on the environment or even the humanitarian issues? What is the initial purpose of CSR? Does every entrepreneurs who “seem” to fulfill the expectation really appreciate the theory?
Maybe our article can not only focus on the theory itself but also how scholars, businessmen, governments, publics think about CSR.

As for other groups, I think:
1.    Robert & Knot: About your second annotation, since ECFA has many aspects that will do harm or bring advantages to Taiwan’s society, maybe you can discuss more issues about ECFA, not just focused on one problem. Apart from this, I think you’re doing very fine, not many people in our generation would want to discuss this kind of issue. I’m looking forward to your final essay.

2.  Tim C & Tim K: Actually I quite not understand your topic, but after your report and reading your annotation, I think your point is clear and it’s good to link your topic to some social issues. But maybe you can come up with more examples and quote other scholars articles to strengthen your point.

3.    Tony & Alison: Human Flesh Search is really a dilemmatic issue, it help us to find the target more quickly but inevitably harm the target’s right at the same time. The normal procedure in Taiwan can protect the suspect, but the efficiency is not very good. If we accept Human Flesh Search as a legal method to find the suspect, how will it effects our society? Can you come up with some ideas to modify Human Flesh Search to let it become more acceptable?

4.    Phoebe & Niki: The topic about show girls is really novel! Why do people think show girl is not a proper occupation? And why do people pay more respect on models? Some models can become super-models which is highly paid and have worldwide reputation, but there isn’t any show girl have the same status like that, why? Because we see the clothes on the model but see the body of the show girl? I think to some extent, both of them have been materialized, but why the situation is worsen in the work of show girl? Can you find the problem and tell us how they can do to stop this situation?