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.


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:

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:

2 意見:

Robert Ching 提到...

I think your annotation is well organized, I can clearly understand what each of the paragraph is explaining. Also I think that you had find strong and concrete example and sources to support your point. After reading from your annotation I could not help but to agree on it with you.

Lisa Yu 提到...

You give three points to support your side. I think that you can explain clearly for the second point. The sentence is too strange to understand what you want to talk about. About the collusion between government and enterprise, it doesn't only happen in Taiwan. I think that it cannot be the reason for rejecting the legal responsibility. Instead, people should stand up for protecting their right.
1. all the citizen→all the citizens
2. burst out→bursts out
3. but the distinct of law mentioned above restrict it to respond accordingly to the problems, thus lead to in appropriate judgments→It has grammar faults, but I don’t know how to correct it. This sentence is strange to understand.