Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well being of the societies and environments in which they operate Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations provided they operate within the law is to make as mu

In the United States, it is common to see corporations engaging in corporate social responsibility. The scope of the job has even further expanded into an individual department. As corporations expands, it becomes increasingly difficult to choose between trade-offs for society and economic purposes. Whilst corporations should do their part to promote the well-being of society, I believe that the bulk responsibility of corporations lies with making much money as possible.
The quotation is an all-or-nothing statement, an encompassing theory which is difficult to agree upon either direction. Corporations that engage in environmentally destructive industries indeed have a responsibility towards societies. However, the latter only applies to selected and subjective industries. Industries such as food and beverage, entertainment, media, whereby the damage to the environment is kept at a minimum, should not be held liable and responsible. Thereby, it is also within logic that as long as these less-damaging industries operate within the law, they should have the sole purpose of earning money. Whilst it is difficult to argue that corporations have or do not have the responsibility, this issue should be covered and set by the government.
The proper guidance and guidelines issued by the government body can help mitigate the issue at hand. These “responsibilities” can be accounted for in the governmental requirements. For example, manufacturing industries in the United States are required by law to innovate and keep pollution within a “controlled” level. In Singapore, taxes rebates are issued to corporations that engages in corporate social responsibility in the form of donations. These proper guidelines allow both opposing viewpoints to form a coalition. At the same time, these innovations and donations are monetarily rewarded by the government, helping the corporations earn the highest attainable profits.
Despite the government playing a significant role in the issue at hand, it is undeniable that corporations that earn high stakes have the responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments. “ For one to be rich, one must be poor”, thereby redistribution of income is necessary to prevent large income disparity and extreme poverty. It is more common in the United States for corporations to engage in corporate social responsibility due to the religious factor of Christianity. By taking on the responsibility to promote the well-being of societies, it is a method for them to give back to the society after accumulating great wealth.
Furthermore, by engaging in activities that enhances the well-being of societies and environment, it is arguable that the corporation is “marketing and advertising” oneself to society. This acts as an incentive for corporations to engage in these activities. The incentive thereby blurs the lines between philanthropy and hypocrisy. Another issue would arise, whereby whether the purpose of such philanthropic acts is for the gains of the corporations. Once again, governmental laws would be significant to control the corporation’s exploitation of such “generous acts” and balance it at level whereby both parties would benefit from.
In conclusion, it is difficult to argue that either viewpoint is right given that they are both one directional. However, it is undoubtedly arguable that corporations should be only held responsible by the law. Thereby, governments play a major role in balancing the benefits of both the corporation and society at a level that is satisfactory and justifiable.