EnvironmentalCorporate Social Responsibility
EnvironmentalCorporate Social Responsibility
Environmentalcorporate social responsibility is accurately described as thecollection of environmentally friendly actions that are notstipulated as mandatory by law. In other words, it is a conditionwhere some corporates may go beyond their compliance threshold,provision of goods and services as well as voluntary internalization.However, this definition is not accepted by all. Some individualsspecifically point out that an act of CSR must be unprofitable. Assuch, sacrificing revenue for the interest of the society andenvironment is a CSR deed. Adequate information regarding firms thatforego profits for social purposes is quite limited [ CITATION Sab12 l 1033 ].Therefore, making the CSR discussion confined to the corporatesthat knowingly sacrifice revenue can be inaccurate on this topic.This paper looks at the obligations of companies to legal andregulatory compliance, inadequacies of environmental stewardshipregulation and the implications of the free market economy inaccommodating the real occurrences in the future.
Obligationto Legal/Regulatory Compliance about Responsibility
Severalliterature sources purport that corporate social and environmentalresponsibility has come up with an approach for preventing andanticipating international binding policies and regulations.Apparently, this strategy has become a means of compromise andcorruption. Although the supposition seems severe, the condemnationof these corporates is correct. The drive towards supporting theenvironment is not performed because it is the right thing to do. Onthe contrary, it is done solely for the primary function of evadingboth the current and possible future regulations. In contrast to thisoutlook, there are few companies that on rare occasions, arecommitted to the environmental and social responsibility while at thesame time upholding shareholder profits and attaining their revenueobjectives. Ascertaining the motivation of corporates is a hard taskto achieve especially in the absence of convincing evidence such asmemos, emails, and other sources. In a situation where both knowledgeand motivation are lacking, then the focus can be directed towardsthe outcomes [ CITATION Sab12 l 1033 ].The corporate has to beobserved regarding the responsible act such as good stewardship ofthe biosphere, environmental sustenance and proper resourcemanagement among others.
Regulationsthat are in place are not stringent enough to prevent theforestalling of advocacy groups. These assemblies usually tend toorganize themselves and infiltrate the political arena pushing forregulation. For instance, they can do this deed in the politicizationstage of the policy lifecycle. Likewise, industries avoid regulationusing low-level abatement than the standard requirement in thepolitical process. At some point, systems can be breached by advocacyassemblies which get into the political process even after industrieshave adhered to the stipulated environmental conditions. Furthermore,the organizing costs are sometimes too high to be met by the advocacygroup. This situation makes preemption to be profitable. Due to thissituation, industries tend to avoid the high cost of adhering to theregulatory system (Liouia & Sharma, 2012).
Regulatorshave shown the desire to reduce regulatory costs through thenegotiation of voluntary agreements. The issue arises because thesediscussions are not mandatory by law. As such, the negotiationbetween industry and regulator is a tricky one. At times, thegovernor might try to prevent the passage of certain legislations ifan agreement is not reached. Likewise, the industry might takeadvantage of the process by offering bribes to protect their welfare.Another inadequacy is the problem of disagreement on burdenallocation. The Law and regulations do not provide any particularresolution to lack of consensus. Policy implementation ofenvironmental CSR is also wanting. For example, the voluntaryprograms initiated by the state take place when political conditionsimpede any substantial regulatory threat. Programs such as ClimateChallenge and the Energy Star. This practice indicates thatdisadvantaged companies are likely to receive negative publicitywhile the others are promoted as responsible environmentalinstitutions (Liouia & Sharma, 2012).
Clearly,the voluntary programs are weaker instruments of regulation. They areincapable of ejecting inefficient and dirty corporations from theirbusiness. Although environmental control is a favorite tool, studieshave indicated that it is not very efficient. This is because thereis room for compromise, negotiation, and corruption. Additionally,some approaches such as the public, voluntary programs do not seem tohave any significant impact on the improvement of the environment incomparison to organizations that do not indulge in such processes.
TheAdequacy of the Free Market Economic Model to Accommodate FutureRealities
Thefree market model affects future realities of Environmental CorporateSocial Responsibilities. CSR can return dividends by assisting in thedevelopment of regulations. Also, the investments can limit theregulator’s options regarding the cost of implementing newpolicies. There is a need to develop a balance between industryprofits and environmental performance. CSR can manage the lack ofaccurate information about policy costing. In this way, regulatorsare signaled as to whether the price is too low, moderate or high.The corporates, on the other hand, impact the free market model byinclusion in campaign contributions and lobbying. In this way, thefuture regulations are influenced by public affairs management. Sincemost firms are not transparent about their public affairs activities,some of the stakeholders try to drive measurement of business [ CITATION Ber12 l 1033 ].
Regulationsare not likely to have the desired impact without close monitoringand enforcement by the government agencies. The environmentalcorporate social responsibility is an issue that has led to severalsentiments. Some individuals still maintain that corporates are notengaging in social responsibility activities out of goodwill but justfor public show. Since the process is not mandatory, the firms arealso not obligate to take part in the maintenance of the environment.The current situation is characterized by low-level supervision ofcompanies that seem to be socially responsible. Several researchersrecommend that regulators should start targeting less active firmswhile at the same time monitoring those enterprises that indicateinterest in environmental performance.
Harcourt, B. E. (2012). The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order. Cambridge: Havard University Press.
Liouia, A. & Sharma, Z. (2012). Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects. Ecological Economics, 100-111.
Medarevic, S. (2012). and the Carbon Economy: A Case for CSR, The Triple Bottom Line Obiquity. Corporate Governance, 2-8.