Showing posts with label CSR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSR. Show all posts

May 27, 2012

Corporate Social Responsibilities & Profit Maximization


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate self-regulation. According to Johnson (2008), CSR can be defined as the ways in which a firm goes beyond its minimum obligation to stakeholders per law and regulations. This voluntary social responsibilities of an organization may range from adoption of a more costly and environmentally sustainable production process, improvement of wage and non wage benefits to workers, taking on philanthropic projects for the welfare of the community, or combination of all these. This is contrary to the Laissez-faire view of capitalism representing firms that only meets the minimum obligation required by law and not more with sole objective to maximize profit (Johnson et al, 2008).

Laissez-faire firm;

Maximization of profit occurs by maximizing the profit to cost ratio. The profit maximization theory states that
the firm maximizes its profit by reducing its fixed and variable costs to the minimum. For a firm to achieve the highest total profit it has to conduct its business operations by locating and selecting its factors of production based upon comparative advantage where the product can be produced the cheapest. The theory takes into account the characteristics of factor inputs like land and labor costs, transportation costs, government regulations, political environment and all other
transactional costs. The firm will choose least expensive factors to operate in order to maximize the profits and at the same time staying within the limits of the law. This is based on the Laissez-faire view of the organization and advocated by Milton Friedman (1970) in his famous New York Times article.

The Laissez-faire firm is not taking into account consequences of externalities like destroying environment and exploitation of natural resources in an under-developed country due to inadequate local regulations or paying low wages and working condition which can be considered unfair and even a human right violation from a developed world perspective but perfectly compliant with the local regulations. This firm is limiting itself to compliance with existing regulations and in essence is not being socially responsible per the CSR theory.

Now, when a firm voluntarily adopts CSR policies like deciding to pay more than the market determined wages or engaging in costly but socially responsible production processes, then it is essentially increasing its production cost and encroaching its profit potential. CSR activities entail significant extra costs for the firm. The only way a firm can continue engaging in voluntary CSR activities and still maintain its profit margin is by raising prices or lowering costs in its value chain, or combination of both. But this is not profit maximization as the firm is either taking in the extra cost themselves or merely passing it to customers. Thus the CSR theory and profit maximization theory are at odds with each other, so the firm ends up pursuing one at the expense of other, but not both. So why is that almost all of the large firms today have CSR policies as part of their strategy, are they voluntarily sacrificing profits for the welfare of society or are they influenced by the future financial gains from CSR activities?

CSR as business strategy;

The traditional profit maximization theory does not make a distinction between maximizing profit on the short term or the long term. This theory is based on a transactional model taking short term view and ignoring long term consequences. The negative consequences of being a laissez-fairefirm like bad reputation will affect the market share and the long-term profitability of the firm. So firms include certain CSR activities into their business strategy as they are trying to maximize profitability over the long term with a short term decrease in profits followed by a more than compensatory increase
in long-term profits. It is safe to assume that these firms believe CSR activities will maximize their profit and not necessarily sacrifice profit over the long term, else why would CSR be part of the firm Public Relations Instrument. There are variety of CSR activities a firm might decide to engage in to maximize their profits.


CSR and Product differentiation;

A firm which is not in a perfectly competitive market structure will voluntarily engages in socially responsible activity, to differentiate its product and boost profits. These firms can set their price to maximize profit and pass on the additional costs of being socially good to the consumers. Firm who indulge in more socially responsible production, for example, organic or fair trade production, pass on the additional cost to consumers and still maintain their profit and at the same time increase market share by differentiation. If consumers are willing to pay a premium for more socially responsible production and increase their market share, then those firms are pursuing profit maximization. A recent study conducted by Siegel and Vitaliano who examined firms that strategically engage in CSR activities highlights that certain types of CSR activities contributed to profit maximization (Murillo & Martinek, 2009).

CSR and Stakeholder Relations;

Alternatively some firms will attempt to maximize their benefits by taking on CSR activities that minimizes the externality effects on its stakeholders. These firms view CSR actions as any other business activities like marketing, advertising or R&D. The objective behind this is that although the costs might increase in the short term, this will be outweighed by the advantages the firm enjoys in the future increases due to greater benefits it provides to its stakeholder. This could be in the form enhancing the firm’s reputation, the ability to generate customer loyalty, to attract and motivate their employees or to satisfy NGOs/advocacy groups. The firms typically identifies social activities that their stakeholders value and integrates those activities into its profit-maximizing strategy. It is difficult to predict if these CSR activities actually contributed to maximizing profit as the range of CSR activities adopted can vary from firms to firms and from industry to industry. A study conducted by Margolis, Elfenbein, and Walsh suggested that these CSR activities were not increasing profits but at the same time, they were not encroaching their profits either as CSR costs pays for itself (Reinhardt et al 2008).


Conclusion;

Clearly CSR activities entails an added cost burden which firms absorb and hence theoretically the firms are not maximizing profits. That said, these days CSR policies have become an integral part of all corporations with a motive that CSR actions will maximize their profits in the long term. Recent studies have shown that some CSR actions have contributed to increased profits but it is inconclusive that CSR policies in general will actually maximize profit over the long term, but at the same time it is difficult to determine if the firms are in fact sacrificing profit either.

Posted by Vaishak V. Suvarna on Sunday, May 27, 2012

February 6, 2012

Critique of Milton Friedman 1970's article on "Social Responsibility"


Milton Friedman (1970) famously wrote an article entitled;


Friedman, M. (1970), "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits", New York Times Magazine, September 13. Available at http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

This article was written more than 40 years ago, but still holds true even now in the 21st century business world. The main objective of a business should always be to maximize the total shareholder value of the firm. The total value of the firm is the total value of all the financial claims of the firm. (Jensen, M. 2000).

The purpose of the business organization is to create long lasting value for its investors while working within the ethical boundary. If a business organization doesn't pursue to maximize shareholder value, but instead starts giving away capital in name of philanthropy then they are indirectly causing a dis-service to the society. Contrary to popular belief majority of the investors in a publicly traded company are indirect investors comprising of hard working middle-class population who have invested through their pension plan, children's college savings plan or other type of life savings plan. Giving away money in the name of societal responsibility is merely a wealth distribution and a corporation doesn't have a right to do it unless all the shareholders can explicitly agree to give away their share of entitlement. Besides, by pursuing long term profit and reinvesting this profit into the firms growth, businesses are providing jobs and better goods and services to the people which by itself is a noble contribution to the society. Social welfare is maximized when all the firms in an economy maximize total firm value (Jensen, M. 2000).
Secondly, there are alternative theories of the Sales-revenue maximization by Baumol and Managerial Utility maximizing by Williamson. These theories argue that the shareholders and managers have different objectives. When the ownership and control of the business are in different hands, managers will pursue to maximize their personal utilities and not the owner's objectives of the profit maximization. This again is not necessarily true in a 21st century company. All the executive managers, mid-level managers and employees are compensated with some kind of company equity. These days its comman for almost all employees to have company equity tied into their pay package via retirement investment accounts (401K), employee stock purchase program, Restricted Stock Units,etc. So the employees, mid level management and executive management are all owners of the company. They are naturally driven to maximize the value of the company as they will be increasing their own wealth. There are many CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies who earn a token base salary of $1 annual but given millions of dollars worth of company stocks based on performance. As an example, Tim Cook, the current CEO of Apple received a compensation of $59 million in 2010, out of which only about $6 million was his salary and bonus. Remainder of the $52 million was from the company stocks. So obviously there cannot be disconnect between management and shareholders objectives as everyone is a shareholder.
That said, a corporate philanthropy should not be eliminated all together. Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR is a good thing for business and it is imperative that a modern corporation should include CSR as part of its Business strategy. In the present climate of opinion, with aversion to 'capitalism' and 'profits,' the corporation cannot act ruthless and alienate its own target customer base in pursuit of short term profit. For the long term survival of a business, it is important for the businesses to be customer focussed with ultimate goal of creating long term relationships with its customer base. Having a Corporate Social Responsibility program is a way for a business to generate goodwill, brand equity and loyal customers as a by-product of its CSR expenditures. However this corporate philanthropy activities should only be pursued with an aim of maximizing shareholder value in the long term.

Posted by Vaishak V. Suvarna on Monday, February 06, 2012