I totally agree that it is not enough for a multinational corporation to be socially responsible; they must be a triple bottom line company to meet their ethical obligations. The reason is because corporations should have an absolute social responsibility of offering services and goods at affordable rates. The two theories have different conditions for their existence. Both theories are different in that they seek to identify corporations as different entities with distinct moral obligations that have no connection to economic obligations. The corporate social responsibility works on the basis that the organizations involved are members of a moral community. The corporate social responsibilities fall into legal, ethical, economic, and philanthropic. Equally, the theory of triple bottom line also considers organizations as members of a moral community though it requires that the company measures its actions based on the scales of environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
Whereas a company has the corporate social responsibility of being economically responsible, the same is required of it under the triple bottom line theory. As such, the business should make money to fulfill the obligation of the human survival instinct version. Otherwise, unless the company makes a profit, it tends to perish. However, that is not enough, the economic responsibility for the company as a triple bottom line organization requires the organization to focus on its long-term sustainability characterizing the nature of any persistent company (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). As a triple bottom line organization, the company should make decisions that not only make short-term economic boons, but also those that do not have long-term harmful effects.
Organizations fulfill the legal corporate social responsibility by obeying the spirit and the letter marked in the law. As such, the organizations do not just follow the law because they have been spelled out, but because they ought to fulfill the obligation of understanding the law as a proactive duty. The organizations should not cross over the boundaries demarcated by the law because the penalties are low. In any case, they should adhere to them because they are socially good and there is a need for organizations to make good faith and maintain the spirit of abiding to all limits. The triple bottom line theory does not address the legal responsibility. However, it does add a perspective of social sustainability for organizations (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). The theory asserts that organizations should give precedence on the balance of economic power in the societal setting. The theory encourages business competition but the bottom line should be maximized in social terms in order to foster environments that can make the businesses succeed. The concept of social sustainability may seem counterintuitive, but it makes it possible for the whole society to survive instead of a single corporation surviving. As such, companies thrive better in the societies in which they are based.
While the corporate social responsibility theory promotes ethical responsibility, the 3BL theory advocates for environmental responsibilities. Both aspects of organization management are unique for each theory. As such, both theories are essential for organization survival. The triple bottom line sees to it that organizations realize that, environmentally, the resources are finite. As such, they take care of excessive degradation that only worsens their lives and that of the future generation. The members, being the constituents of the moral community, see to it that no undue harm befalls the people in their environment and those who will take it over in the future (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). The concern arises from the many risks of environmental degradation found in business activities. The theory addresses the amount of environmental degradation that is acceptable. The theory ensures that the atmosphere of all business operations is not “used up” or poisoned. The theory also offers efforts to renew the environments in the bottom line that could have been degraded in the past. On the other hand, the corporate social responsibility sees to it that organizations are ethically responsible. As such, organization are confined to always do the right things despite the absence of the spirit and law pushing for right actions. As such, the firms must act just like other individual citizens living in the civil community. Additionally, firms must take philanthropic responsibility as a CRS to supplement the environmental sustainability set by the triple bottom line. As such, the firm contributes to the society’s projects despite them being independent to a particular business (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). As such, firms will take up activities that are an extension of generosity toward the host community. However controversial the responsibility may sound, it is necessary that there be a communication of the firm and community connections.
Despite there being a correlation between the concepts of the corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line, culture is one major difference that exists. The culture behind corporate social responsibility is more American while that behind the triple bottom line is more European. The corporate social responsibility is accustomed to economic progressions creating a drive for change. The corporate social responsibility also accommodates ethical thinking therein (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). On the other hand, the Europeans, to whom the triple bottom line culture is attributed, are accustomed to the general economic decline and favor change less. Their outlook favorably suits sustainability as a guiding principle.
According to the principles of distributive justice, there are different distributions of benefits cutting across all the members of society. The economic benefits are defined by economic frameworks that are as a result of human politics. As such, they change within the different societies over different times. The factors that contribute to the different morally preferable distributions set the moral preferences of distributive justice. The scope and roles of distributive justice vary according to the nature of the recipients of the distribution. The basis for the distribution should be the nature of free transactions, equity, and maximization. The advocates of the principles of the distributive justice tend to assert that the principle operates in ideal societies. As such, such readers may be misled into not adopting the theory. However, it is important to appreciate that there will always be distributive justice playing out in the long-run practice. Organizations arguing for change must bring economic benefits as well as the associated burdens in line with what the people in the society deserve (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). In the distributive justice, it is important to note that the theories applied could recommend similar or, in some cases, divergent changes.
The distribution of wealth compares the different groups and the various members in a society. The views of Americans on the distribution of wealth strongly correlates with the ideology and partisanship of majority of the citizens in the society. The question fairness in the distribution of wealth does not include all of the explicit assumptions about the causes of the current unequal wealth distribution. The concept of the government imposing high taxation rates on the citizens of a country with an aim of wealth redistribution should be attributed to pure partisanship and ideology. The existing distribution of wealth has a tendency of being unequal in most societies because most of the wealthy personalities in any setting possess more financial opportunities and privileges allowing them to generate more money. As such, the current distribution of wealth continues to drift away from the equilibrium.
In terms of corporate social responsibility, it is the obligation of firms to satisfy economic responsibilities of making money for the damages in the organization, while at the same time sticking to legal obligations. Additionally, the firms should satisfy the ethical expectations of helping the people in the society whenever in a position to do so. On the other hand, as per the triple bottom line theory, organizations should do well in all the areas of economic, environmental, and societal responsibilities. The aspect of winning money in business undertakings should not overwhelm the desire to win for the environment and the society as well. The wealth gap that illustrates the relation between distributive justice and current wealth distribution should be minimized by reconciling the important sources of citizen income such as social security, pensions, and households (Matteson & Metivier, 2016). Distributive justice and the current distribution of wealth are important aspects in promoting democracy. They, therefore, should be advocated for. Otherwise, the high levels of wealth inequalities end up being incompatible with the principles of justice as well as the meritocratic values in the modern democratic societies globally.
References
Matteson, M., & Metivier, C. (2016). Business Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Triple Bottom Line. Retrieved from https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-3-social-responsibility-professionalism-and-loyalty/corporate-social-responsibility-and-the-triple-bottom-line/
