Different Arguments and the Challenges for Vietnam

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Different Arguments and The Challenges For Vietnam

The Exxon Valdez oil spill on March 24, 1989 has passed for 23 years, but the consequences would never be forgotten. It was reported that about 11 million gallons of crude oil run off in Prince William Sound, resulting in 44,000 km2 surface of the sea, more than 1,900 km of channel covered with oil, huge amount of sea animal and resources killed or damaged (Duane et al, 2011). Joseph Hazelwood was hired by Exxon Shipping Company as the captain of the ship, even though they already knew that Hazelwood had been under an alcoholic treatment and started to drink again. The case has brought up a lot of issues and lessons for the company, as well as to the world awareness of corporate social responsibility (CSR). It is not a new concept to the world, but has been the topic for the many arguments, both against and for throughout history. Different points of view may introduce different aspects of CSR, as well as the different ways it is adopted in the world. In Vietnam, lately since the scandal of Vedan Vietnam, in which the company was charged of polluting the river near the area where it operates, government and corporations have made more effort in implementing the responsibility to society of corporations in the real life, but also faced lots of obstacles doing so. This essay will point out some of the arguments relating to CSR, and the difficulties in transferring it in practice in Vietnam.

As cited by Carroll and Buchholtz (2009) as the "traditional view holds" from Milton Friedman (1970) stated that the only responsibility is to "maximize the profits of its owners and shareholders". It is clear that this viewpoint focuses on the role of managers to act in the interest of the shareholders, or in more detail, to make profit increase for business. But it can be argued that only the shareholders' expectation is reached leaving that of other stakeholders unfocused. In fact, Recently, Lawrence and Weber (2011) defined CSR as "a way" that corporations contribute to the development of the society and "its inhabitants", and are "accountable" for any impact they have on "people, communities and environment". Another recent contribution of Kurtz and Boone (2011) concerned about "quantitative", which means the benefits of stakeholders such as customers, employees; and "qualitative" aspect, which traditionally means the measurement of profits and sales.

So far there have been lots of arguments in favor of and against the adoption of CSR around the world, which proves CSR has been becoming a more concerned concept. It would be well started by understanding what the term responsibility. According to Jerry and Andrew (2007) cited by Lawrence and Weber (2011), the term responsibility means "to pledge back",