Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility in NZ Farming Sector

This essay delves into the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) within the context of the New Zealand farming sector. It explores the role of the government in CSR, contrasting the views favored by the government and farmers. The essay critically examines the arguments for and against both narrow and broad views of CSR, particularly concerning the responsibilities of farming companies. It discusses the evolution of CSR, highlighting the shift from a narrow, profit-driven focus to a broader socio-economic perspective, and analyzes the implications of these different viewpoints. The essay also references academic sources to support its arguments and provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of CSR within the New Zealand farming industry, emphasizing the obligations of businesses towards stakeholders and society.

Running head: ESSAY 0
MANAGING CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
MARCH 27, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

ESSAY 1
The corporate social responsibility refers to the process, which aims to hold the
responsibilities for the actions of corporation. The corporate social responsibility is accepted
to make the good impact by reporting on the significances of the actions on the atmosphere,
workers, clients, groups, shareholders, and the public at great level. In the following parts, the
role of government in corporate social responsibility in New Zealand, the view favoured by
government and the view favoured by famers is discussed and critically examined. This essay
also develops the arguments for and against the narrow and the broad view of corporate
social responsibility in respect of the farming sectors in New Zealand.
Increasing involvement of corporation with social responsibility has encouraged the
argument over a proper role of government in administrating the conventionally private
domain. The government have great role to play in the corporate social responsibility. It is
required by the government and corporations to render the chances and responsibilities for
the individuals to solve the problems or issues in the general, reliable context that is simple in
nature – the subsidiarity’s principle. In New Zealand, the concept of corporate social
responsibility would ignore the government interference and administrative interference by
stating the ability of the corporation to perceive the standards of best practice (Crowther &
Seifi, 2018).
Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility spending addressed by the Government of
New Zealand is a proper step for quicker and complete growth in a nation. The corporate
social responsibility is one of the most concerned issues in the farming sector in New
Zealand. There are two opinions in respect of the social responsibility in farming sector. As
per the classical view, the main purpose of farming companies are to generate the profits.
These farming companies have only one duty to the society to give the essential products and
services in return of rendering maximum profit. Further, the socioeconomic view states that
farming companies are the part of society. They have not only the responsibility of earning

ESSAY 2
the profits. The supporters of this view, state that this is in best interest of corporation to be
accountable to the societies (Cai, et. al, 2015).
Moreover, these two views of the corporate social responsibility have argued widely
as progressively this ground is becoming necessary for societies in which business runs.
With time, the narrow view or classical theory of the Corporate Social Responsibility is
becoming fader. In the addition of this, the socio-economic strategy is getting momentum.
Globally, the most business houses are following the corporate social responsibility along
with the financial interest (McWilliams, 2015).
It is suggested by narrow view that the major aim of business will be to earn more
profit. There are different views to made argument on the narrow view and broad view of
CSR. For an example, it is stated by Levitt that finally businesses have two key duties. One is
to comply with the fundamental norms of the business. The second duty is to earn profits. It
is argued by Friedman that farmers must only focus on earning of profit and not on social
welfare. It is stated by narrow view that the farming companies should earn money. On the
other hand, it is stated by CSR’s broader view that except the main aim of achieving profits,
the farmers have duties to the societies and to state the adverse consequences of the business
on societies (Schrempf-Stirling, Palazzo & Phillips, 2016).
In this way, the government would be in the favour of narrow view. Because, it is
government of a nation that is required to be liable for administrating the activities of
companies and ensure that they perform in moral way (Loosemore, et. al, 2018). This
requires to be stated that this is impossible for government alone to administer possible
immoral conduct of all companies. On the other hand, the farmer would be in favour of the
broader view of CSR. The reason is that the duties of a farmer include the obligations

ESSAY 3
towards the shareholders, the workers, the clients, the dealers and the environment (Unit,
2015).
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that the corporate social responsibility
is the sort of obligation that the companies or farming industries must keenly execute in the
societies in which they run in the accountable way. In the common situation, the companies
are not required to be forced to execute these obligations but there are organisations that have
showed that they are required to be forced to take up certain forms. Furthermore, sometimes
the governments, civil society, media, the advocacy group compel the business corporations
to practice the corporate social responsibility (Crane, Matten & Spence, 2019).

ESSAY 4
References
Cai, W., Chen, T., Ryali, S., Kochalka, J., Li, C. S. R., & Menon, V. (2015). Causal
interactions within a frontal-cingulate-parietal network during cognitive control:
Convergent evidence from a multisite–multitask investigation. Cerebral
Cortex, 26(5), 2140-2153.
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. (2019). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and
cases in a global context. New York: Routledge.
Crowther, D., & Seifi, S. (2018). Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility. England:
Emerald Group Publishing.
Loosemore, M., Lim, B. T. H., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Zeng, H. Y. (2018). A comparison of
corporate social responsibility practices in the Singapore, Australia and New Zealand
construction industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 149-159.
McWilliams, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility. Wiley encyclopedia of management,
1-4.
Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700-719.
Unit, B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press