商業道德可定義為道德和價值觀的實踐運用，它能體現一個公司的行為，例如公司的一些行事方式：定價策略、產品安全、營銷策略和考慮對社會/環境的影響。我們不得不承認，滿足消費者需求、給公司創造利潤以及計算給社會和環境帶來的福利，在這三者之間找到一個平衡點，是很難去實現的。為了消除這種情況，特別是在這個倫理意識與日俱增的社會，現在公司把企業社會責任(CSR)的概念整合到具備更多道德程序的商業模式中。關于這一點爭論性很強，有很多方式能夠輔助公司把企業社會責任融入到他們的日常操作。一些人認為在當前的環境下，比起短期利潤，企業必須擴大視野，利用政府提供的福利。然而，還有些人聲稱CSR分散了企業的基本經濟，甚至有人認為企業社會責任只不過是一種“表面裝飾”欺騙公眾和偽造道德印象。
 
Business Ethics can be defined as the application of morals and values that determine a firms behaviour, for example their approaches to, pricing strategies, product safety, marketing strategies and consideration of societal/environmental impacts. It would be right to acknowledge that finding a balance between meeting consumer needs, generating profit and accounting for the welfare of society and the environment is difficult to achieve. In an effort to tackle such a situation, especially in the increasingly ethically conscious world, companies now integrate the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into their business models with the intention to provide more ethical processes. With much debate, there are a number of ways firms can incorporate CSR into their daily operations. Some argue that in this current environment, it's imperative that corporations adopt a perspective wider than short term profits as to capitalize on available benefits. Others, however, claim that CSR efforts distract firms from the fundamental economic role of enterprise and it has even been suggested that CSR is nothing but a form of 'window-dressing' as to deceive the public and create ethical impressions that may be artificial. Andres Georg Scherer and Guido Palazzo (2010) distinguish particularly between "economic perspectives" and "political perspectives" on CSR. This essay will explain and critically examine the CSR efforts of one of the most successful businesses in recent years, McDonalds, with relevance to the partnership initiatives they have created and maintained with environmental organisations concerning packing and waste, keeping in mind the perspectives brought forward by Scherer and Palazzo that will be later discussed.
 
Originating in California, 1940, McDonalds has become the worlds largest chain of fast-food restaurants, operating over 31,000 restaurants worldwide and serving almost 60 million customers daily . Clearly such enormity creates a huge amount of responsibility, be it economic, political or social/environmental. This has been highlighted over the last 15 years due to the substantial effects of globalisation on the variety of ethical demands and expectations corporations are faced with. With such a large stakeholder base, the recent trend in consumer movements and campaigns towards maintaining the welfare of our planet, in terms of waste control, has become a force to be reckoned with and must be acknowledged. This global community has created a notable power opening between organisations and national states i.e. a state's authority on a national level is no longer sufficient to regulate Multi-National Corporations (MNC).#p#分頁標題#e#
 
This history of McDonalds CSR efforts began in 1990 when they established their Global Environmental Commitment, "…since then, they have focused on incremental improvements designed to continuously improve their environmental performance, both in their supply chain and restaurants."  The first action they took was to create a task force with the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) aiming to expel the use of polystyrene 'clamshell' food containers in a pioneering attempt to reduce to amount of 'solid' waste each restaurant produced. This was the first partnership of its kind between a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) dedicated to environmental preservation and a Fortune 500 company, in an era where environmental interests and business activities where not associated (McDonalds Corporation, CSR Press Release, 2010). By 2008, all traces and applications of polystyrene had been completely removed from McDonald's operations. Since this movement, McDonalds introduced paper-based packaging "...providing a 70-90% reduction in sandwich packaging volume, reducing landfill space, energy used and pollutant releases over the lifecycle of the package."  Since introducing further initiatives such as smaller tray liners, cardboard salad containers and the popular 'One Meal, One Napkin Campaign', it is fair to say that the efforts concerning packaging made by McDonalds have been hugely successful, with 82% of all packaging being made from recycled materials. In 1999 they announced that they, through energy efficiency improvements, had reduced 510 million kilowatt-hours in their stores. Having seen this strategic value of being environmentally innovative, they continued to develop new strategies. One of these strategies was to not only increase the amount of recycled paper-based material that they themselves were using, but to also raise awareness and guide other paper purchasers on how to source responsibly produced paper-based products and reduce their environmental footprint (The WWF Guide to Buying Paper). By partnering with the World Wide Fund for Nature (previously World Wildlife Fund, WWF) in 2007, McDonalds were able to develop a paper purchasing policy that meant they could guarantee consistent environmentally responsible packaging for their restaurants. Not only this, but they managed to develop a type of carton board that is produced from at least 72% pre-consumer recycled goods. Their funding and contribution to creating such a direction for others to follow has greatly promoted the reduction of pollution and careless consumption in the catering industry, and continues to do so at present.
 
However, in terms of how CSR is perceived, there are two fundamental perspectives that must be credited; the economic perspective and the political perspective that Scherer and Palazzo distinguished between.
 
Economically, it can be argued that CSR could be perceived on the minimalist of terms, brought forward by Milton Friedman, or arguably on broader levels. Friedman (1970) made response to the frequent call for corporations to act in a sociably responsibly way by claiming that corporations have "…one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits…" (Turner 2006) so long as they are"…conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom." (Friedman, NYTM, 1970) i.e. socially responsible behaviour is justified purely on economic grounds, and not acted beyond compliance. Markus Kitzmueller of the European University Institute supports Friedman's view, claiming that "...firms, just as any private agent, do not have sufficient incentives to efficiently internalize the costs they cause, governments are well suited to correct such behaviour through regulation or taxation, and ultimately, given perfect government and information, firms just comply." (Kitzmueller, 2010, p.6) If the case of McDonalds was analysed by such theorists, they wouldn't condone the actions taken that surpass a regulated level, for example developing new packaging material at a cost to the shareholders and diverting attention from profit-maximisation to organising campaigns to raise awareness of social and environmental externalities. Effectively, they force the presumption that CSR is a manifestation of moral hazard towards shareholders and an inconsistency of the neo-classical firm's profit orientation. However, there have been progressions made on Friedman's view surrounding the role of business in CSR. Management professor, Archie B Carroll (1979), derived four categories that culminate the aspect of CSR, depicting them as ordered layers including; economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. His framework suggests a primary emphasis on the economic and legal motives of CSR, however, unlike Friedman; he recognises the actual need and position that philanthropic responsibilities may have in business. However, Carroll accepts that the underlying principle of CSR maybe the reliance the categories have on each other, "…beginning with the basic building block notion that economic performance undergirds all else." (Carroll 1991)#p#分頁標題#e#
 
However, as mentioned, it could be suggested that this perception, based largely upon economic purity, is too simplistic. It is ignorant to assume that governments are in the position or have the power to govern the social and/or economic costs caused by the operations of MNC's, and so in order for such issues to be corrected, corporations should contribute. The scope of CSR, therefore, is moving away from legal liability and being replaced by the social connectedness that MNC's have with their social and environmental externalities (Young 2008), it has even been suggested that "Corporations now govern society, perhaps more than governments themselves do" (Bakan 2005). Henderson (2001), on the other hand, takes a different approach to criticism, by claiming that the target for CSR is to "…embrace 'corporate citizenship', and run their affairs, in close conjunction with an array of different 'stakeholders', so as to promote the goal of 'sustainable development'." (Henderson 2001, p15) To achieve this, firms such as McDonalds should equally fulfil three dimensions; economic, environmental and social. These dimensions are formally known as the 'Triple Bottom Line' and should be met collectively as an accounting method, rather than focusing on shareholder value and profit-maximisation. By acting in such a way, society's expectations are said to be satisfied, in the sense that by embracing corporate citizenship, recognising stakeholders and experiencing short-term costs, McDonalds can still achieve long-run profit maximisation alongside the continued support of the public society.
 
The approach that McDonalds have adopted over the last 20 years, as said before, has steered away from a purely economic perspective of CSR, however, it could be suggested that they do comply with some of the modified and extended economic outlooks. With reference to Henderson's, 'Triple Bottom Line', it can be seen that they have made efforts so satisfy the three dimensions, economically, environmentally and socially through their efforts to increase profitability through positive societal perceptions and to reduce negative environmental impacts they may cause.
 
It is here, however, that Scherer and Palazzo make their distinction between the economic perception of CSR and the political perception that is to be covered. They concentrate highly on the effects that globalisation has had on the engagement of CSR, suggesting that a 'paradigm shift' (change of basic assumptions) is required in its continued debate. They identify that MNC's should not be categorically presumed as the contributors to financial scandals, social ills and environmental failures, but actually, they are the solution to global regulatory issues and problems with public goods, especially as it has become increasingly apparent that state agencies are overtaxed and unwilling to contribute to the greater good of the public. (Scherer and Palazzo 2007) Scherer and Palazzo suggest, therefore, that this contribution towards global regulation and providing public goods is the basis of 'political CSR', recognising that private corporations and NGO's have an "…active role in democratic regulation and control of market transactions…" (Scherer and Palazzo 2010), especially in conditions, such as those caused by globalisation, where the global framework of rules and regulations have become weak and inconsistent. When applying this perspective analytically to the case of McDonalds, we can reflect on the CSR efforts they have made. It could quite easily be said that McDonalds have taken a largely political perspective to their approach on CSR, in the sense that many of their efforts they have taken upon themselves contribute greatly to public welfare, be it through awareness campaigns e.g. 'Discover The Rainforest' and increased exertion of environmentally friendly operations, such as supply chain management or waste reduction schemes. This extends beyond the operations they take on a self orientated level. By pioneering NGO partnerships i.e. with the EDF; McDonalds managed to set a benchmark for all market competitors to abide by in order to fulfil their own market potential. They effectively created a standard that others strived to achieve, in essence, forming a type of regulation on the way business operations and CSR efforts should be undertook.#p#分頁標題#e#
 
However, it is on this global level of regulation and forced uniformity that economist David Henderson identifies that on a world wide scale, little account of costs and welfare are taken. It could therefore be suggested that safe guarding of citizenship rights is cast aside (particularly in labour markets), for example, in the case of McDonalds, packaging produced cheaply and with low labour costs may actually be detrimental to the labour market in less well developed countries, holding back "…the development of poor countries through the suppression of employment opportunities within them" (Henderson 2001) i.e. it "…restricts the scope for mutually beneficial trade and investment flows. (Henderson 2001) However, the negative effects of a political perspective do not stop at merely labour markets. Corporations showing a high interest in being social responsible tend to incur higher costs (and lower profits) than that of their competitors, and so with the help of public pressure and independent awareness campaigns, firms like McDonalds try to get their rivals to follow suit. However, rather than everyone benefiting from 'responsible' business operations, it can be argued that actually, the performance of the economy as a single unit is hindered greatly by the lack of market competition that uniformity creates, reducing the general level of welfare experienced by the community. Some people, such as Milton Friedman, suggest that the perception of CSR is based greatly upon misconception and that without the introduction of a 'paradigm shift', embracing a political perspective of CSR will reduce economic activity and jeopardise the welfare of all. "Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible." (Friedman 1982)
 
Clearly there is great debate surrounding the perception, and application of CSR as a component to a successful and 'responsible' business model. This essay has attempted to understand better the motives that cause corporations to take certain approaches to being socially responsible. These motives result from the perspective of CSR that corporations opt for in this case, whether it be an economic outlook or a political one. Milton Friedman stands out as a supporter of the economic perspective, with his purist attitude on what corporations should do to be technically 'responsible', in essence, staying true to themselves by generating the most profit in the shortest time for their stockholders. Although his attitude was furthered by the work of Carroll, with the incorporation of philanthropic efforts, it could be suggested that the CSR pyramid he presents may not be the best model for generally representing CSR, and so alternative theories are encouraged. However, it is apparent from Henderson's work that a political perspective to CSR, to an extent, actually incorporates the basics of economic theories. Scherer and Palazzo put forward the idea that the contribution to global regulation and the provision of public goods (with little government intervention) is the key to a successful political approach, and by incurring additional short term costs, the long term profitability of business operations will be enhanced, hence satisfying stockholders. This is extremely evident in the case of McDonalds and their CSR efforts. They incurred additional costs, exceeding those they were obliged to have, in order to improve not only the welfare of the public, but to also distinguish themselves in a booming market, increase their marketability and therefore achieve the potential profit they foresaw. However, it's difficult to pinpoint where responsibility to the community begins for a corporation and ends for the governments who are unable or unwilling to provide.#p#分頁標題#e#