In a recent article written by Manny V. Pangilinan (MVP), it was pointed out that Philanthropy has never been so fashionable for the rich and famous to engage in. To cite a few, he mentioned Bill Gates (US $31B) and Warren Buffet’s (US $37B) recent donations, which were followed by a number of prominent leaders.

MVP further noted that, Philanthropy has become very business-like, organized and professionally managed undertakings.

Talking about his company’s own thrust to help people, he wrote:
“We recognize that business-especially in a developing economy like the Philippines- can and should play a unique part in enhancing welfare. Indeed, because of its size and influence, business has the capacity to transform societies- by creating new needs, raising new hopes, inspiring new dreams. That is precisely what establishes the ground for corporate social responsibility”

A big majority will applaud the above statement. However, some of our great thinkers will probably disagree. Another school of thought would say; “Leave the people alone. Let Darwin do his work. Let the fittest survive. Leave the weak to die.”

I’ve just written about and described two opposing viewpoints.

Please tell us what you think..

1 comment:

categorically imperative said...

I'm all for Milton Friedman. The only social responsibility of a business is to create profit, so long as the business stays within the rules of the game. Goes without saying that companies should not create profit at the expense of mentally tortured, overworked, underpaid employees like myself, or the exploitation of scarce natural resources, or inhumane treatment to animals. (The last one sounded, er, oxymoronic.)

The only real justification of CSR for me, besides PR, is the tax shield. That's all.

So let them businesses do their thing. People, as citizens, and not as employees or company shareholders, should own up to social responsibility.