Implicación (IM)

Not long ago, a maelstrom debate existed on whether or not corporate establishments should Participate, intervene or be involved in solving social problems in their areas of operation and in the society as a whole. The debate seems to have largely conventionally been resolved on the affirmative side that is on the necessity for corporate bodies to be involved in meeting social responsibilities ( Azubike, 2008)

Prior to debate, the prevailing social and economic culture was that corporations should conduct their business on pure economic basis (profit maximization). Currently, there is wide acceptance of broadened and diversified perspective on business consideration and activities which in concept and practice lie beyond traditional or classical economic objective.

(Musa, & Shehu, 2013) opines that in simple terms, a contemporary corporate organization should be normally mindful of the entire social milieu of its enterprise including attending to the multifaceted social responsibilities.

Often, the encompassing argument, which is drawn upon with regard to the concept of social responsibility, is that business neither exists in isolation from society nor does a healthy corporate system exist in an unfavourable or enfeebled environment ( Imoh-Ita, 2013; Dobers,

46

2009). This clearly shows that the agreement that all type of public problem should be taken care of by government no longer holds in the real world.

As a result, a number of relatively new slogans or directions for business in the society seem to win the day. This is largely justified on the grounds the acceptance of social responsibility enhance public confidence in business and facilitate the achievement of favourable economic system by corporate executive who act in socially acceptable and desirable manner (Gavrea, & Stegerean, 2011). There is also the need to balance the power responsibility equation in business along the line of the axiom that “those who do not take responsibility for their power, ultimately lose it” (Makori, & Jagongo, 2013)

In simple terms, public and corporate bodies have widely come to accept the fact that while profit making for business is important, it is itself alone cannot guarantee the survival of business. Today, the management orientation that is widely accepted is that business should adopt a broader outlook in its operation given the fact the avoidance of social responsibility may weaken the life of the enterprise.

To recall, social responsibility is the “voluntary consideration of public social goals alongside the private economic ones” (Musa, & Shehu, 2013). The question is how proper mix or balance between solving public problems and at the same time achieving its primary interest, which is profit making. A number of view point exist on this matter especially as many corporations have grown in size with their economic activities leading to increasing largely negative social consequences. The dominant view points are to leave the matter of involvement in social responsibilities to the goodwill of management of corporation. This implies that they should sort things out as it concerns the decision on how best to achieve an appropriate balance between social and economic goals of the organization (Archie, & Kareem 2010)

47

On the continuum of direct or no direct control of management with regard to handling social responsibility, there exist two divergent positions. (Ogbugu, 2006) posits at one extreme thus:

The call for direct or formal control by government of management of the corporation is to facilitate the pursuit of social goals of the society. This position is similar to the controversial call the statement particularly in the 1970 for nationalization of major foreign investments in some third world countries. For some leaders and policy makers in the developing countries, this constitutes a possible strategy, objective or ideology for enhancing development in their state.

Put more directly, the reason adduced for the strategy of nationalization is hinged on the increasing role of the state in the regulative, welfare and planning functions, or more so, as a major economic actor in the society.

At the other extreme of the continuum is opposition to direct state control instead is given to control by shareholders, which should ensure that the enterprise does not waver form private economic objectives.

Between the above stated opposite ends of the continuum are other view point that be considered as less extreme. These have to do with, as (Leyira, Uwaoma, & Olagunju, 2011) put it:

i. How to democratize corporate management or governance to include a variety of stakeholders such as worker, local communities, customers, environmentalists and the state etc.

ii. How to regulate the enterprise so that the company shares it control with the government, the later will be better located to ensure that necessary social goals are given adequate problem solving attention.

iii. How to implement direct management control but tamper with either less formal influences such as using the power of public and societal persuasion to ensure compliance with regulations on public problems, and

48

iv. How to induce the enterprise to conform to the need for social responsibility through the application of incentives such as liberal tax law or procedures to induce favourable disposition to social goals

Some scholars and writers argue that it is largely unnecessary to intervene in the operations of corporations. This contending argument which in the main, expose leaving the business corporation alone and maintain, like Adam smith and heir of his classical vision, that a corporate body is “led by invisible hand to promote and end which was no part of his intention”.

(The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7 & 8:463). Put slightly different, there is the belief that

“a kind of invisible hand ensures that … economic corporation acts in a socially responsible manner” (Amao, 2012).