QUESTION
tips while writing a reflective essay:: this things should be considered while writing a reflective essay
The basic elements for successful reflection include:
Time to reflect
Something to reflect upon
Medium for capturing reflection
Skills in reflection
Honesty
Feedback
Notes for Creative Reflection
Questions that guide reflection:
How does what you have read and heard relate to what you already know?
Does it contradict other theories or support them?
Does it suggest different interpretations?
Does it relate to your won experience, or things you have read about
business/consulting in the newspaper?
What light does it shine upon things that you didn’t fully understand before? Does it
make you realise the importance of something that you had previously disregarded?
Does it make you doubt something that you had previously assumed to be true?
Much of such a reflection relates to the critical thinking skills, which are the THE MOST
IMPORTANT SKILL SOUGHT AFTER BY EMPLOYERS!
Reflection is essentially a dialogue based around these questions?and honest answers to
them.
Creative reflection = your thoughts, ideas, feelings and
reflections
This is NOT just about stating facts!
This is NOT a collection of descriptive summaries of the
SOLUTION
Introduction
In this article we will deal with what various scholars and especially Md Zabid Abdul Rashid and Saadiatul Ibrahim think about corporate social responsibility and the attitude of managers and corporate executives towards social responsibility. The essay critically evaluates the discussion and evidences given by different factions. I am particularly critical about the implications and assumptions which are used in the dialogue of Md Zabid Abdul Rashid and Saadiatul Ibrahim.
The paper in question has used the literature referring (Holmes, S.L., 1976) among others that examined the perception of executives towards corporate social responsibility and how their perceptions changed over a period of five years in the United States. It found that corporate in the United States had great acceptance for corporate social responsibility and the majority of the executives agreed that enhanced corporate social responsibility can strengthen the economic system. Besides, the other literature used also indicated that the top management and the corporate executives laid great importance on social responsibility for its impact on the economic activities of the business. The (Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002) study also concluded that
However, my question is that when there is such positive response of managers and executives towards corporate social responsibility then why the involvement of the Malaysia corporate is on constant fall in the community works (Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002) over the period of a decade? It also raises a doubt on the implication of general attitude of the managers and executives in performing corporate social responsibility, which does not appear too convincing as put by the study in question.
Discussion on the Attitude towards Corporate Social Responsibility
How it Relates to Other Studies
The findings of the study put forward quite a progressive picture of the management and executives’ attitude towards corporate social responsibility. It indicates that businesses reckon it essential for their long term economic interests that they should be socially responsible and be involved in community improvement works. The findings quite relate to other scholarly studies (Stephen S. Poloz 2004), which indicate that corporate social responsibility has become one of the top priorities in the present day’s corporate world. However, the (Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002) has found that proportion of respondents accepting the importance and implication of performing corporate social responsibility has significantly fallen as compared to the results, a decade before the current study of 2001. Another report (Nik Maheran Nik Muhammad, N.M., Johari, R. J., and Mustafa, W.M., n.d) confirm to lower levels of corporate responsibility in Malaysia in the recent times as compared to previous decade.
Makes an Incomplete Interpretation
The study in question largely considers only those social variables which are leading to improvement in the internal organizational welfare, product quality, stake holders’ equity and economic interests. However, I think it is missing on a very important aspect of the corporate behaviour towards the environment. I think, in order to measure the more empirical corporate attitude towards social issues, we also need to investigate into the environmental aspect besides the community and human rights issues. Missing on environmental aspect raises a significant doubt on the implications of the findings about the status of corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. The (Nik Maheran Nik Muhammad, N.M., Johari, R. J., and Mustafa, W.M., n.d) report finds that social and environmental responsibility has shown quite slower pace in the Malaysian companies’ annual reports. The report is based on the Social Responsibility Accounting system, which communicates and demonstrates company’s dedication towards improving environmental responsibility to stakeholders. The report shows that in 2001 in Malaysia, compared to 1999, there has been low growth in the making of environmental reporting by companies. It shows that although companies are interested in participating in the community works to establish sustainable economic growth of their business, they are least interested in disclosing their environmental responsibility as a part of their corporate behaviour. The correlation of the two reports shows that not only the response to corporate social responsibility has reduced, but a very important aspect of corporate environmental behaviour is also being largely going unaccounted.
From doing a comparative study of the Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002 and Nik Maheran Nik Muhammad, N.M., Johari, R. J., and Mustafa, W.M., n.d, I think Social Responsibility Accounting is a better criteria to measure the attitude of management and executives towards corporate social responsibility than investigating into the determinants like family upbringing, traditional beliefs. These determinants are largely abstract and not reliable lacking any concrete evidences. The determinants like traditional beliefs, common practices in the industry, and school and university of training varied significantly from 1991 to 2001 in the ranking as can be seen in the comparative analysis made by Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002. This adds to the complexities and confusion in considering these determinants to measure the attitude of companies for corporate social responsibility. On the other hand Social Responsibility Accounting which has been defined in United Kingdom as the “Government’s Green Paper” (Nik Muhammad, N.M., Johari, R. J., and Mustafa, W.M., n.d). Though voluntary, it is instrumental at measuring company’s attitude towards anti-pollution, health& safety issues and other community welfare works. Social Responsibility Accounting makes a clearer means of measuring corporate social responsibility, which is discretionary and voluntary. It is even undertaken by countries to improve relation of corporate sector with society and environment. I think Social Responsibility Accounting is a more pragmatic way to improve corporate social responsibility than just working on factors like family upbringing and abstract values as suggested by the Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002.
Contradictions Associated with the Findings of the Study
Rashid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002 concludes there has been increase in the positive attitude of the management and executives towards corporate social responsibility, but it fails to clearly explain why the level or proportion of this attitude has reduces over a decade after 1991. The study in question blames factors like educational training, family upbringing and cultural and ethical values to have caused the decrease in the proportion of the positive attitude. However, these variables do not convince me entirely to be the major causes. Therefore, in order to clear my doubts I referred to the (Kotchen, M.J., and Moon, J.J. 2011) research paper. It proposes and concludes an argument that companies engage in corporate social responsibilities to offset corporate social irresponsibility.
If companies do not perform corporate social irresponsibility they are posed with financial liabilities (Kotchen, M.J., and Moon, J.J. 2011) in terms of that their economic interests are hampered if the product quality is not good, if their public image is bad then their stakeholders are negatively affected and it reduces their production and profitability both, besides if they are not environmentally. Therefore, I further conclude that if the proportion of positive attitude companies have reduces, it is because they are unable to deal with the growing global competition, increasing demands of stakeholders and are coping with legislations and environmental needs.
Partly supports the understanding of other Corporate Social Responsibility Theories
Rashid and Ibrahim have made a comparative analysis of difference of attitudes towards corporate social responsibility across different sectors like manufacturing, telecommunication and construction. It supports the findings of a case study (Mohamed , M.B., and Sawandi, M.B., n.d) that finds that owing to ever increasing global market competition, mobile telecommunication sector is striving to become increasingly socially responsible than any other sector. High concentration of corporate social responsibility activities in mobile telecommunication in Malaysia (Mohamed, M.B., and Sawandi, M.B., n.d) gives me a very useful understanding of what leads to influencing the attitude of management and corporate executives towards social responsibility. It enhances my understanding that why profit-oriented companies are attracted and deliberately get involved in social welfare activities. Although the Rashid and Ibrahim research paper did not clearly conclude that why telecommunication is more active in corporate social responsibility than other sectors, it does give a direction to delve deep into investigating into the difference to better understand the determinants and factors influencing the social responsibility attitude. Studying the (Mohamed, M.B., and Sawandi, M.B., n.d) report, I could understand that the reason, why Malaysian mobile telecommunication companies are increasingly participating in the corporate social responsibility activities, is that they are facing extremely stiff global and domestic competition for which they must develop stronger resilience and financial stability to stand among the global competition. Therefore, going by the (Freeman R.E. & Liedtka, J. 1991) argument, corporate social responsibility can promote and increase competence, because it leads the managers to do and perform activities and goals beyond their expertise to win the favourable public image by trying to repair society’s welfare with their contribution and services.
Conclusion
Corporate social responsibility is becoming the top priority of the corporate world, not use because companies voluntarily want to contribute to the social welfare, but because it is positively linked to their sustained economic growth and lesser financial liability. Despite, the known and proved importance of corporate social responsibility, Malaysia has shown slower growth in positive participation of companies in social issues, because rapidly developing country is less willing to investigate into benefits of corporate social responsibility in the long run. Besides, it also shows lack of legislation and Awareness about the Social Responsibility Accounting (Mohamed , M.B., and Sawandi, M.B., n.d) in the Malaysian corporate world, which must be improved.
References:
Freeman R.E. & Liedtka, J. 1991. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach,” Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 92-8
Holmes, S.L., 1976. Executive Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility . Business Horizon , June, pp: 34-40.
Kotchen, M.J., and Moon, J.J. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility for Irresponsibility. NBER Working Paper Series.
Mohamed , M.B., and Sawandi, M.B., n.d. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) ACTIVITIES IN MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY: CASE STUDY OF MALAYSIA. Universiti Utara Malaysia. 06010 Sintok,Kedah, Malaysia
Nik Maheran Nik Muhammad, N.M., Johari, R. J., and Mustafa, W.M., n.d. Social Responsibility Accounting (SRA) In Malaysia: Challenge and Opportunity. UiTM Kelantan Campus,18500 Machang, Kelantan.
Rishid, Z.A., and Ibrahim, S., 2002. Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia.
Stephen S. Poloz 2004. The Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility. Exportwise. Winter
2004, p. 34.
LH98
But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper. Our service offers MARKETING essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”
