Corporate Social Responsibility Literature Review a topic-Corporate Social Responsibility

The term 'corporate social responsibility' is a social word that has often taken the world by a storm at its mention. Noya and Clarence (2007) in their book "The social economy: building inclusive economies" offers a succinct description and understanding of what normally takes place and get exemplified at the mention of this term in the business world. Many writers of business journals and books have described the source as one of the excellent read, which often participates in transforming the nature in which business ideas get conceived, exemplified, implemented, and functional in the human society. Noya and Clarence are succinct and most professional businesspersons. They have often inspired the lives of young executives and entrepreneurs in their bid to engage in the business of social entrepreneurship. Noya and Clarence (2007) in the book offer some immense and excellent ways in which one can be able to understand and make application of the whole concept of corporate social responsibility (Noya & Clarence, 2007).

Entrepreneurs often find themselves in the eve of challenges and difficulties as they try to establish small businesses using their innate and inspired corporate responsibility skills. The authors offer a good example of how such individuals can engage their ideas and record successes in their businesses of bringing positive impacts in the environment. It is a delightful book for business corporate. Noya and Clarence (2007), have the credit of being an excellent primer of corporate social responsibility, future relations, and the current trends in the business world. When one accesses and reads Noya and Clarence (2007), he or she will get a snapshot of what entails and takes place in the corporate social responsibility issues (Noya & Clarence, 2007).

Apart from bringing out a defined methodology and comparative aspects of entrepreneurship, Banerjee (2007) also provides the general overview of the difficulties and milestones faced by the social entrepreneurs. Moreover, the book is successful in relaying the difference between social enterprises and other traditional businesses within the notion of corporate social responsibility. Moreover, Noya and Clarence (2007), offers certain practical examples of how executives have shifted from being traditional businesspersons in the non-profit organizations to encored changers of the environment (Banerjee, 2007).

According to Noya and Clarence's (2007) book, "what everyone needs to know" by Antonella Noya and Emma Clarence, provides a directive approach to answers covering the many problems experienced by the business established and pioneers in the world. There are often fewer lessons on how people can get involved in offering solutions rather than problems to the business environment. According to Noya and Clarence (2007), there is much to be done and given to the world of business corporate social responsibility than is in the world today. Some of the themes, which have formed the rock and basis of Noya and Clarence's (2007) arguments, are the importance of engaging in social entrepreneurship, procedures, and processes of engaging successful social entrepreneurship, and the immense difference that exists between entrepreneurship and other business initiatives.

Evidently, several stories have often missed the mark and gone unreported in the world of business. People are prolific to build organizations with an intention of curbing the looming social problems. There are many such organizations and ideas to replenish the recent business environment. In short, the world is facing more of problems and challenges than is supposed to face problem solvers and equitable solution as corporate social responsibility. This notion or sentiment is used by the authors with the essence that the business environment is full of challenges to encounter rather than solutions to the social problems (Milton, 2011).

Nonetheless, human social entrepreneurs are establishing platforms that will act as ways in which humans demonstrate their potential in nature. As such, Noya and Clarence (2007), defined corporate social responsibility as the process through which people establishes and transform institutions which cater for the social problems like poverty, destruction of the environment, illiteracy, abuse of human rights, corruption, illness, and many others which thwart the normal and professional way in which humans should live better lives. According to Noya and Clarence (2007) arguments, corporate social entrepreneurship advances at establishing change among its clients with the human society being at focus. For instance, Noya and Clarence (2007), ascribes "the United States was unusual in the level in which its citizenry self-organized in addressing problems almost from the perspective of the nation."

According to Noya and Clarence (2007), many corporate problems and solutions come directly from the perspective...

Corporate social responsibility offers people the ability to perceive social problems and conceive ideologies that counter these problems and challenges. Many governments as the United States of America amongst many developing and developed nations have failed in striking early and equitable solutions to problems faced by the citizens. The unwillingness of many governments has encouraged the social setup to take charge and commit itself in handling these troubles head-on. Such social organizations make up the corporate social responsibility structures. Such organizations are called self-organized groups. In many cases, the government-held organizations amongst others as church corporations and universities have been busy to take the lead. However, their negligence has forced many people to engage their own capabilities in solving the looming problems (Schwartz, 2011).
Schwartz (2011) advocates that not every organization established in the society have been involved in solving the problems faced by the people. Such organizations include social purpose organizations as nonprofit and non-governmental organizations. The responsibilities, left to these organizations, have been immense that immediate and concrete solutions have not been featuring, and decidedly less if any. They have been working as the governments with little influence over the immediate problems faced by the people.

The main problems facing such organizations are that they centre so much on the material poverty and not the dignity of the people. Moreover, these organizations are more proactive in ensuing charity actions instead of supplying respectful transactions as done by counterpart successful organizations and nations in the world. As such, many people in the society face the influence to engage individual organizations and actions that aim at solving every immediate problem facing them. People feel that they should be part of change and that they must own the change to come to the society.

For corporate social responsibility to take shape and face real establishment, Milton (2011) stresses the need for people to be involved. This will ensure that the immediate respondents and experts address the social problems facing people. Moreover, people participation in such activities will ensure availability of sufficient space for experimentation as people get the will to engage in these entrepreneurial activities. According to the authors, social entrepreneurs often know their position in the society. They are often in search for ways and means of solving problems (Milton, 2011).

This happens even if they know they do not have equitable skills and expertise. They believe in the art of experiencing them for the first time and developing expertise in them. They seek these by observing experts and immediately apply the concepts they gather. For instance, Milton (2011), stresses that corporate social responsibility often look for solutions and means of correcting mistakes instead of looking for blame and someone to fix them. According to Milton (2011), social entrepreneurs often fail to take failure as a show of individual's inability. Rather, they take them as challenges that need immediate responses.

Milton (2011) takes a further description of social entrepreneurs as compared to other individuals who either work in the government and nonprofit making organizations. Corporate social responsibility agents are attracted to challenges where they are determined to involve their skill and come up with immediate and long-time solutions. They are not after demonstrating or getting a chance to display their skills. Nonetheless, they aim at using their skills to depict what is likely to be a solution to the problems at hand for a long period. They are not gamblers in the making. As far as they are influenced by their innate desire and the magnitude of the problem, they take every chance to go beyond risks, painstaking, and seeking further information that assists in integrating the old tricks for success.

Milton (2011) has reiterated several influences and advisory mechanisms taken by people as they attempt to engage in enterprises worth devoting. Corporate social responsibility agents take pleasures in enabling others use their capabilities to derive and implement procedures used to solve social problems. The devotion, love, and passion for change and establishment of problem-free societies are the core aims of many agents. They dwell in their innate vigor, seriousness, and skillfulness to derive and implement solutions to every looming problem. Milton (2011) takes an example in Warren Buffet who had desired devotion to establishing and builds companies undervalued in the society. In fact, Warren had the entire idea of a social entrepreneur whose focus is to establish change in the society.

As a comparison, Milton (2011) depicts that as the activists' explain how to do; corporate social responsibility agents are often inside showing…