The article by Royle T., ‘Realism or idealism Corporate social responsibility and the employee stakeholder in the global fast-food industry’, published in 2005, is mainly focused on CSR (Corporate social responsibility). CSR has some earnest and ominous influences in nowadays businesses and corporations. The author is first persisting on the rights of employees and employers. Though almost all of the global companies in the world do not intend to care about CSR, the author’s perspective insists that CSR’s activities are crucial for the future existence of the companies. The article insinuates that some globally known companies are acting properly in a socially responsible behavior. Further, the author’s main purpose of writing this research article is about the global fast-food industry. Indeed, the author focuses on the inadequate treatment of employees at McDonald’s. It is clearly stated that the only concern of companies such as McDonalds is in money, making profit at any price, whilst the requirements of CSR and human rights lie somewhere completely opposites to their demeanor. The article is an academic research that is peer reviewed and intended for students. The main purpose of the article is to provide further information about business ethics.
Furthermore, it also discusses CSR’s aims and actions. We can say that CSR has to challenge poor treatment of workers or environmental degradation, but it may also mean that some workers or facilities find that they are unable to work. With the introduction, Royle T. conveys that in a “number of developing countries”1 companies are obliged to work together with the CSR. Since the income and the occupational conditions for employees in evolved countries, as the UK, is highly satisfactory, though some people are not willing to work because they believe that neither their rights as employees nor even their human rights are respected. However, we can gather with the brought over impression on the reader that the author is emotionally more likely to be biased with the acts of the CSR. CSR is operating to check companies if they offer their employees well working conditions. Assuming that the article claims that CSR distinguishes the fact that working conditions refer to the connection of legal laws between employer and employee, we can neither accept nor totally agree with all arguments given in the research.
A company’s objective is always to make achievable profit. According to the research, CSR wants both companies to make high profit and let the society benefit.2 Even though, we cannot definitely consider that society does benefit eventually. Nearly all companies that work together with CSR have other hidden thoughts. Since CSR is a legal corporation,3 businesses use the cooperation to profit. For instance; imagine a company would spend its shareholders money to improve the environment for their employees. They would not use the money of their shareholders if they would not see profit in it.4 It is rather ridiculous to use the shareholders money for their profit. In that they cooperate with CSR, nobody can see their absurd thought behind. Indeed it is an intellectual force that businesses use. From the research article, we know that CSR essentially just has to build a company’s long term value and profit.5 However, as long as they do not see the ulterior motives and the misappropriation of the business against them, their actions are rather inept and expedient for the society and the employees. If we especially focus on McDonalds, we are intrinsically able to say that they in fact take their corporate social responsibilities quite serious. Royle T. is mainly focused on McDonald’s and its unpalatable behavior against the employees. Low remuneration, bad working conditions and so on are just examples given in the research. It is neither discussable nor reasonable to claim McDonalds. One should think this way: Which other company is providing so many jobs for literally such inexperienced and uneducated people? It is a matter of fact that working at McDonalds does not oblige someone for special work related and highly professional requirements. It is forlorn just to focus on the employees who work with low wages at the restaurants.
As I just stated above, it is obvious, that McDonalds offers in such an ordinary manner job opportunities for the community. If someone intends to be treated unfairly, then they may also try to get an occupation for example in a much more palatial restaurant. It is doubtful that the percentage they might get employed is not high as it is at McDonalds. Furthermore, the majority of their used ingredients for example in the UK are provided by more than 17,500 British and Irish farmers.6Hence, one should rather focus on what McDonalds is also performing outside of the restaurants. Besides offering many farmers a long-term maintaining opportunity, McDonalds is with PepsiCo one of the most environmentally concerned company. Indeed, upon questioning Holger H., from the department “Director Development & Real Estate” (McDonald’s Austria) we can fully state that at McDonald’s Austria, 95% of the restaurants waste is recycled7. To conclude, there is still an existing troublesome point with the cooperation of CSR and some businesses.
The research claims that CSR’s activities are necessary, whilst some capitalized companies in the business world still do not bother about their social responsibilities. In addition, vast businesses just care about their profit. Most corporations try to stay sustainable by misusing CSR, which is practically not a hitch for them. Hence they try to use CSR in order to have an ongoing raising income. It would have more significant outcomes to focus on those companies, instead than to claim, in this research article McDonalds, to neither respecting social responsibilities nor implement them. Although it is obvious that, in case of McDonalds, one may not genuinely blame them for non-corresponding behavior. As it is already reasonably stated in the above paragraph, one should not discuss McDonalds treatment towards its employees is unfair.