The selected article revolves around the topics of large companies being pressured by society to raise awareness of corporate social responsibility. The driving thesis of the article is the huge amount of power the public has over corporate super powers because they are easy to lay blame to and demand change. It is common knowledge that in the pursuit of profit, ethics of a company may be skewed slightly for example child slavery. Selecting a strong enough company and creating enough evidence to make a sound argument leads to change because it cannot be ignored.

However, the article continually repeats that it is not so much the company wilfully changing their ways, but more to satisfy the public so as not to hurt their reputation. Is this in itself morally sound though? To take ethical action ‘just because you have to?’ In terms of making a positive change, yes I think it is okay, but to then argue that the change is morally sound when there are alternative motives behind it, that is when I have to disagree. To do so would be a blatant disregard of the morality behind CSR and thus the concept as a whole.

Porter, Michael, and Mark Kramer. “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review. 1 Dec. 2006. Web. 11 Sept. 2014. <http://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility/ar/1>.