The government should not be allowed to pass laws or regulations to enforce businesses of any size to engage in any philanthropic activity. The implementation of these types of laws concerning businesses would create a domino effect and open the door for more laws that would give the government even more control.
Our government, as explained by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address proclaims that our government is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people…” It is clear to be understood that the control is to be in the hands of the country’s citizens with their own and the country’s best interests at the core. The control should not be in the hands of the government. Yes, we vote for government officials and they hold office and make decisions on our behalf. However, we vote for those officials whose interests, views and morals best align with our own.
Furthermore, The Declaration of Independence states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Liberty is defined as freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. If the government puts laws in place to force businesses to engage in activities they do not want to engage in, the government is revoking the “inalienable” right of liberty. Therefore, the passing of laws to limit liberty of men (people of our country), or businesses in this case, is unconstitutional and should not be allowed.
With that being said, it is imperative that businesses do engage in philanthropic activities for the betterment of society and the citizens thereof. Over the last thirty years, people have begun to really stress the importance of this and the sentiment of corporate social responsibility has surfaced. The article Understanding the Social Responsibility Puzzle from Business Horizon defines corporate social responsibility as “seriously considering the impact of the company’s actions on society… requires the individual to consider his [or her] acts in terms of a whole social system, and holds him [or her] responsible for the effects of his [or her] acts anywhere in that system” (Winter 1976, Pg 45-50). The