Organizational Social Responsibility: Human Resource Management's Response

Discussion Forum 2, Organizational Social Responsibility: Human Resource Management's Response, is anchored to Weekly Learning Outcome 3 and Chapter 18 of Cascio and Aguinis. Its center of gravity is not the textbook but a required video: Alex Edmans' 2015 TEDx talk, The Social Responsibility of Business. The forum asks you to engage with a specific argument Edmans makes on stage, translate it into a recommendation for how human resource management should act, and then find your own supporting real-world evidence — a company practicing social responsibility that neither Edmans nor the textbook already covers. This guide walks the video's argument in full, breaks the prompt into its three directives, connects the material to Chapter 18's organizational-responsibility framework, gives a research strategy for finding a genuinely new example, and closes with a complete sample post and peer-reply plan.

The Prompt, Restated

Before posting, review Chapter 18, the Masood and Singh (2023) article on post-pandemic work-life initiatives across cultures, the Bozma and Karcioğlu (2023) article on corporate social responsibility and talent management, and view the Alex Edmans TEDx video in full — it defines corporate social responsibility (CSR) and debates the purpose of business as well as the pros and cons of CSR. Your initial post is due Day 3 (Thursday), runs 200 words minimum, and must accomplish three directives built around the question Edmans poses on stage: "Why do businesses exist, to earn profit (shareholders) or to serve a purpose to society (customer, employee, and environment)?"

• Directive 1 — Edmans' answer. Explain what answer he came to and why.
• Directive 2 — HR's approach. Discuss the approach human resource management should take toward organizational social responsibility.
• Directive 3 — A new example. Cite one real-life example of a company implementing social responsibility that is not mentioned in the video or the course textbook. Be factual and fully support the answer.

The guided response then requires substantive replies of at least 100 words to at least two peers (or the instructor), supported by information from the week's resources.

Alex Edmans' TEDx talk opens by naming a false choice that dominates conventional thinking about business: either a company exists to generate profit for its shareholders — the position associated with economist Milton Friedman's famous claim that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" — or it exists to serve a broader social purpose, benefiting customers, employees, and the environment. Edmans rejects the either/or framing directly. His answer, which Directive 1 asks you to explain, is that this is a both/and relationship: purpose and profit are not competitors but a causal chain, where authentically serving a purpose is the road that leads to the land of profit, not a detour away from it.

2.1 Purpose as a Long-Term Value Driver, Not a Cost

Edmans argues that when a business orients its decisions around serving customers, employees, and society, profit follows as a byproduct rather than functioning as the primary objective driving those decisions. This reframing matters because treating profit as the sole objective encourages short-term thinking that overlooks the intangible, harder-to-quantify drivers of long-term value — reputation, trust, and employee loyalty chief among them. He illustrates the point with two historical examples he explicitly credits: Marks & Spencer, whose 1930s chairman Simon Marks began providing subsidized meals for staff after witnessing an employee faint from hunger, a decision made from a sense of responsibility rather than a cost-benefit calculation, which built the company's long-term reputation for quality and care; and Merck, whose president George Merck's guiding mindset was to use science to save lives, leading the company to share its penicillin formula with competitors during World War II to maximize production even at the expense of short-term competitive advantage.

2.2 The Data-Backed Case: Employee Well-Being and Financial Performance

Edmans does not rest the argument on anecdote alone. He cites his own four-year academic study of companies on the "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" list from 1984 to 2009, finding these companies beat industry stock returns by 2 to 3 percent per year over that 26-year period — moving the conversation about employee treatment from a purely ethical register into a strategic one.

2.3 Market Inefficiency and the Window for Long-Term Thinkers

Edmans' final point explains why managers and investors still underweight this evidence: the stock market is often inefficient and myopic, fixating on short-term financial results while overlooking intangible, long-term assets like culture and employee well-being. His research found it takes the market four to five years to fully price in the benefits of superior employee well-being — a lag that rewards managers who invest in people early. He points to Costco, which pays workers nearly double the industry average and provides extensive healthcare, criticized by short-term analysts yet producing higher efficiency and durable long-term profit; and Unilever, whose CEO Paul Polman stopped issuing quarterly earnings reports to free the company from short-term pressure and refocus on sustainable value creation.

Chapter 18 frames organizational responsibility as something a company must deliberately design and implement, not something it can achieve through good intentions alone. Directive 2 asks you to take a position on what specific approach HR should take toward this work — meaning your post should describe HR's actual role and mechanism, not just assert that responsibility is important.

3.1 Masood and Singh (2023) — Work-Life Balance as a Responsibility Lever

The assigned Masood and Singh article examines how the COVID-19 crisis forced organizations to revisit policies sustaining employee work-life balance across cultural contexts. It gives HR a concrete lever: flexible work arrangements, mental-health support, and culturally sensitive policy design treat employee well-being as a genuine priority — reinforcing Edmans' claim that well-being drives, rather than detracts from, long-term performance.

3.2 Bozma and Karcioğlu (2023) — CSR and Talent Management Integration

The Bozma and Karcioğlu article examines the relationship between CSR and talent management directly, arguing that HR strategies should be built for both current employees and future applicants while adhering to the ethical principles of talent management and CSR frameworks. This gives Directive 2 a second concrete answer: HR's approach should be embedded in the talent management lifecycle itself — recruiting, retention, and development should all carry the organization's social-responsibility commitments rather than treating CSR as a separate department's initiative.

Directive 3 requires a real, citable, real-life example of a company implementing social responsibility — and it must be one that is not already used in the Edmans video (Marks & Spencer, Merck, Costco, Unilever) or the course textbook. This is a research task, not a recall task.

What Makes a Strong Directive 3 Example

• It is a specific, named company with a specific, documented CSR initiative — not a vague industry trend.
• It has a traceable source: a company sustainability report, a credible news article, or a scholarly/trade publication.
• It connects back to Edmans' central claim where possible — ideally an example that shows the practice serving both a social good and a business outcome, reinforcing the both/and argument rather than treating CSR as pure cost.
• It is not one of the four companies the video already covers, and not an example the textbook already uses.

Where to Look

• Company sustainability or ESG reports — most large public companies publish annual CSR/ESG reports detailing specific initiatives with measurable outcomes.
• UAGC Library databases (EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Business: Insights (Gale)) — search terms like "[company] corporate social responsibility initiative" or "employee well-being program case study."
• Business press coverage (Harvard Business Review, Forbes, industry trade publications) profiling a specific company's CSR program and its measured business impact.

Two hundred words is tight for three directives — Edmans' answer, HR's approach, and a new example. Budget the words deliberately so all three are visibly satisfied.

• Move 1 — Edmans' answer (~70 words). State his conclusion — purpose drives profit, not the reverse — and support it with one piece of his evidence (the 100 Best Companies study or one example he uses).
• Move 2 — HR's approach (~60 words). Take a position on what HR should do, grounded in Chapter 18 and either Masood and Singh or Bozma and Karcioğlu.
• Move 3 — The new example (~60 words). Name the company, the specific initiative, and its outcome or significance, with a citation.
• Move 4 — References. The textbook, the video, both articles as relevant, and the new example's source. The reference list does not count toward the 200-word minimum.

Mechanics That Protect the Grade

• Cite as you go. Every claim from the video, the text, or the articles needs an APA in-text citation.
• Confirm your Directive 3 example is genuinely new. Double-check it is not Marks & Spencer, Merck, Costco, or Unilever, and not a textbook example.
• Word count. 200 words is a floor — three fully developed directives typically push a strong post to 240–280 words.
• Academic voice. Third person, no contractions, measured claims supported by sources.

The post below is a model, not a submission. It shows how the three directives fit inside roughly 260 words. Replace the illustrative example with one you genuinely research and verify — the sample below shows structure and citation form, not a fact to copy, since Directive 3 requires original research. Rewrite it in your own voice and submit only your own analysis; copying a model verbatim is an academic-integrity violation.

References

• Bozma, K., & Karcioğlu, F. (2023). The relationships between corporate social responsibility and talent management: An analysis through human resources management. Trends in Business and Economics, 37(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.5152/TBE.2022.221832
• Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2019). Applied psychology in talent management (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Edmans, A. (2015, July 9). The social responsibility of business [Video]. TEDx Talks. https://youtu.be/Z5KZhm19EO0
• Masood, H., & Singh, P. (2023). The post-pandemic work-life initiatives across cultures: Recommendations from human resource management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 88(2), 64–74.
• [Add your own verified source for the real-life CSR example you research, in APA form.]

Body of post: approximately 260 words (excludes reference list) — above the 200-word minimum. Replace the illustrative example with your own researched, verified company and citation before submitting.

The guided response requires substantive replies of at least 100 words to at least two classmates or the instructor, supported by information from the week's resources. A reply that only agrees will not earn the points; it must add analytical value.

A Four-Step Reply That Earns the Points

• Acknowledge precisely. Name the peer's chosen CSR example and what specifically it illustrates about the profit-purpose relationship.
• Add a concept they may not have considered. Bring in a piece of Edmans' evidence they did not use (the market-inefficiency lag, the 100 Best Companies study, a different historical example) or a different HR lever from Masood and Singh or Bozma and Karcioğlu.
• Offer your own view of HR's role in your own words. Extend or respectfully challenge the peer's position on what HR should do to operationalize social responsibility.
• End with a genuine question that invites further discussion, rather than a closing compliment.

• Reusing a video or textbook example for Directive 3. Marks & Spencer, Merck, Costco, and Unilever are explicitly disqualified — the directive requires genuinely new research.
• Answering only "both" without explaining Edmans' reasoning. Directive 1 asks not just what he concludes but why — the evidence (the 100 Best Companies study, the market-inefficiency lag) is part of a complete answer.
• Treating Directive 2 as a summary of Chapter 18 rather than a position. State clearly what you believe HR's approach should be, grounded in the readings.
• Skipping the video and relying only on the textbook. The prompt is built around Edmans' specific argument — a post that never engages his profit/purpose framing has not answered Directive 1.
• No in-text citations. Every claim from the video, text, or articles needs an APA citation.
• Missing the 200-word floor. Three thin directives often fall short — budget for genuine depth on each.