It is thus difficult to define ‘doing right things’ (Keown, Martin and Petty, 2008, p. 21).
Simpson and Brown, president and secretary of two different companies marketing asbestos, acted presumably and they did right things especially when it is perceived from a business view point. Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that can be used for electrical insulation and many other purposes, but it has a danger side that if one has exposed to it for long years, it is more likely that he may get chronic lung inflammation or chest cancer etc. though this is the fact, Simpson refused a newspaper from publishing an article regarding this product and its side effects. Brown’s words were that “the less said about asbestos, the better off we are”. Though these are legal as they wanted to maintain their business and profitability and it cannot be criticized on the grounds of good business practices, these can never be justified on the ground of ethical behavior. Their attempts not only caused blocking right information to the public, but also hiding the facts and thus making public less aware of the danger of asbestos and its side effects.
As far as social responsibility and social values are concerned, Simpson and Brown were not ‘doing the right things’. Every society adopts a set of rules or laws that prescribe what it believes a doing right things. A business has social responsibility beyond the maximization of shareholder wealth (Keown, Martin and Petty, 2008, p. 21-22).
Social responsibility of a firm or a person representing a business directs attention to invoke norms that can express legitimate and stable expectations respecting the conduct of persons in position of social trust (Wueste, 1994, p. 2). Sims (2003) argued that organizational management and business people that truly care about business and corporate social responsibility is proactive rather than becoming reactive in linking strategic actions, business practices and