Social Responsibility

Social Responsibility or Profits


In this blog i will be discussing "Corporate Social Responsibility" of Microsoft Inc. I will discuss a particular case in which Microsoft's Corporate Social Responsibility is questioned. The question which remains to be highly opinionated is, whether Microsoft intentionally violated Anti-Trust Laws or was Microsoft so good at creating and marketing their products they over shadowed competitors dominantly and the result were these accusations.

The case went to trial in the U.S. District Court, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft guilty of using its domination in the software market to restrict competition. Judge Jackson then ordered the company to be broken into two and undergo restrictions. The court found that Microsoft abused anti-trust laws designed to protect competing companies from the domination of monopolies. For instance, it was said that Microsoft delayed the installation of Windows 95 on IBM computers when IBM refused to drop its own operating system. It was also said that Microsoft forced its internet explorer on consumers by bundling it with its Windows operating system, instantly claim half of the browser market share once dominated by Net Scape Navigator. Many social investors,business persons,consumers and economist have questioned Microsoft social responsibility after the ruling. After all, technically they were declared not socially responsible because of the Judges ruling. That doesn't mean they were, Microsoft is appealing the guilty verdict and says they will be vindicated.

If the Appeals Court agrees with Judge Jackson's order to break Microsoft into "Baby Bills" and disclose company intellectual property to break its monopoly, many shareholders will be questioning the future viability of their investment. But whatever course the antitrust case takes, social investors have to ask themselves if Microsoft's behavior, as determined in a federal court, befits a leader in corporate responsibility. Basically what this says is, if Microsoft has to disclose intellectual property, it will create more competition, there for the companies stocks and products may be in danger. This will bring less money to the company and ultimately less money to the share holders because of new competition. Microsoft has been a staple of the socially responsible investment industry, considered a leader for its progressive employment practices, its environmentally benign products, and its charitable donations. For instance, Microsoft recently granted $260,000 in cash and $2.5 million in software to eight Native American colleges, lunch money to a company that net almost $8 billion last year, but still a significant social impact.

Wrong or Right? Great marketing or Technological Tyrant? That is the question.