Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well being of the societies and environments in which they operate Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations provided they operate within the law is to make as mu

Do corporations have an obligation to ensure that the societies and environments they operate in are taken care of? Or are they only bound by self-interest and profits? I concede that perhaps there is a moral obligation on large corporations to strive to maintain balance in the world, but such idealistic notions fall apart in the real world. In practice, a corporation’s motivation is only fueled by money and appeasing their stakeholders without any regard for external harm its operations cause.
To begin with, the concept of private corporations arises from a capitalistic society with the fundamental principle that every entity works for the benefit of itself and no other. To see why this is true, take into consideration any socialistic regime in the present or past. The largest employer in socialist India of the 1900s was the government owned Railways, a not-for-profit venture and not a private corporation. Turkey’s largest ‘firm’ is again the government owned steel industry. On the other hand, most large private tech corporations head offices can be traced back to the United States which promotes capitalism and advocates the idea of each man working for himself. Such philosophy precludes the notion that a private corporation can be expected to care for anything out of societal worry or ethical concerns; it simply runs to maximize profits.
On the other-hand, the basis of a government is to work for the well-being of its citizens. The foundational principle behind a government isn’t to generate profits, but to redirect the wealth it gains from its citizens in directions which serve for the betterment of the society as a whole. This general welfare includes care for the environment and the society. This can be seen if we consider corporations who do work for such causes - UNICEF is funded by numerous countries’ governments, the Paris Accord’s fund is pooled by many European nations and the US. Clearly, it goes to show that such selfless efforts towards the environment can only be undertaken by government agencies.
Finally, indeed it is true that corporations do have to follow the law of the land. In fact, this can be used to thrust some amount of responsibility on private firms shoulders to give back to society. Progressive legislators are envisaging laws which mandate every private firm to contribute to the environment’s wellbeing throughout the world. Take, for example, the corporate social responsibility tax in India. Companies have jumped at the opportunity of a tax incentive by simply proving that a certain amount of net revenue was used for betterment of the society. Its effects are already visible, Tata Steel has adopted several tribal villages, and Reliance - a multibillion telecom corporation - has pledged that they will plant 10000 trees every year. This shows that despite a fundamental lack of moral compass that companies hold, their efforts can still be molded towards such seemingly selfless tasks with some legislative help.
Clearly, a private company’s fundamental goal is to make money and associating human-like ethical responsibilities with them is naive. On the other hand, such a claim may suit government led organisations better. Nevertheless, this utter disregard can be mended if progressive laws which align with companies’ profit goals can help in reaching the right balance.