Specific performance is a court order urging a party to fulfil his or her contractual duties. Its only used in cases where damages arent a viable option (such as in Falcke v Gray ( 4 Drew651), where the topic of the contract was novel and a replacement couldnt be found even after a lengthy delay), but its not always the case. CSR is increasingly being viewed as a management process, which leads to processoriented legislation, (Savelyev, A, 2018). This method to regulation requires enterprises to identify social and environmental risks associated with their business operations and to design and implement reasonable strategies to avert harm as a result of the identified risks. This essay introduces us to a slew of new legal jargon. This essay focuses on specific performance and the constraints given by the courts on this kind of relief, with reference to relevant case law and legislation and which firms accept Corporate Social Responsibility.
Specific performance is not required if the contract requires performance or constant supervision over an indefinite length of time and the duties in the contract are not clearly articulated. Coinsurance v Argyll Stores ( 3 All ER297), for example, stated that the House of Lords would not enforce a promise to keep a shop open during normal business hours because it would require constant court monitoring, and the courts would have to resort to criminal discipline for contempt of court if the request was not granted. Contracts for routine maintenance are the only exception to this rule (Rainbow Estates Limited v Token hold Limited and another  New Property Cases 33). There were exceptions, concluded the person in charge of this circumstance, to the traditional rule of refusing specialized performance unless it was accompanied by regular oversight, (Chen et al, 2019). Specific performance may be available to landowners only in the most extreme circumstances (such as this one), but the arguments advanced suggest that it should be available in a variety of situations. Tenants were expected to spend £300,000 on repairs to their pads if certain performance criteria were met. When it came time to address the problem, there was no right of passage for the landowner to do so because the occupant had defaulted on their lease, and because of the structures recording, the best outcome would be maintenance as distinct from development, (Yorio et al, 2011).
In building contracts, specific performance is frequently required since the contract governs results rather than the continuation of an action over an unknown time period, and it generally characterizes the task as being accomplished with certainty, (Savelyev, A, 2018).
Contracts involving individual administrations, such as business contracts, are not eligible for specific performance because such an order would limit an individuals opportunity, (Yorio et al, 2011).
As explained in Why Ethics Matter, many companies have embraced the concept of corporate social responsibility, or CSR, which calls for companies to do more than just make a good product, charge a fair price, and pay their staff fairly. It also calls for companies to care about the environment and address other social issues, (Farcane et al, 2015).
There is a growing consensus among scholars, practitioners, and policymakers that businesses should utilize their power and resources to reduce social problems. However, there are still considerable differences of opinion on the appropriate level of corporate involvement in social issues. Some people urge corporations to assume important obligations in order to alleviate various social problems, while others say that businesses should only invest in social activities if they generate positive results.
CSR has generated a significant deal of debate, with scholars debating the merits and drawbacks of the idea. Many experts, however, agree that corporations are held to a social standard that obligates them to contribute to the betterment of society. Nevertheless, critics of CSR point out that firms are already contributing to society by supplying goods and services, creating jobs, paying taxes to government and providing returns to shareholders, (Reinhardt et al, 2020).
According to (Nguyen et al, 2019), CSR refers to firms consideration of and response to concerns which are outside the narrow economic, technical and legal requirements of the firm.
At least some of a companys economic or technological interests are not directly involved in a businessmans decisions and activities, and so they are considered corporate responsibility (Nguyen et al, 2019). The concept of social responsibility believes that the firm has not only economic and legal obligations but also some responsibilities to society which extend beyond these commitments. (Sharma, E, 2019).
(Farcane et al, 2015), describes corporate social responsibility as it recognizes the intimacy of relationships between the firm and the society and knows that such links must be kept in mind by the top managers as the corporation and the connected groups pursue their separate aims.
There is one and only one obligation of corporations, according to (Nguyen et al, 2019), to use its resources and engage in activities geared to maximize profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, that is, engages in open and free contests, free of deceptions and fraud.
A socially responsible corporation, according to (Reinhardt et al, 2020), has a management team that is able to balance a wide range of interests. If an organizations primary goal is to increase shareholder value at the expense of all other stakeholders, it isnt doing its job responsibly. In 1972, there was a heated controversy regarding what CSR really meant.
There are three conditions for an investment or activity to be considered socially responsible: the marginal returns to the firm must be lower than those available from some alternative spending, it must be completely voluntary and it must be a true corporate expenditure rather than an avenue for individual latitude, according to (Sharma, E, 2019).
Achieve greater rewards: One main reason why firms should assume social responsibilities is the fact that such activities can contribute to higher profits in the future. In general the society expects a business to act in ways which will not just benefit itself but bring benefits to the community at large. Hence a better society will produce a better environment for business in the form of higher quality labor, lower cost of production, greater property protection due to reduction in crimes etc. Therefore, as businesses spend more money on social programs this will eventually yield more benefits for them in the long run, (Nguyen et al, 2019).
Enhance public image: When a company has a positive public image, it has an advantage in the marketplace. Businesses have a charter granted to them by society, and this charter can be altered or cancelled at any time if the firm does not meet societys expectations. In order to maintain its function and power, a corporation must address the requirements of society. Furthermore, a firm that focuses on the wellbeing of society is seen as more trustworthy by the public. Consumers and employees who are glad to be a part of such a company are more likely to become loyal customers and employees.
Increase stockholders’ return: Investors stand to benefit more from companies that participate in socially responsible activities, according to (Moneva?Abadía et al, 2019). To demonstrate how a varied portfolio may help the company as a whole, they used advanced analytical processes to demonstrate different sorts of socially responsive behaviour. It is therefore possible that the inability to be socially responsible can deprive shareholders of greater rewards from their investments.
Minimize government intervention: The primary objective of any government is to maintain social balance. All members of society must meet their social obligations if we are to succeed in this goal. The government can influence companies by passing legislation to protect the environment, ensure workplace safety, and maintain equality of opportunity, and so on, in order to prevent antisocial behaviors from occurring. It is preferable for businesses to assume their own social duties rather than rely on the government to do so.
Moral obligation: Businesses are part of the larger system that is society. Subsystems of society should work together for the greater good, not just for themselves. Businesses, then, have a moral obligation to contribute back to the community on this basis. This means that business is responsible for all the people, and profit should not take precedence over other social motivations, (Farcane et al, 2015).
Focus should be on profit maximization: Some economists argue that managers are the investors agents, and hence their decisions should be guided by the goal to maximise shareholder profits. Some, like Milton Friedman, argue that managers and executives who spend resources for social responsibility are essentially taxing the rest of us. In his tome Corporate executives are employees of the businesss owners in a free enterprise system, according to Friedman. He has direct responsibility to his employers, and that responsibility is to run the firm in line with their wishes, which are most likely to be to make as much money as possible while adhering to the basic laws of society, both those enshrined in law and those enshrined in ethical custom .
High cost of social activities: Some economists say that corporations have all of the valuable resources that can be used to tackle various societal issues. Businesses, on the other hand, must use their resources wisely because they can quickly run out. Businesses will have to pay more if they use their resources for charitable causes. If costs rise as a result, profitability may fall, which could lead to the demise of certain struggling companies, (Reinhardt et al, 2020).
Unqualified to engage in social work: The views and abilities needed to carry out social work are lacking in the majority of businesses. For most firms, the goal is to increase profits, thus they dont feel at home with social issues, according to (Moneva?Abadía et al, 2019). Critics of CSR contend that firms do not have the expertise to address social issues. Some of the most ardent critics of corporate social responsibility (CSR) claim that business leaders are solely interested in increasing their own bottom lines. Because most businesspeople are philosophically and emotionally unsuitable for this kind of work, they should not be trusted with social responsibilities that essentially involve concern for others.
Loss of competitive advantage in the market: Proponents of corporate social responsibility (CSR) tend to assume that firms have a limitless capacity for charitable endeavors. Businesses, on the other hand, have their own set of constraints. Costs of production and operation rise when a company gets involved in social causes. If their product prices rise, theyll have a hard time competing with other companies on the global market, which will lead to them losing market share, (Sharma, E, 2019).
Excessive power to corporations: Some critics of corporate social responsibility (CSR) point out that companies are one of the most powerful entities in our society. As a result of integrating social and economic operations, firms will have too much influence, which they might utilize to their advantage. Furthermore, businesses have no accountability to the public, thus they should not be relied upon to provide the social requirements of those in need.
In the Nut shell, According to contract law, the equitable remedy known as specific performance mandates the performance of some specified act by one or more parties, such as the completion of the contracts performance. If damages are an adequate alternative, it is normally accessible in land law sales. Otherwise, it is not generally available. Contracts of personal service are rarely subject to specific performance, but the threat of contempt of court might be used to secure compliance.
Critics of corporate social responsibility (CSR) argue that if companies invest in CSR programmes but dont get a return on their investment, they are breaking their promise to their shareholders. These scholars suggest that companies should only participate in socially responsible measures if they can expect longterm profits and competitive advantages. Wallace (2003) stressed the importance of evaluating the return on CSR investment. As with any business investment, each dollar invested in a corporate activity should be justified by at least a dollar of expected return over a fixed time horizon, says the author.
According to industry norms and government regulations, the level to which a company engages in CSR initiatives can vary. CSR may not be required in some industries, while it may be expected in others. Before implementing any CSR initiatives, companies should do a comprehensive impact assessment of the programs potential consequences on all of its many stakeholders. In addition, companies should seek feedback on the success of their CSR policies in order to identify areas for improvement as well as areas where they are succeeding, (Chen et al, 2019).
Chen et al. (2019). Inefficiency of Specific Performance as a Contractual Remedy in Chinese Courts: . An Empirical and Normative Analysis. Nw. J. Intl L. & Bus., 40, 275.
Farcane et al. (2015). History of Corporate social responsibility concept. . Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica, 17(2), 31.
Moneva?Abadía et al. (2019). Corporate social responsibility as a strategic opportunity for small firms during economic crises. . Journal of Small Business Management, 57, 172199.
Nguyen et al. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in Vietnam: opportunities and innovation experienced by multinational corporation subsidiaries. . Social Responsibility Journal.
Reinhardt et al. (2020). Corporate social responsibility through an economic lens.
Savelyev, A. (2018). Some risks of tokenization and blockchainizaition of private law. . Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 863869.
Sharma, E. (2019). A review of corporate social responsibility in developed and developing nations. . Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 712720.
Yorio et al. (2011). Contract enforcement: specific performance and injunctions. . Wolters Kluwer.