| Course | CSR 5003 Principles and Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Position paper |
| Length | 1,160 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for CSR 5003 Module 1
What a Chocolate Maker Owes the Children Who Harvest Its Cocoa: A Position on Duties Beyond Shareholders
Student Name
American College of Education
CSR5003: Principles and Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
July 3, 2028
The Case
Marrow Creek Confections, a composite family-controlled chocolate maker with annual sales of about $420 million, buys roughly 18,000 tonnes of cocoa beans and cocoa products a year through two large international trading houses. Most of the cocoa originates in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, where child labor in cocoa farming, much of it hazardous work such as carrying heavy loads and using machetes, has been documented for two decades. Marrow Creek has never asked its traders where its cocoa comes from below the level of the exporting country. Its largest retail customer has now announced that, from next year, suppliers must show that they identify and address child labor risks in their supply chains.
Two board members have taken opposite positions. One argues that the company's responsibility is to its owners and customers, that it neither employs the children nor controls the farms and that the retailer's requirement is a cost to be met at the lowest price. The other argues that the company profits from the cocoa and therefore shares responsibility for how it is grown. This paper takes a position between the two and explains why.
The Strongest Case for Shareholders Alone
The shareholder view deserves its strongest statement. Friedman (1970) held that a company has a single social duty, which is to make as much money for its owners as it can while playing by the rules of the game, which for him meant honest competition that stays clear of fraud. Executives who spend the owners' money on social goals, he argued, are in effect imposing taxes and deciding how to spend them without any democratic mandate. On this view, if society wants to end child labor in cocoa, governments should do it, and a chocolate maker's managers have no special competence or authority to act.
The argument has force. Marrow Creek's managers are not experts in West African agriculture, and poorly designed interventions could harm the families they are meant to help, for example by pushing children out of cocoa into worse work. But Friedman's own qualification matters: business must stay within the rules of the game, and those rules have changed. The retailer's requirement, and growing legal requirements in major markets to conduct human rights due diligence in supply chains, are now part of the rules within which Marrow Creek competes.
Stakeholders and Layers of Responsibility
Freeman (1984) proposed that managers should consider any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm's objectives, because a firm that ignores those groups will manage poorly as well as unfairly. The children and families who grow Marrow Creek's cocoa are affected by the company's purchases, even if they have no contract with it. Carroll (1991) arranged corporate responsibilities in a pyramid: economic responsibilities at the base, then legal, then ethical responsibilities to do what is right and fair even where the law does not require it, and at the top philanthropic responsibilities that are desired but not expected. Its value lies in keeping obligations apart from generosity.
Applied to Marrow Creek, ending the use of child labor in its cocoa supply is not philanthropy. Profiting from hazardous work by children, once the company knows the risk exists, falls within ethical responsibility, and increasingly within legal responsibility. Funding a school in a cocoa region, by contrast, would be philanthropic: admirable, but not something the company owes. The question is not whether a chocolate maker should be generous, but whether it may keep profiting from harm it now knows about.
Responsibility Without Control
The strongest remaining objection is control: Marrow Creek does not own the farms. International guidance addresses this directly. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state that businesses should respect human rights, which means avoiding causing or contributing to adverse impacts and seeking to prevent or mitigate impacts directly linked to their operations, products or services through their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to them (United Nations, 2011). The expected response is human rights due diligence: identifying risks, acting on findings, tracking effectiveness and communicating how impacts are addressed. The principles scale what is expected to the company's influence over the parties involved.
Marrow Creek is linked to child labor through its purchases even though it does not cause it. Under this framework, its responsibility is not to guarantee that no child ever works on a farm that sold cocoa to its traders, which it cannot do, but to know where its cocoa comes from, to use its influence with its traders to support monitoring and remediation and to be honest about what it finds.
The Objection From the Other Side
The position also has to answer critics who would say it asks too little. Some advocates argue that a company linked to child labor should stop buying West African cocoa until its absence can be guaranteed, or should promise that its chocolate is free of child labor. Both responses fail the families involved. Cocoa is the main cash crop for hundreds of thousands of smallholder households in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, and child labor there is closely tied to household poverty and to the lack of nearby schools. A buyer that walks away removes income from the households whose poverty drives the problem, and the cocoa is sold to buyers who ask no questions. A promise of guaranteed absence cannot be kept by any company buying from smallholders through traders, and a company that makes it will either mislead its customers or discover a case and face a choice between hiding it and breaking its promise.
The position taken here is therefore demanding in a different way. It asks Marrow Creek to stay, to learn where its cocoa is grown, to pay for monitoring and remediation in proportion to its purchases and to publish what it finds, including cases it cannot yet resolve. That is harder to market than a promise, but it is the version of responsibility that can be carried out and checked.
The Position
Marrow Creek owes its shareholders a profitable business. It also owes the families in its supply chain three things, grounded in its ethical and emerging legal responsibilities rather than in generosity: to find out where its cocoa is grown and what risks exist there; to use its purchasing relationships to support credible systems that identify and remediate child labor, paying a fair share of their cost; and to report honestly on progress and failure. Its duty stops short of guaranteeing outcomes it cannot control or of substituting for governments in West Africa. The retailer's requirement should be met, but not at the lowest price, because a program designed only to produce paperwork would fail the children and eventually the customer. The following modules map the company's stakeholders, trace its supply chain and price the choices this position implies.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
What the CSR 5003 Module 1 instructions ask for
CSR 5003 begins with the question of what a company owes beyond its shareholders, and Module 1 often asks you to take and defend a position. Most prompts expect a case or issue, the shareholder view stated fairly, a stakeholder or responsibility framework applied, an answer to objections from both sides and a clear position. Many sections ask you to address responsibility in supply chains the company does not own. A position paper here usually runs five pages. The CSR 5003 Canvas instructions state whether the case is supplied or chosen and which frameworks to use. State the position you will defend in the first section, so every later section can be read against it.
Inside the CSR 5003 Module 1 example
The paper opens with the case: a mid-sized chocolate maker buying cocoa through traders from West African cooperatives where child labor is common, and a journalist's question. The shareholder section states the strongest version of the view that a firm's duty is to profit within the law, with its source, and grants what it gets right. The stakeholder section names the groups affected and uses Carroll's layers to separate legal, ethical and discretionary duties. The control section argues that a company can be responsible for conditions it does not control but does influence, using the human rights guidance on corporate influence. The next section answers the opposite objection, that partial action is hypocrisy. The final section states a position: the company owes due diligence, remedy and transparency, not perfection.
Reading the CSR 5003 Module 1 rubric
Position papers in the MBA are graded on argument and fairness. Case credit requires concrete facts that make the question real. The opposing view row rewards the shareholder position in its strongest form with its source. Framework marks go to stakeholder theory and responsibility layers applied to the case, not summarized. The control row usually carries significant weight: an argument about responsibility through influence, supported by recognized guidance. Graders give credit for answering objections from both directions. A clear, actionable position and APA 7 close out the rubric. Markers also reward a position that says what the company owes and what it does not. A clear stance in the opening paragraph also earns marks.
Common CSR 5003 Module 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
CSR position papers most often argue that companies should do the right thing without engaging the shareholder view. Another frequent weakness is treating supply chain conditions as either fully the company's fault or none of its business. Students also end with a position too vague to act on. State the opposing view fairly. Apply a framework to the facts. Use human rights guidance on influence. Answer critics on both sides. End with duties the company can carry out. Use one case throughout. If your case involves garment factories, mining or data privacy, the desk can draft a position paper on it.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More CSR 5003 and MBA sample papers
- CSR 5003 Module 2: Materiality Assessment
- CSR 5003 Module 3: Supply Chain Responsibility
- CSR 5003 Module 4: Cost and Burden Analysis
- CSR 5003 Module 5: Sustainability Report Verification
- CSR 5003 Module 6: Board Recommendation
- MGMT 5003 Module 5: Integrated Business Analysis
- MGMT 5091 Module 5: Plan Reconciliation Report
- ACCT 5003 Module 4: Liabilities and Disclosures
- STAT 5003 Module 2: Probability and Sampling Analysis
CSR 5003 Module 1 questions, answered
How should I handle the shareholder view in a CSR paper?
State it in its strongest form, with its source, before responding. A position that answers the best version of the opposing argument is more persuasive than one that attacks a weak version.
Is a company responsible for conditions at suppliers it does not own?
International guidance on business and human rights says companies should seek to prevent or mitigate human rights impacts linked to their products through business relationships, using due diligence scaled to their influence, even where they do not cause the harm directly.
Where can I find a free CSR 5003 Module 1 sample paper?
Right here. The position paper for CSR 5003 Module 1 runs from "The Case" to "The Position", with notes beside each part.
What is Carroll's pyramid of corporate social responsibility?
Carroll described four layers of responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Firms must be profitable and obey the law, should act ethically and may contribute beyond that.
Can a company be responsible for child labor it does not employ?
Under the UN Guiding Principles, a company is expected to use its influence to prevent and address abuses linked to its supply chain, even where it does not employ the workers directly.