And the social responsibility arises from shaping the local economy in such a way that a large number of people become dependent on the company. If a company becomes the main employer in a small town, it automatically takes on some responsibility. This is less true today when most people know they're not going to work for the same employer until retirement but it is still true for traditional companies with that kind of legacy.
It's not about some theoretical ethical responsibility for the greater good of mankind but about taking responsibility for your actions and the effect they have on people you have built a relationship with. If Industrocorp, Inc builds a factory in Podunk and the labour demand raises the number of residents by an order of magnitude, then relocating operations and firing a large number of staff will ruin the local economy the company created.
I'm not sure how that concept is difficult to understand: your actions have consequences, ergo you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Large corporations may be amoral, but the CEO of a privately owned company deciding to offshore half the employees isn't. Especially when the company periodical repeatedly claims that the employees are valued and their families are important. This makes the CEO an asshole. Period.
Why does a non-contractual relationship change things? Are you applying the Copenhagen theory of ethics or something?
http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
Also, why dont the workers who became dependent on a company deserve responsibility for that action?
I realise HN is a weird place to argue this, but corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without a state guaranteeing its rights and the means to enforce those rights, a corporation is just a group of individuals. This is not only true for corporations. You don't have any rights other than those afforded to you by society (whether on a local level like the US or a global level like the UN). If there's no-one who's going to enforce your rights, they become purely philosophical (cf. Guantanomo -- unless you believe the UN is going to take on the US government and bail you out of there).
The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level. Thanks to globalization it now extends to other societies across the globe, but the responsibilities of a local corporation to residents of a country on the other side of the globe they don't already have any business relationships with is only secondary at best.
That said, you're kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that increasing profit (or cutting costs, which boils down to the same effect) by outsourcing to cheaper markets could even remotely be considered something ethically positive.
[0] I'm using the terms "society" and "state" or "government" interchangeably here based on the democratic principle that a state derives its legitimation from the people, i.e. the society it governs.
What makes the social contract local? Why not say the social contract is primarily between and individual and his race, his class, his clan or his religion?
At one time it was considered a violation of the "social contract" for a white man to hire cheaper negro workers (language chosen to evoke that era). Many folks still consider it a violation of the "social contract" to hire someone who isn't Marathi. Why do you choose geographic locality rather than race?
Outsourcing to cheaper markets reduces poverty and inequality. As a person who doesn't consider Debbie more valuable than Deepika (both are real people that I know personally), I consider helping Deepkia (born into dire poverty and with little chance to escape) far more ethical than helping Debbie.
Stats: http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
You're asking questions that have been discussed at length by philosophers, and while there is no definitive "answer", there are some thought frameworks you can think in. Questions of ethics are hard because they're dependent on culture, and their axioms do not stem from nature (although a few philosophers claim they do) but from human psychology and social-psychology. Still, they're not completely arbitrary. You can say your values make you prefer ethical framework A over ethical framework B, but each framework -- while may not 100% logically sound and 100% consistent -- at least frames the discussion.
So, to get back to your question, there are certainly reasons -- within a given ethics framework -- to prefer local responsibility. The reasons start with the question, "why do I have a responsibility towards the Other[1]?" Some philosophers (like Levinas[2], I think), take a very total approach. Others may say that the responsibility stems from relationship and mutual influence (my wellbeing is affected by the Other, and the Other's is affected by mine). If you prefer the second approach, it is clear that you have greater responsibility towards those whose lives are more affected by yours and vice-versa, and as mutual effects can travel through the economy or legislation (you both vote for the same government), and those are local, it stands to reason that the measure of responsibility grows with locality. Other ethical frameworks may agree with this notion of locality in principle, but say that locality only takes precedence when the needs are the same (of the local and remote), but if the remote person/community has greater needs, then that takes precedence over locality.
All of these can make sense, and different people can subscribe to different ethical frameworks. But each of them has to be consistent, or at least have good reasons for breaking the consistency in some circumstances.
Your idea makes a certain kind of sense, but it's not going to lead to anything except even more inequality than we started with.
http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
That's got me thinking, what about the social responsibility of southeast Asians towards Americans who have been denied for decades the opportunity to own property and live in southeast Asian countries?
Every country has it's own laws about who can settle and work and under what conditions. America does it and so do 'Southeast Asian' countries and everywhere in-between.
Thailand decides who can own property (or work) there. It's neither racist (as you seem to imply - but perhaps you mean only when it's America?) nor is it evil.
Guess, I'll just need to suck it up and go without that great beach house in Thailand.
I don't know the Thailand govt well, but India has similar laws and is explicitly racist about them.
Regarding social responsibility, this is simply my opinion, but companies that wish to employ the full legal and financial protection of the United States and operate within its infrastructure bear some social and moral responsibility to contribute back into the system. Offshoring the bulk of a company's workforce or moving profits overseas to evade taxes and other things of this nature should disqualify any company from receiving the protections and benefits provided by the US, full stop.
My father in law works at an industrial manufacturer where several departments (including IT) are being outsourced to Southeast Asia. The company has been operating locally for nearly a century and a lot of the people who are being made redundant have worked there for decades and are now being kicked out at a point where they are too young for retirement but too old to find new jobs.
I know that a company isn't a welfare organisation, but if you employ upwards of a hundred people in a small town you can't deny having some social responsibility. It's easy to see why the workers told to train their cheaper replacements are having a hard time staying professional.