这一观点似乎描述了企业所面临的来自外部利益相关者的压力，如政府和环境支持非政府组织。该模式的弱点之一是，它考虑了极端的一面，忽视了追求社会责任行为可以建立的中间立场。本文进一步指出，在实施社会责任活动的过程中，组织并没有得到政府等外部资源的必要支持(Power, 2008)。Power(2008)的这种识别可以看作是本文的积极方面。此外，本文还讨论了文化差异在形成企业社会责任实践中的作用，从而扩展了对社会方面如何影响确定组织的负责任行为的理解。对于这种情况，可以提出的一个相反的论点是，无论业务的国家是什么，都有一些组件需要集成到组织的功能和流程中。Van Marrewijk(2003)主张有必要遵循企业社会责任的普遍标准，其基本假设是一个组织有责任不对他人造成伤害。
The second article chosen for the analysis is “burden of good intentions” by Power (2008). In this article the author has outlined the way labour in under developed and developing economies is exploited by the large scale business entities for the sake of lowering the expense of operations and manufacturing. The central theme of the paper is based on the analysis of “do or die” model which argues that the corporations need to integrate the socially responsible activities and operations in order to continue their survival in the market. The ideas have been presented in an easy to understand language with no use of business terminologies and jargons, making the article easy to understand by the layman, while holding relevance to the professionals and scholars as well. The analysis has been supported with relevant examples, which enables the readers to develop a clear understanding about unethical business practices prevalent in the corporate sphere. For instance, the case of India and China has been used to illustrate the way companies engaged in the violation of human rights and labour exploitation. Moreover, the article has discussed how management takes benefit from the loopholes existing in the regulatory system (Power, 2008). Another strength of the paper is that the author has explored the reasons of this violation of human rights of the workers. It has been argued that there are different reasons that push the management to adopt such unethical practices. In cases where a firm is not able to adhere to the CSR related requirements, the evident outcome is the eventual decline and closure of the company.
This idea seems to depict the pressure that a firm is exposed to from the external stakeholders such as government and environmental support NGOs. One of the weaknesses of the model is that it has taken the extreme sides into consideration, overlooking the middle ground that can be established to pursue socially responsible behaviour. The paper has further pointed out that organizations do not get the required support from external sources such as government during the implementation of the socially responsible activities (Power, 2008). This identification by Power (2008) can be seen as a positive aspect of the article. Furthermore, the role of cultural differences in shaping CSR practices has been discussed in the paper, which expanded the understanding of the way social aspects can effect on determining what is seen as responsible behaviour of an organization. A counter argument that can be presented for this case is that there are some components that need to be integrated in an organization’s functions and processes regardless of the country of operations. Van Marrewijk (2003) has asserted the need to follow the universal standards of corporate social responsibility, with the underlying assumption an organization owes the responsibility to cause no harm to others.