Short paper #1: Can/must/must not firms engage in core CSR, or can/must/must not firms engage in corporate philanthropy?
Here, you should choose either core CSR OR corporate philanthropy (last year folks didn’t necessarily understand these are uniquely different things), and then choose the position from can/must/must not that you would like to defend and briefly present your argument first. Then, present one of the other two as the position you are arguing against. Try to pass the ideological Turing test; i.e., make it convincing. You need not list all arguments for that position; rather pick the best one you can think of. Finally, respond with your rebuttal to that one good argument. This is the main task, so make it convincing.
Alternative format: CSR/social outreach redo. Think about a social outreach initiative at an organization where you worked and how it could have been done better. According to Porter & Kramer, poor initiatives “focus on the tension between business and society rather than on their interdependence…the result is oftentimes a hodgepodge of uncoordinated CSR and philanthropic activities disconnected from the company’s strategy that neither make any meaningful social impact nor strength the firm’s long-term competitiveness.” At their worst then, volunteer days and CSR initiatives can devolve into a PR stunt that is a poor use of firm resources, human and other, and not respectful of shareholders. Can you think of community outreach at a work organization you’ve been at that “fell down” in this manner? What was wrong with it? If you had the power to change it, how would you have crafted the initiative to be ideal for your organization?