1. Why would companies choose to inate the image of their corporate citizenship?

Companies choose to inate the image of their corporate citizenship because as one
way to improve the company's reputation, increase competitive advantage and help
improve the quality of human life.
And it's so important for keep good relationship with another corporate.
This is reinforced by the statement Marsden and Andrioff (1998) :
Good corporate citizenship can be defined as understanding and managing a
company`s wider influences on society for the benefit of the company and society as
a whole.
2. Is it ethical to direct company donations to nonprot groups closely aligned with the
interests of the corporations employees, communities, and business objectives?
Why or why not?
Companies donate to non-profit group that in this case related to the corporation's
employees, communities. We think it is ethics because they relate to actions which
bring goodness to sebagain group (corporation's employee, communities, and
business objectives) and this relates to the ethical theory of utilitarianism which,
according to this theory, if an action will say well if it brings benefits to as many
members or known by the term "the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers".
3. Is it ethical to direct company donations to support pet projects of senior managers
or board members? Why or why not?
We think it is ethical, if this only limited support and no negative intent to cause fraud
or conflict.
We consider it is ethical because it relates to the company's reputation, with the
support "pet projects of senior managers or board members" will add to the
confidence of senior managers or board members or add profits to the company
itself.
4. Why would budgeting a xed percentage of pretax prots for corporate philanthropy
be seen as a more convincing commitment to CSR than just funding a variety of
projects?
It's seen as more convincing due to the companies drive to higher its profits each
year, equating to more money being contributed to CSR. All companies strive to
higher its profits each year and being the main goal, the percentage of donation will
increase congruently alongside. Opposed to setting a set amount towards projects
each year, the amount of donation money is a percentage of profits instead, which
shows confidence and willingness from the company to uphold its contributions to
CSR.
5. The authors of this article claim that an effectively managed contribution program
can deliver strong returns to a corporation. What might those returns be?
The meaning of the authors an effectively managed contribution program can deliver
strong returns to a corporation is the company's image to the public (Public
relations), due to consider the welfare of the local community in the form of
contribution percentages each year, making stackholder (consumers, and society)
considers the company socially responsible and ethical behavior.
And the company to the attention of the public (consumers) because it always pay
attention to their surroundings.

6. Does the fact that Target and General Mills donate five times more than the minimum
1 percent make them ve times more socially responsible? Why or why not?
Because it makes them more socially responsible companies than those who dont
conduct this action. By donating 5 times more on average, these companies are
losing profits they could be obviously taking for themselves, and instead are assisting
non-for-profit companies that will be able to assist necessary projects. They are not
required to do this, and as such impact much more than those companies just
meeting the bare minimum of 1% even as low as .7% for others mentioned.