A current popular notion for business is the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

There are CSR officers, consultants, professors and initiatives.

Much CSR makes good business sense: ethical behavior, encouraging customer loyalty, treating employees well, etc. But some of the pressure put on businesses in the name of CSR is simply wrong.

Some businesses have pulled out of developing economies due to pressure from CSR groups. These CSR advocates compare the labor conditions and pay in these developing economies to the company's labor conditions and pay in developed economies and accuse the business of exploiting sweatshop labor.

Most frequently, jobs in developing economies with companies from developed economies pay substantially more and offer far better working conditions than the local alternatives. It is true that they pay less than in developed economies, but taking away these jobs severely hurts people in developing economies. What appears to be ethically right to one person may be ethically wrong to others.

Even the demands by CSR advocates for increases in corporate charitable giving may be misplaced. Asking executives to give away money that belongs to someone else (the shareholders) is only borrowed virtue at best. If I give away money that belongs to you, am I doing a good deed?

Of course, many people think that giving away money that belongs to shareholders is a good thing because they implicitly believe that shareholders are the evil, greedy, capitalist pigs described in much anti-business literature.

But in the 21st century, shareholders overwhelmingly consist of mutual funds and pension funds that are the caretakers of money for current and future retirees. How would you react if an executive announced that he was donating 50 percent of profits of a company in your retirement fund to charity? Many shareholders will likely sell and the share price may fall. Current and future retirees are hurt because they have less money for their retirement. That company is also less likely to get more capital in the future, and thus both current and future employees of the company also may be hurt.

Shouldn't individuals choose how much they wish to donate and what charities they wish to donate to rather than have a company executive do it on their behalf?

It is probably best if companies stick to what they do best in capitalist systems: produce the highest quality products in the most efficient (lowest cost) way possible.

Of course, they must follow the rules for the system to work. They must not commit fraud or lie about the quality of their product. They must fully and honestly disclose their accounting numbers. They must not impose costs on innocent third parties by polluting or other actions. But being charitable with someone else's money is not what they do best.

However, my biggest concern about CSR is that a business may use it as an excuse to block new competition. A business may want to put CSR burdens on new, small entrepreneurial competitors by arguing that CSR is so important that it should be required of everyone. New, small competitors may not have sufficient resources to meet imposed CSR requirements.

Businesses may also want to block foreign competition by arguing that the low pay in developing economies is a violation of CSR and hence the government should block imports. Using CSR for the selfish interests of the company is simply wrong.

Let business do what it does best, make it do it by the rules, but don't ask it to give away money or resources that belong to someone else. And certainly don't let businesses use CSR as an excuse to block the competition that keeps business honest and efficient.