Only the purple and red sectors are ideologically consistent - one cannot promote big government and regulations and champion freedom (green sector), nor vice versa (blue sector).
Of those two, the red sector is an ideology that strips individuals of rights and freedoms in favour of the community, while the purple sector recognises that the smallest community is the individual and without individual rights and freedoms there can be no true community.
I'd refer to Keef's graph a couple pages back to notice how complex the left v. right binary actually is. People can have a hardcore free market stance, but be completely racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. (and be on the right of the spectrum). I'd go on to say that you can be totally for a free market, yet want to limit freedom of others (like promoting the institution of slavery as the herald of the free market). Indeed, the (American) South still continues to view the civil war as an infringement of their economic liberties.
Honestly, I think the right has inappropriately tried to sell itself as championing individual rights, when many times, they have championed exclusion of certain individuals from participating freely in the free market.
The same goes for authoritarian figures, such as Stalin and Fidel Castro, who are typically seen as leftists, yet posited the creation of a particular type of community that excluded certain individuals. For instance, Fidel Castro idealized the ideal Communist revolutionary as one marked by heightened machismo. The ideal revolutionary, basically, had to be a man's man, strong, stern, and authoritative. What happened? Gender roles were reinforced. Leadership positions were overwhelmingly given to men, not women. Sexual norms were reinforced as well. The homosexual community was ostracized and forced into hard physical labor, because it was assumed that physical labor would "man" homosexuals up. Being homosexual was, for Cuba, almost like being anti-revolutionary. In this case, these leftists have tried to sound like being inclusive of the common man, who were marginalized by the greedy capitalist; yet they simply transfered the marginalization of individuals from private hands to a single political party.
The graph, honestly, only reveals how weak our attempts to categorize political ideologies really are. This graph is probably the worst offender... rather than highlighting the complexities of political beliefs, it basically flattens everything out, and it makes people in the right think they're the heroes of individualism (when sometimes they are not), and the people in the left think they're heroes of the community (when sometimes they are not). I would argue that there are people in the left much in favor of individualism and people in the right who would want to limit individual freedoms in favor of the collective. These are the many layers of political opinion.
What is a social responsibility? I don't even know what that means - is it suggested that by selling things to a society a company has an obligation to also... do things for the society for free? What's wrong with just providing them with the best product they can?
In a state of nature, I'm not obligated to stop after I run you over accidentally. Maybe I was late for an important business meeting, involving the sale of a product I want to put in the market. Socially, however, I kind of am required, unless I want to be forever ostracized by my fellow citizens. As such, I think the notion of social responsibility involves the acknowledgment that the production of certain products produces some negative consequences (like deforestation, communities uprooted from their land, etc) and there is a responsibility to offset those consequences or minimize them, at least, because it is assumed that these consequences are actually very bad for society. Think about cutting a tree and using it for paper, housing, etc., but planting a smaller tree in its place. Of course, I do think that businesses take on the moniker of social responsibility as a means of branding their company, to sell the idea that they are "socially conscious" and get more business by people who think they are ahead of the curb. Starbucks, for instance, has done nothing to make the lives of coffee plantation owners and workers any better by implementing a quasi-fair trade model of business. Yet, people think they are doing a world a favor by buying coffee from Starbucks.
And you're quite right - what exactly is it that companies do if not "serve humanity"? The interests of a company is to serve humanity - if they don't make something humanity wants, they don't survive. So their interests and serving humanity are aligned and thus I have to disagree with the question as answering that I agree indicated I think they are separate things.
You have to be careful how you employ the word "service" here... I'd think that "service" is characterized somewhat by utility. When you service a car, for instance, you make it into something you can utilize. When you serve someone, you provide them with something useful. In the spirit of service, you have the interest of others in mind.
Companies serve themselves. Their interest is to serve themselves, and themselves alone. That sometimes their interests intersect with the interests of individuals does not mean that they actually serve humanity. All it means is that interests are sometimes aligned. But this is not always the case.
Indeed, when we talk about service, sometimes sacrifice is involved (when you actually get no absolute payoff from serving humanity).
