Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 367–381 | Cite as

Imperfect Duties and Corporate Philanthropy: A Kantian Approach

Article

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in society. Unfortunately, many such organizations are chronically underfunded and struggle to meet their objectives. These facts have significant implications for corporate philanthropy and Kant’s notion of imperfect duties. Under the concept of imperfect duties, businesses would have wide discretion regarding which charities receive donations, how much money to give, and when such donations take place. A perceived problem with imperfect duties is that they can lead to moral laxity; that is, a failure on the part of businesses to fulfill their financial obligations to nonprofit organizations. This article argues the problem of moral laxity rests on a misinterpretation of Kantian ethics and, therefore, is really not a problem at all. As such, we argue corporate philanthropy while an imperfect duty should be interpreted more akin to perfect duties and, as a consequence, moral laxity does not arise for those corporations committed to acting on the basis of the moral law. More specifically, firms have duty-based obligations on the basis of benevolence, and as good corporate citizens, to help fund non-profit organizations.

Keywords

Beneficence Corporate philanthropy Ethics Imperfect duties Immanuel Kant 

References

  1. AAFRC (American Association of Fundraising Council). (2009). Giving USA 2008. Indianapolis, IN: American Association of Fundraising Council.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, M. (2007). The decomposition of the corporate body: Why Kant cannot contribute to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, M. (1987). Kantian ethics and supererogation. The Journal of Philosophy, 84(5), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, M. (1995). Kantian ethics almost without apology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bergman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackwood, A., Wing, K. T., & Pollak, T. H. (2008). The nonprofit sector in brief: Facts and figures from the nonprofit Almanac 2008. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2008). Corporate responsibility: A critical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowie, N. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 1083–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowie, N. (1999). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Bowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowie, N., & Arnold, D. G. (2007). Respect for workers in global supply chains: Advancing the debate over sweatshops; a reply to Sollars and Englander. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 135–146.Google Scholar
  12. Bowman, E. (1978). Strategy, annual reports, and Alchemy. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58.Google Scholar
  13. Bromiley, P., & Marcus, A. (1989). The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability, and safety recalls. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchanan, A. (1996). Perfecting imperfect duties: Collective action to create moral obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, L., Gulas, C. S., & Gruca, T. S. (1999). Corporate giving behavior and decision-maker social consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cavicchio, C., & Torok, J. (2009). The 2009 corporate contributions report: An analysis of the giving practices of 166 major corporations in 2008. New York: The Conference Board.Google Scholar
  17. Coady, M. (2009). Giving in numbers: 2009 edition. New York: Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  18. Cowton, C. J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummiskey, D. (1996). Kantian consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Navas-Walt, C., Proctor, J., & Smith, C. (2008). Current population reports: Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  21. Easwaramoorthy, M., Barr, C., Gumulka, G., & Hartford, L. (2006). Business support for charities and nonprofits. Toronto: Imagine Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Fleury, D. (2009). Low-income children, catalogue no. 75–001-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  24. French, P. (1979). The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(3), 207–216.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 32, 33, 122, 124, 126.Google Scholar
  26. Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit? Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Global Humanitarian Forum. (2009). The anatomy of a silent crisis. Accessed February 1, 2010, from http://ghfgeneva.org/Portals/0/pdfs/human_impact_report.pdf.
  28. Government Accountability Office. (2008). Comparison of the reported tax liabilities of foreign- and U.S.-controlled corporations, 19982005. Report GAO-08-957. Accessed February 4, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08957.html.
  29. Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society Review, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall, M. H., Ayer, S., Zarinpoush, F., & Lasby, D. M. (2008). Corporate community investment practices, motives, and challenges: Findings from the Canada survey of business contributions to community. Toronto: Imagine Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, M. H., de Wit, M. L., Lasby, D., & McIver, D. (2005). Cornerstones of nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Herman, B. (1993). The practice of moral judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hill, T. (1971). Kant on imperfect duty and supererogation. Kant-Studien, 62, 55–76.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, T. (1992). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hill, T. (2002). Human welfare and human worth. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hooker, B. (2000). A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ingram, R. (1978). An investigation of the information content of social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 16(2), 270–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kant, I. (1998). Religion within the boundaries of mere reason and other writings (A. Wood & G. Di Giovanni, Trans., Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kant, I. (2005a). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (T. K Abbott, Trans., and L. Denis, Trans. and Ed.). Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kant, I. (2005b). Metaphysics of morals (Mary J. Gregor, Trans.). In Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (T. K Abbott, Trans., and L. Denis, Trans and Ed.). Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press (Appendix E).Google Scholar
  41. Laird, G. (2007). Homelessness in a growth economy: Canada’s 21st century paradox. Calgary, AB: Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.Google Scholar
  42. McKinsey Quarterly. (2008). The state of corporate philanthropy: A McKinsey global survey. New York: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  43. Meijer, M., de Bakker, F. G. A., Smit, J. H., & Schuyt, T. (2006). Corporate giving in the Netherlands 1995–2003: Exploring the amounts involved and the motivations for donating. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morsing, M., Midttun, A., & Palmas, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Scandinavia: a turn toward the business case? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 87–104). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 65–93.Google Scholar
  46. Noggel, R. (2008). Give till it hurts? Beneficence, imperfect duties, and a moderate response to the aid question. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, T., Jung, K., Sokolowski, S. W., & Salamon, L. M. (2004). South Korea. In L. M. Salamon, S. W. Sokolowski, et al. (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2, pp. 200–214). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Porter, M. R., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 57–68.Google Scholar
  50. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & List, R. (2004). Global civil society: An overview. Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
  52. Sargeant, A., & Crissman, K. (2006). Corporate giving in Australia: An analysis of motives and barriers. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 477–494.Google Scholar
  53. Schneewind, J. B. (1992). Autonomy, obligation, and virtue: An overview of Kant’s moral philosophy. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Kant (pp. 309–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott, K. (2003). Funding matters: The impact of Canada’s new funding regime on nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Council for Social Development.Google Scholar
  55. Singer, P. (1972). Famine affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 230–243.Google Scholar
  56. Singer, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  57. Sokolowski, S. W., & Salamon, L. (1999). The United States. In L. M. Salamon, H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler, S. W. Sokolowski, et al. (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  58. Spencer, B., & Taylor, G. (1987). A within and between analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 18(3), 7–18.Google Scholar
  59. Statistics Canada. (2008). Satellite account of nonprofit institutions and volunteering 1997 to 2005. Accessed June 19, 2009, from http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/Reports/CanSat08.pdf.
  60. Statman, D. (1996). Who needs imperfect duties? American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(2), 211–224.Google Scholar
  61. Stohr, K. (2011). Kantian beneficence and the problem of obligatory aid. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. UNICEF. (2009). Facts on children. Accessed June 23, 2009, from http://www.unicef.org/media/media_fastfacts.html.
  63. Urban Institute. (2009). Number of nonprofit organizations in the United States, 1998–2008. Accessed January 13, 2010, from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profile1.php?state=US.
  64. Velasquez, M. (1983). Why corporations are not morally responsibility for anything they do. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 2(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
  65. Vogel, D. (2006). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
  66. Watts, J. (2006). Charity: New cultural revolution. The Guardian. Accessed July 7, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/10/china.jonathanwatts.
  67. Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility/corporate moral responsibility: Is there a difference and the difference is makes. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 459–474). Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  68. Whelan, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A Confucian context. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 105–118). Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General EducationMount Royal UniversityCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Luther College at the University of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations