Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 117–136 | Cite as

A Neo-Kantian foundation of Corporate Social Responsibility

  • Wim Dubbink
  • Luc van Liedekerke
Article

Abstract

‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is conceptualized in many ways. We argue that one cannot be indifferent about the issue of its conceptualization. In terms of methodology, our position is that any conceptual discussion must embed CSR in political theory. With regard to substance, we link up with the discussion on whether CSR must be defined on the basis of a tripartite or a quadripartite division of business responsibilities. We share A.B. Carroll’s intuition that a quadripartite division is called for as a basis to define CSR. However, defending the quadripartite division of business responsibilities requires that the distinctions between economic, legal, ethical and discretionary business responsibilities be made intelligible. Carroll’s account is defective in this respect. We argue that contemporary Neo-Kantian political ethics is able to make sense of these distinctions, because of its specific interpretation of liberalism. Interestingly, from a conventional liberal perspective this interpretation of liberalism is atypical, as it extends public morality beyond the domain of the law.

Keywords

(Conceptualisation of) corporate social responsibility Kant Contemporary Neo-Kantian thinking liberalism Public vs private Right vs morality Political theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was facilitated by a grant by Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. We would like to thank Archie B. Carroll, Herman van Erp, Barbara Herman, Jeffery Smith and Bert van de Ven and for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Atterton P (2007) A duty to be charitable? A rigoristic reading of Kant. Kant Studien 98(2):135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron MW (1995) Kantian ethics almost without apology. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumol WJ (1975) Business responsibility and economic behavior. In: Anshen M (ed) Managing the socially responsible corporation. Macmillan, New York, pp 59–74Google Scholar
  4. Baumol WJ, Batey Blackman SJ (1991) Perfect markets and easy virtue: Business ethics and the invisible hand. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird F, Waters JA (1989) The moral muteness of managers. Cali Manag Rev 32:73–88Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan A (1987) Justice and charity. Ethics 3C(3):558–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad Manage Rev 4(4):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll AB (1999) Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus Soc 38(3):268–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll AB, Buchholtz AK (2006) Business and society. Ethics and stakeholder management (6th edn). Thomson, MasonGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane A, Matten D (2004) Business ethics. A european perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubbink W (2004) The fragile structure of free-market society: the radical implications of corporate social responsibility. Bus Ethics Q 14(1):23–46Google Scholar
  12. Fisher C, Lovell A (2003) A business ethics and values. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  13. Frederick WC (2006) Corporations be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Dog Ear, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 13 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–220Google Scholar
  16. Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Guyer P (2000a) Kantian foundations for liberalism. In: Guyer P (ed) Kant on freedom, law, and happiness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 235–262Google Scholar
  18. Guyer P (2000b) Life, liberty, and property: Rawls and Kant. In: Guyer P (ed) Kant on freedom, law, and happiness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 262–286Google Scholar
  19. Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, two volumes. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  20. Herman B (1993a) Mutual aid and respect for persons. In: Herman B (ed) The practice of moral judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 45–72Google Scholar
  21. Herman B (1993b) Murder and mayhem. In: Herman B (ed) The practice of moral judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 113–131Google Scholar
  22. Herman B (1997) A cosmopolitan kingdom of ends. In: Reath A, Herman B, Korsgaard CB (eds) Reclaiming the history of ethics. Essays for John Rawls. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 187–213Google Scholar
  23. Herman B (2001/2007) The scope of moral requirement. In: Herman B (ed) Moral literacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyd D (1982) Supererogation. Its status in ethical theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Höffe O (1992) Even a nation of devils needs the state: the dilemma of natural justice. In: Williams HL (ed) Essays on Kant’s political philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 120–142Google Scholar
  26. Homann K (1994) Marktwirtschaft und Unternehmensethik. In: Blasche S, Köhler W, Rohs P (eds) Markt und Moral. Die Diskussion um die Unternehmensethik. Haupt, Bern, pp 109–130Google Scholar
  27. Kant I (1785/2002) Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In: Hill TE, Zweig A (eds) Oxford philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Kant I (1797/1996/2003) In: Gregor M (translation/editor) The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Kymlicka W (1990/1995) Contemporary political philosophy. An introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindblom CE (1977) Politics and markets. The world’s political-economic systems. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. MacWilliams AD, Siegel S, Wright PM (2006) Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43/1:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manne HG, Wallich HC (1972) The modern corporation and social responsibility. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Mill JS (1863/1998) In: Crisp R (ed) Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Neill O (1986) Faces of hunger. An essay on poverty, justice and development. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neill O (1989/1995) Constructions of reason. Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neill O (2003) Constructivism vs. Contractualism, Ratio (new series) 16/4:319–331Google Scholar
  38. O’Neill O (1996/1998) Towards justice and virtue. A constructive account of practical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Peter F (2004) Demokratische legitimation von marktarrangements: Auf dem weg zu einer wirtschaftsethik als politische ethik. Z Wirtsch Unternehm Ethik 5(2):163–175Google Scholar
  40. Pippin RB (2006) Mine and thine? The Kantian state. In: Guyer P (ed) The Cambridge companion to Kant and modern philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 416–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Post JE, Laurence AT, Weber J (1975/1999) Business and society. Corporate strategy, public policy, ethics, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  42. Postema GJ (1994) Public faces—private places—liberalism and the enforcement of morality. In: Dworkin G (ed) Morality, harm and the law. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 76–93Google Scholar
  43. Rawls J (1972) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls J (1993/1996) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Reath A (1997a) Self legislation and duties to oneself. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36(Supplement):103–124Google Scholar
  46. Reath A (1997b) Legislating for a realm of ends: The social dimension of autonomy. In: Reath A, Herman B, Korsgaard CM (eds) Reclaiming the history of ethics. Essays for John Rawls. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 214–239Google Scholar
  47. Scanlon TM (1998/2000) What we owe to each other. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a habermasian perspective. Acad Manage Rev 32/4:1096–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneewind JB (1998) The invention of autonomy. A history of modern moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Sociaal Economische Raad (2000) De Winst van Waarden: Advies over Maatschappelijk Ondernemen. SER, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz MS, Carroll AB (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three Domain Approach. Bus Ethics Q Xiii/4:503–530Google Scholar
  52. Urmson JO (1969/1972) Saints and heroes. In: Feinberg J (ed) Moral concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 60–73Google Scholar
  53. van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44/2:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van de Ven B, Jeurissen R (2005) Competing responsibly. Bus Ethics Q 15/2:299–317Google Scholar
  55. Wood AW (1999) Kant’s ethical thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations