Moral Issues In Business For Social And Environmental Imperatives

CSR

Discuss about the Moral Issues in Business for Social and Environmental Imperatives.

CSR, or Corporate Social Responsibility, is the manner in which the companies achieve a unique balance of the economic, social and environmental imperatives, and at the same time, it addresses the expectations of its stakeholders (Schwartz, 2011). There are two views which are related to CSR, one is a broad view and the other is the narrow view (Shaw et al., 2017).

In the following parts, an argument has been constructed to favor the broad view of the CSR. And to support this view, the theory given by Kant has been used. In this essay, both the sides of view, i.e., the narrow view and the broad view have been thoroughly analyzed and arguments have been provided to support or contradict them. In the end, it has been established that the broad view of CSR is more compelling in comparison to the narrow view.

CSR is a form of self regulatory mechanism, which is undertaken by the organizations to ensure the compliance of the law in letter, as well as, spirit and to follow the ethical standards followed internationally (Kotler & Lee, 2011). CSR integrates the social concerns of a business with their operations. Under CSR, a triple bottom approach is adopted in which equilibrium is attained between the people, profit and planet. It acts as a moral agent for the organizations to fulfill the obligations they have towards the society and the environment. It also puts a check over the organizations to not harm either the society or the environment, for profit maximization (Amaeshi, Nnodim & Onyeka, 2013).

THE BROAD VIEW Save Time On Research and Writing Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper. Get My Paper
The broad view of CSR states the socio economic view, as per which all of the organizations carrying business are a part of a large society and their responsibilities are not restricted to a mere profit maximization. Under this view, the interest of the company, relating to the financial aspect, does not overshadow its responsibilities towards the society. And with the passage of time, the broad view is gaining momentum, as more and more business houses are adopting CSR in addition to their economical interests (Mallin, 2016).
Argument 1	Argument 2	Argument 3
Social purpose The organizations are the creations of human being and they have been invented to serve the needs of the humans. Along with earning profits, the organizations have the obligation in addition to this pursuit. The profit making duty is trumped by the other responsibilities of the company. Organizations owe a duty towards their stakeholders, which include the environment, customers, employees and suppliers. So, they have the power to influence a number of elements from the society (Kotler & Maon, 2016).	Corporations have power The organizations are widespread and touch a number of aspects while conducting their business. So, their actions have the power to affect the society and the environment, in both positive and negative manner. Since the companies have so much power, it is accompanies by that much responsibilities too. Being large and influential in nature, the businesses owe some obligations towards the society (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	The social contract The organizations have an obligation to consider the impact it leaves over the society. Being the creation of humans, it has to take care of its creators and see to it that its actions do not harm its creators. And so, they have to consider the interests of the society which can be impacted due to their actions. There is a universal contract amid the business and the society. As per this contract, the society makes all the rules and sets out the responsibilities for the organizations to operate under.  So, while carrying on the business, they have to abide by the norms of the society (Shaw & Barry, 2015).
Arguments against	Arguments against	Arguments against
The Stakeholder model argument contends that the corporations have duty towards all of its stakeholders, who can be affected by its actions and can include any party which is affected by the company doing or not doing something. This goes being their duty towards the clients, environment, environment, employees and the like. So, the wide ambit of stakeholders could have grave ramifications for the stakeholders (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	Again the stakeholder model argument applies. The ambit of wide stakeholders makes the responsibilities wider. So, the companies may unknowingly affect such stakeholders which are not recognized or directly influenced as a result of their actions (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	The Syncretic model recognizes the interdependence of society and business. But at the same time, it highlights the failure of recognizing this interdependence in business houses’ favour as the society leads to the reduction in the productivity of the initiatives taken under CSR (Shaw & Barry, 2015).
Make a judgement – what do you think? I support the arguments in favour, as it is clear that the organizations are created by humans and hence it has to work in favour of its stakeholders. And since the organizations work on a large scale, it is bound to adhere to a wide range of stakeholders.	Make a judgement – what do you think? With power come responsibilities, whether it is for humans or organizations. So, they have to, and do fulfil these responsibilities.	Make a judgement – what do you think? CSR have been implemented to attain a balance of the three Ps. By attaining this balance, the organizations are successfully able to achieve the objectives laid down for all the three Ps.
The analysis of arguments, both in support and against, clearly shows that the support outweighs. The actions of the organizations are not focused on merely the attainment of profit, but upon the fulfilling its obligations laid down for the society and the environment.

THE NARROW VIEW
The narrow view supports the notion that the businesses work for the sole aim of earning profits and profit maximization. Moreover, the only responsibility which the organizations owe towards the society relates to providing the necessary goods and services to them, so as to provide the maximum amount of profits to its shareholders (Woermann, 2012).
Argument 1	Argument 2	Argument 3	Argument 4
The invisible hand This is based on the contention of Adam Smith regarding the notion that people and organizations, in a free market, should be left to promote their self interest on economic basis. While doing so, they are guided by the invisible hand to promote the greater good for general public. This should be done by the organizations too, since they are not the moral agents. By leaving them alone, the corporations would attain the greater good in their pursuit of self interest (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	Let Governments do it As per this argument, government is responsible for regulating the behaviour of the organizations for ensuring that they act in an ethical manner (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	Corporations lack ethics expertise. The corporations lack the moral and social expertise to make a decision which is not considered as an economic decision. They are not suited and hence cannot be trusted with the responsibility of promoting social welfare (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	Materialisation of society If the companies are allowed to have the power and influence for CSR, then it would be used to make the society more materialistic, as well as, commercial, by aiding the profit motive (Shaw & Barry, 2015).
Arguments against	Arguments against	Arguments against	Arguments against
The present corporations have negligible or no similarity to the ones that were present in Adam Smith’s time. So, there is a need to adopt the evolved views (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	This would lead to intrusive governments. Also, it is doubtful that government would be successful in regulating the probable unethical behaviour of companies. Moreover, governments cannot predict the likely actions or behaviour to act in a proactive manner (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	The examples of private organizations, doing good for the society have depicted that they can work for public welfare (Shaw & Barry, 2015).	This argument clearly ignores the fact that the companies have huge social power already and the commercialization and materialization is already being done (Shaw & Barry, 2015).
Make a judgement – what do you think? Unless the interest of society is kept it mind, it would not automatically result in general welfare. Personal goals often contradict with society and hence, cannot be assumed to result in greater good.	Make a judgement – what do you think? The number of organizations makes it hard for the governments to keep a track on the organizations and hence, they cannot predict the behaviour of the companies.	Make a judgement – what do you think? More and more organizations are following CSR practices, which clearly prove the supporting argument wrong.	Make a judgement – what do you think? The presence of materialization again proves the supporting argument wrong.
The presence of initiatives by the companies for benefit of society proves that they work towards the public welfare. Moreover, the governments are inadequate in fulfilling social obligations and the personal motives mostly contradict the social motives. So, the arguments against this view clearly prove the notion that the companies work for more than just the economic purpose.

In this age of internet, the organizations are consciences on what they do and hence they follow CSR practices, to both fulfill their obligations and to create a good image. This is the reason they do more than just profit maximization. There are a number of organizations in the present time which can be taken as an example of doing more than just economic objectives. They are taking initiatives in fulfilling their duty towards the society and the environment, as these are its key stakeholders. So, the broad view is more compelling as against the narrow view (Crane, 2008).

A commendable example of a through nonconsequentialist approach was given by the German philosopher name Immanuel Kant. He sought out the moral principles which did not rest over the contingencies and which defined the actions as wrong or right inherently, save for the specific situations. He believed that the moral reasoning could not be based on the factual knowledge and the results of the things done, cannot determine if such actions are correct or incorrect (Shaw & Barry, 2015).

Arguments for the Broad View

In Kant’s ethics, the categorical imperative is the unconditional moral obligation and is binding in each and every situation. Moreover, this does not depend upon the purpose or the inclination of an individual. Kan believed that the moral rules are not imposed from outside and are legislated through the own acts of the individuals. He believed that a person would be treated in the same manner as he treats other and this was a universal law (Nyholm, 2015). So, the acts of the organizations define how they want to be treated.

According to Kant, the only thing which can be termed as good, without any kind of qualification is the good will. Kant argued that all other things, like courage, wealth or health, have problems and can be used for ill purposes, and hence, cannot be good intrinsically. And despite all encroachments, good will is the only unconditional good. He even believed that to be happy, one needs to possess a good will (Shaw & Barry, 2015). It is the duty of the companies to fulfill its CSR obligations. And by doing so, good will is attained. So, by working for the society, the broad view of CSR is supported under Kant’s theory.

Kant believed that the rational individuals should be treated as an end in themselves, instead of being treated as a means for something else. This was because the humans have value in themselves. Hence, if an individual is taken to be an end-in-themselves it means that the inherent value of such individuals is not dependent upon anything else. It is irrespective if the individual enjoys their life or makes the life of others better (Louden, 2011). This is the reason why the stakeholders are treated as the focus for any of the activities of the companies. By keeping the interests of the stakeholders in mind, the companies can achieve their objectives, which are based on both economic and social factors.

The theory of Kant supports the broad view of CSR. Any organization which follows the views of Kant on the ethics for operating or for basing their procedures or polices, would remain sound on ethical basis, and would also operate on a level which is ethically accepted by the society and the community. This is because Kant’s theory believes in doing good, as one wants to do for themselves. Moreover, Kant believed in treating humans as the end-in-themselves.

Arguments against

Under CSR too, the companies treat the society as the end. And so, it works in a manner through which the society is bettered. The CSR policies are based on doing what is best, instead of doing what could be treated as correct. This ultimately results in the correct action. By treating the society in a proper manner and working in their favor, the company can be assumed to be working for themselves as per Kant’s theory.

Conclusion 

From the above analysis of the CSR’s narrow and broad view, it can be concluded that the broad view of the CSR is much more compelling. This is because the organizations nowadays are focused upon working for the society and for the environment. They have realized the importance of the society and environment as their stakeholders. And by focusing on these as the stakeholders, the organizations have been successful in attaining higher profits. So, the CSR policies following the broad view ultimately benefit the companies.

The Kant theory emphasizes in treating the others in a manner in which a person wants to be treated themselves. And so, if an organization wants to benefit itself, it has to benefit the others too. Hence, by working for the society, the organizations can work for themselves. And this is why, it can be concluded that the broad view of CSR is in line with the ethical theory of Kant. 

References 

Amaeshi, K., Nnodim, P., & Onyeka, O. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation. New York: Routledge.

Crane, A. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Kotler, P., & Maon, F. (2016). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Pressures, Conflicts, and Reconciliation. Oxon: Routledge.

Louden, R.B. (2011). Kant’s Human Being: Essays on His Theory of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mallin, C. (2016). Corporate Governance (5^th ed.). Oxon: Oxford University Press.

Nyholm, S. (2015). Revisiting Kant’s Universal Law and Humanity Formulas. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Schwartz, M.S. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Ethical Approach. Ontario: Broadview Press.

Shaw, W.H., & Barry, V. (2015) Moral Issues in Business (13^th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Shaw, W.H., Barry, V., Issa, T., Catley, B., & Muntean, D. (2017). Moral Issues in Business (3^rd Asia- Pacific ed.). Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.

Woermann, M. (2012). On the (Im)Possibility of Business Ethics: Critical Complexity, Deconstruction, and Implications for Understanding the Ethics of Business. Dordrecht: Springer.