Is Corporate Social Responsibility Just A ‘Hypocritical Window-Dressing’ For Greedy Businesses Making Profit?
AKA Should A Company Be Generally Charitable - Should Not/Is window Dressing
- Others contend that being ethically accountable to one's employees, consumers, and society is the point of business since it is the morally correct thing
to do. The Body Shop, for instance, exemplifies CSR by addressing concerns like fair trade and animal rights. It's feasible to run a business that doesn't
just depend on earning a profit. "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business," as Henry FORD would say.
Some claim that most companies' involvement in social issues stems from a judgement that certain involvement would boost their profitability by
enhancing their brand's reputation among potential customers. Businesses act more ethically in order to enhance their brand, attract more clients, and
ultimately increase their profits. EG, the Gillette "The Best a Man Can Be" ad was meant to draw attention to the social problem of masculinity.
Instead, it was criticised for using the social crisis for financial advantage.
Is a Window-Dressing
- However is this actually possible? Businesses are under external pressure to operate ethically from stakeholders, for a company to be seen as ‘ethical’,
how can a business not be socially responsible without the aim of creating positive brand awareness? If such is the case, can they be accused of
hypocrisy when they must recognise their responsibility to their consumers and other stakeholders? It can't be hypocritical if they're being held
accountable by the law, especially if whistleblowing regulations might be used against them. FREIDMAN called CSR “hypocritical window-dressing”
and said that business people inclined toward such programs “reveal a suicidal impulse”. He argued the main aim of a business is to generate income.
To fulfil its societal purpose, it must accomplish this objective for its shareholders, but not at the expense of unfair competition. "The business of
business is business," as the saying goes. If a cost-benefit analysis shows that CSR is good for business then that is what matters. Likewise, MAXWELL
asserts, "There is no such thing as business ethics." The recent 'Volkswagen Emissions Scandal' is a prime example of a company misleading
stakeholders and cheating to improve a public image. They deliberately ignored their legal duty. Volkswagen deliberately lied and misled many over
their product. Interestingly VW still maintains the title of 'the biggest car company in the world. Do people actually care about CSR?
Against: Utilitarian View For: Kant
Utilitarians would argue that a company's intentions are unimportant as long According to Kant, doing what is morally good should always take precedence
as the results provide the most happiness for the largest number of people. above serving one's own interests. The general consensus is that companies
CSR denotes a company's obligation to the community and the environment. ought to uphold moral standards and act responsibly. Kant would contend
So, from the standpoint of a utilitarian, if a business operates in a way that that it is morally acceptable for a company to be honest and accountable to all
,helps the majority of its stakeholders, it is a good business because it offers of its stakeholders. However, it would not be moral if a company's only goal
the most happiness to the largest number of people. If corporate social was to make a profit. Kant's 2nd Categorical Imperative emphasises that
responsibility is only "window dressing" for profit and avarice, then according humans are the greatest form of life and the pinnacle of creation. Therefore,
outcomes must be considered. If profit and greed help employees, its crucial to think about how firms treat their employees and others who are
governments, and other stakeholders, then the means justify the goal. Louis directly affected by them. It is our duty to act in a way that does not treat
POJMAN: backs this argument by stating that self-interest is not the same as people as a means to an end. The second formulation indicates that Kant
selfishness because putting your company first helps to serve the common would reject CSR as mere "window dressing." because we owe it to people to
benefit of others. view them as ends, in contrast, merely as a means.
, Corporate Social Responsibility & Ford Pinto case study
The rush to sell the Ford Pinto cars for under $2,000 resulted in a fault – the gas tank was relocated to the car's rear. 8/11 cars exploded if involved in a crash.
They decided it would be cheaper to not recall the cars and to pay out when people started dying as a result of the fault. 500 burn fatalities in crashes, the
largest personal injury judgement ever.
Kantian view on CSR Utilitarian view on CSR
Kantians believe that an action can only be completely good if it is motivated The utilitarian would have to consider the probable benefits and drawbacks of
only by goodwill. Companies that fund charitable events or contribute to CSR. Different people's interests would have to be taken into account in order
society in other ways to improve their own reputations would thus be to determine if the pleasure would exceed the suffering. The utilitarian would
considered unethical. Similarly, if their major priority is to protect their own presumably find that acting responsibly was in a company's best interests since
reputation or the safety of their employees in order to earn a profit, a Kantian it was more likely to provide pleasure for the greatest amount of people.
would not consider this to be desirable. According to Kant, a corporation However, if there are situations in which acting recklessly provides more
should operate responsibly only because it is the right thing to do. pleasure than suffering, then the utilitarian should advocate acting
irresponsibly.
In the case of Ford, By putting a value on their customers' lives, they are In the case of Ford, Utilitarians would argue that Ford only considered the cost
treating them as a means to an end. This goes against the 2nd formulation of to the company. A customer dying would have effects lasting for years
the Categorical Imperative and thus is immoral (duration) and would lead to friends and family suffering (purity) therefore we
need to consider all consequences.
AKA Should A Company Be Generally Charitable - Should Not/Is window Dressing
- Others contend that being ethically accountable to one's employees, consumers, and society is the point of business since it is the morally correct thing
to do. The Body Shop, for instance, exemplifies CSR by addressing concerns like fair trade and animal rights. It's feasible to run a business that doesn't
just depend on earning a profit. "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business," as Henry FORD would say.
Some claim that most companies' involvement in social issues stems from a judgement that certain involvement would boost their profitability by
enhancing their brand's reputation among potential customers. Businesses act more ethically in order to enhance their brand, attract more clients, and
ultimately increase their profits. EG, the Gillette "The Best a Man Can Be" ad was meant to draw attention to the social problem of masculinity.
Instead, it was criticised for using the social crisis for financial advantage.
Is a Window-Dressing
- However is this actually possible? Businesses are under external pressure to operate ethically from stakeholders, for a company to be seen as ‘ethical’,
how can a business not be socially responsible without the aim of creating positive brand awareness? If such is the case, can they be accused of
hypocrisy when they must recognise their responsibility to their consumers and other stakeholders? It can't be hypocritical if they're being held
accountable by the law, especially if whistleblowing regulations might be used against them. FREIDMAN called CSR “hypocritical window-dressing”
and said that business people inclined toward such programs “reveal a suicidal impulse”. He argued the main aim of a business is to generate income.
To fulfil its societal purpose, it must accomplish this objective for its shareholders, but not at the expense of unfair competition. "The business of
business is business," as the saying goes. If a cost-benefit analysis shows that CSR is good for business then that is what matters. Likewise, MAXWELL
asserts, "There is no such thing as business ethics." The recent 'Volkswagen Emissions Scandal' is a prime example of a company misleading
stakeholders and cheating to improve a public image. They deliberately ignored their legal duty. Volkswagen deliberately lied and misled many over
their product. Interestingly VW still maintains the title of 'the biggest car company in the world. Do people actually care about CSR?
Against: Utilitarian View For: Kant
Utilitarians would argue that a company's intentions are unimportant as long According to Kant, doing what is morally good should always take precedence
as the results provide the most happiness for the largest number of people. above serving one's own interests. The general consensus is that companies
CSR denotes a company's obligation to the community and the environment. ought to uphold moral standards and act responsibly. Kant would contend
So, from the standpoint of a utilitarian, if a business operates in a way that that it is morally acceptable for a company to be honest and accountable to all
,helps the majority of its stakeholders, it is a good business because it offers of its stakeholders. However, it would not be moral if a company's only goal
the most happiness to the largest number of people. If corporate social was to make a profit. Kant's 2nd Categorical Imperative emphasises that
responsibility is only "window dressing" for profit and avarice, then according humans are the greatest form of life and the pinnacle of creation. Therefore,
outcomes must be considered. If profit and greed help employees, its crucial to think about how firms treat their employees and others who are
governments, and other stakeholders, then the means justify the goal. Louis directly affected by them. It is our duty to act in a way that does not treat
POJMAN: backs this argument by stating that self-interest is not the same as people as a means to an end. The second formulation indicates that Kant
selfishness because putting your company first helps to serve the common would reject CSR as mere "window dressing." because we owe it to people to
benefit of others. view them as ends, in contrast, merely as a means.
, Corporate Social Responsibility & Ford Pinto case study
The rush to sell the Ford Pinto cars for under $2,000 resulted in a fault – the gas tank was relocated to the car's rear. 8/11 cars exploded if involved in a crash.
They decided it would be cheaper to not recall the cars and to pay out when people started dying as a result of the fault. 500 burn fatalities in crashes, the
largest personal injury judgement ever.
Kantian view on CSR Utilitarian view on CSR
Kantians believe that an action can only be completely good if it is motivated The utilitarian would have to consider the probable benefits and drawbacks of
only by goodwill. Companies that fund charitable events or contribute to CSR. Different people's interests would have to be taken into account in order
society in other ways to improve their own reputations would thus be to determine if the pleasure would exceed the suffering. The utilitarian would
considered unethical. Similarly, if their major priority is to protect their own presumably find that acting responsibly was in a company's best interests since
reputation or the safety of their employees in order to earn a profit, a Kantian it was more likely to provide pleasure for the greatest amount of people.
would not consider this to be desirable. According to Kant, a corporation However, if there are situations in which acting recklessly provides more
should operate responsibly only because it is the right thing to do. pleasure than suffering, then the utilitarian should advocate acting
irresponsibly.
In the case of Ford, By putting a value on their customers' lives, they are In the case of Ford, Utilitarians would argue that Ford only considered the cost
treating them as a means to an end. This goes against the 2nd formulation of to the company. A customer dying would have effects lasting for years
the Categorical Imperative and thus is immoral (duration) and would lead to friends and family suffering (purity) therefore we
need to consider all consequences.
