Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Kant Ethics Theory - Essay Example

Relationship between CSR and Kant Ethics Theory College Table of Contents Section Page Introduction 1 Kant theory 5 Mortality and categorical imperative 6 Kant theory on broadening view 7 Situation analysis 8 Recommendation 10 Conclusion 10 Introduction The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) evolved after the world war two. CSR is the involvement of business in the society responsibilities that goes beyond the making of lucrative profits and maximizing financial gains that put business on the market. Various ethical theories have been proposed in order to facilitate the learning of CSR, and they are namely Egoism, deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and care ethics. On this paper, there will be critical evaluation and analysis of Kant Theory with its relationship to corporate social responsibility and the effects that the theory will have on the society while implemented (Wood, 2005). Analysis Many times in life, people ignore and underestimate the importance of moral values in attaining happiness and the well-being of the society. However, Kant has put forward two concepts entirely independent and he thinks that they are the heart of ethical life. Despite severe criticism, he notes that moral principle and moral obligation concepts are rational in the understanding of ethical life. Kants objective was to deduce the ethical theory using a priori reasoning from the concept that refers human beings as a rational agent (Aluchma, 2008). The ability of human beings to utilize reasoning in decision-making expresses the basics of the metaphysical principle under which Kants ethical theory has been built. Kant argues that, "Nothing can be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called well without qualification, except a “good will."Kants argues that in life, there are those things that people seek and those that they avoid. Those things, that they dearly seek, can be said to be "good" while those things they dislike and tries to evade are called “bad.” The good things are classified into two; the first class is for things that are means to some further end and the others are good being ends in themselves. Thus, he further adds that different personalities are motivated by different ends, so they find different things either good or bad (depending on the needs that they have).For example, eating a lot of food is good for malnourished person, but it is “bad” for a person who is obese (Arvidsson, 2014). For something to be considered as good “without qualification”, it is not compulsory for it to be merely "good" that is merely meant to one end but "bad" as means in another end. The meaning is that something should be sought as good and being independent of acting as anything else but being "good in itself.” A particular thing might be good meaning that it is relative to a certain end, the "end" ends up being a "means" relative to a certain end. Kant tries to expound that good will is "good without qualification”, it should be universally good in all aspects, and it can never be merely good to another further end (BrAonnmark, 2009). Kant adds that, “goodwill" is the only thing that can be said to be absolute good. The reason is that it is universal and good, and there must be something good happening in every instance of occurrence. He adds that all things, that people refer to as "good" such as wit, health, honor, and many others, can become extremely bad when the will, to use them, is not good. Kant believed that certain actions were strictly prohibited even though the actions would lead to more happiness than the available alternative. He suggested that a person should always ask two questions before acting, the first question, could I be rationally willing for everyone to act as I opt to act? Moreover, if the answer is no, then it is not fit to perform the action (Budde, 2007). The second question is, do the actions I intend to perform respect the goals of humanity instead of just using them for self-gain and purpose? In addition, if the answer is no, it is not wise to perform the action. The Kants theory can be classified as a deontological moral theory and according to such theories, the wrongness, or rightness of performed actions does not solemnly rely on the consequences but on the willingness to fulfill a duty. Kant came up with supreme principles of morality that he called the Categorical Imperative (CI) and Hypothetical Imperatives. The Imperatives are commands such as "Do not steal." The CI evaluates what our moral responsibilities are supposed to be. Secondly, the Categorical Imperatives give commands without giving conditions, when they are not met .Hypothetical Imperatives are commands that are conditional on a relevant desire. An example, if you want to succeed, work with determination (Collette & Miles, 2013). The translation of this is that if you do not want to succeed then you do not need to work with determination. The relationship between mortality and categorical imperatives Mortality has its base on categorical imperative because mortality commands a person, and you cannot decide or insinuate that it is not applicable to you. Categorical imperative contains three formulations that can be used to say the same thing in three different ways. Formulation one which is also known as the formula of universal law states that " Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law [of nature]." Maxim is the principle, on which a person acts upon. In the formulation, the basic idea of the command states that you are not supposed to do anything that you are not willing to agree others to do as well (Cragg & Weitzner, 2009). For example, when you expect others to be truthful to you then you are obliged to be truthful to others. “More detail” of the formulation discusses that every maxim, that you act on, should be that which you can willingly make it the case for everyone else to act upon while in a similar situation. Kant on Moral worth A persons moral worth is determined by his or her actions. When actions are right or wrong, they dictate the persons moral worth or the lack of moral worth. The basic idea of his argument is that a person is either bad or good depending on where they draw their inspiration, but not based on the goodness of the consequences for the actions done. Kant believes that to attain moral worthlessness one has to be motivated by morality. Motivation should be from things that you know are your duty and obligation and regardless of anything you are supposed do them whether you liked them or not. To him consequences do not matter a lot and the example given is of two drunkards who drove their vehicles on different directions. One of the drunkards’ hits and kills a pedestrian while the other one regardless of reckless driving he arrives home safely. Kant argues that both drivers are equally bad despite one getting lucky to have arrived safely. He insists that both had made similar choices, and there is nothing within their control making a difference as far as the actions were concern. To the contrary, when a person acts for the right reasons, then all of them are morally worthy, even if one may end up with bad consequences due to their actions, they will still be morally right (Crane,2008). Some people may argue that Kant forbids happiness but for him he thinks that is not the case. He argues that a person being happy is good, and there is no reason for not making yourself happy because the intended consequence is good, and you cannot be said to be selfish. You will be getting the moral worth by enjoying, although the reason is not supposed to be enjoying yourself, but it should be a duty you are entitled to attend (Crowther& Capandi, 2008). Others also think that Kant is against people doing anything that makes them happy, but that is not the case. He argues that you ought to do things that make you happy as long as they are not immoral, and one ought to refrain from them in case they are immoral. Application of Kant theory to Broadening view Kant in his theory, he argues that the actions, that are driven by sense of duty, qualifies to be referred as moral worth, and they are founded on morality. From his argument, he would disapprove to the corporate organizations giving their contribution to the society so as enhance their business fortunes. Kant feels that deceptive claims in the corporate world over genuine contribution towards CSR are malicious because they pretend to be mindful of social prosperity but in the real sense, they are after enhancing their control of the market. Such an objective is immoral and not just because of the fact that the principle underlying them cannot be universalized to be a moral law, but the tendency of treating the society as an expendable for selfish gain (Demetrious, 2008). The corporate organizations can manipulate corporate social responsibility because they do not contribute from their volition, but they do so because the society expects contributions to solving problems. Kant feels that everybody should enjoy moral rights, and everyone is to be treated as free and equal to anybody else. In reference to his argument, it would be unfair and a violation of the corporate organization rights to force them to engage in corporate social responsibility. The corporate organizations have a free will to either contribute to social prosperity or not. According to Kant’s theory everything, that is done, should be done in the right way not for beneficial consequences or under coercion (Dion, 2012). A Situation analysis “In 2008 Goldman Sachs received 10 billion dollars of the US tax payer’s money at the same time the bank had admitted having a bonus pot of the 2.6 billion dollar set aside for its executives.” The case presented above is not all about the establishment of pay equity but it was after establishing whether, Goldman Sachs employees can legitimately make a claim on the excess remuneration in such a situation (Zu, 2009). The bank has a moral responsibility to stakeholders, bearing in mind that the burdens recession has been put on the rest of the people in the society. In a crisis, a broader approach in application of business ethics is needed; because there is a problem with stakeholder’s notions of corporate social responsibility and the stockholder’s interests. In the above situation, Kantian ethics is essential in providing a philosophical answer to the presented problem. The theory contains the following elements such as externalities and challenges regarding the manager’s moral and legal obligations (Giesinger, 2012). Kant contrary to other proponents who believe CSR ought to be used for positive eternities in pursuit of profitability, he believes that CSR should be of moral worth and it is supposed to be carried out genuinely and for altruistic purposes. Many stockholder theorists normally place the shareholders and their returns in key decisions making and yet CSR is held with importance in a modern corporation and ethics can be taken to good business. Managers may be paid lower remunerations compared to other companies with the same infrastructure and portray the company to be taking responsibility (Guyer, 2006). If the move had been taken in order to maximize the profits then, the concept will not be adhering to the Kant ethics principle. However, if the move is to strengthen the banks position, the consequences will be good but not adhering to Kantian ethics. In a different concept posed by fried man on handling stakeholders as externalities, it puts the managers in a position to be enticed and motivated by various moral principles and profits. The act of showing restraint to make profits is the right cause of action in order to bail out the financial crises. The move will be acceptable in accordance to Kants theory. Fried-man will refer the move as "window dressing" similar to fraud. While Kant will reject it as fraud and will argue it, out as being a pure act of maximizing profit grounds (Van & Stricker, 2014). The two theories seem to contradict each other; and their motives are different in the assumption that cutting bonuses, doing the right things, will be equivalent to concentrating on profitable things. It would be more preferable in a good business environment to reduce bonuses and rather give a provision to accessing cheaper loans that will benefit every customer. The move will have been legal as per the property rights and at the same time, the move will be of benefit to the society and in adherence to the Kantian ethics (Hunnicutt, 2009). Goldman Sachs will afford to sustain the company, when their mortality will be inclined to include the society in the business and their needs in the decision-making process. To overcome the dichotomy of an individual agent, it will be necessary to clarify a misunderstanding people commonly make on the Kants thesis. There is usually a misunderstanding on Kant emphasis on universal obligations at the expense of particular ones. The obligation to being truthful is universal, while the obligation to promote employees normally falls on the management (Scott, 2007). Although Kantian ethics seems contradicting with fried man’s theory, both theories can be used to unite the concerns of fried man who believed that business is for profit maximization without destructing his goals for a free society. Recommendation Due to the many scenarios that present they in an organization and they require sober actions with honesty rather than selfish gains. It is important for people to act out of "good will" and have a sense of moral obligation or "duty” so that everybody will behave the way he or she may be willing to act if they are in the same situation. Therefore, I would recommend Kants theory that would be important to organizations because it will act as a guide of morality. More so advice on how Corporate Social Responsibility can amicably be done by organizations without the government or the society forcing the organizations into it (Jahdi, 2014). Conclusion Immanuel Kant’s theory in ethics can be measured as a good theory that is not bias on the outcomes or the consequences but it focuses on the actions and the obligation of doing duty (Jones, 2009). In the case of financial crises that had been presented above, the theory has helped to come up with a solution on the ethical issue that has been presented and can be applied in organizations with similar challenges. References 8th International Conference on Corporate Social Responsibility. (2008). Social Responsibility Journal, 4(3). doi:10.1108/srj.2008.36804caa.003 Aluchna, M. (2008). Special issue on corporate social responsibility in transitional economies. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1/2). doi:10.1108/srj.2008.36804aaa.002 Arvidsson, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock market actors: a comprehensive study. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(2), 210-225. doi:10.1108/srj-08-2012-0099 Brännmark, J. (2009). Ethical Theories and the Transparency Condition. Ethical Theory And Moral Practice, 12(5), 449-462. doi:10.1007/s10677-009-9160-z Budde, K. (2007). Rawls on Kant: Is Rawls a Kantian or Kant a Rawlsian?. European Journal Of Political Theory, 6(3), 339-358. doi:10.1177/1474885107077321 Collett Miles, P., & Miles, G. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and executive compensation: exploring the link. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(1), 76-90. doi:10.1108/17471111311307822 Cragg, W., Schwartz, M., & Weitzner, D. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Crane, A. (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crowther, D., & Capaldi, N. (2008). The Ashgate research companion to corporate social responsibility. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Demetrious, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, new activism and public relations. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1/2), 104-119. Doi:10.1108/17471110810856875 Dion, M. (2012). Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?. Leadership & Org Development J, 33(1), 4-24. Doi:10.1108/01437731211193098 Giesinger, J. (2012). Kant on Dignity and Education. Educational Theory, 62(6), 609-620. doi:10.1111/edth.12000.x Guyer, P. (2006). Kant. London: Routledge. Hunnicutt, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Jahdi, K. (2014). Cause-related marketing (CaRM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 674-684. doi:10.1108/srj-07-2012-0063 Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310. doi:10.1108/17471110910977249 Scott, S. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Fetter of Profitability. Social Responsibility Journal, 3(4), 31-39. doi:10.1108/17471110710840215 Van Ackeren, M., & Sticker, M. (2014). Kant and Moral Demandingness. Ethical Theory And Moral Practice. doi:10.1007/s10677-014-9510-3 Wood, A. (2005). Kant. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Zu, L. (2009). Corporate social responsibility, corporate restructuring and firms performance. Berlin: Springer. Read More