Corporate social responsibility in the light of Kant’s categorical imperative

• Authors: Krzysztof Tapek
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, especially his categorical imperative, is one of several ethical theories mainly used to morally legitimize actions, referred to as Corporate Social Responsibility. The aim of the current article is to evaluate if Kant’s philosophy can be used as the ethical foundation for Corporate Social Responsibility as well as to present its advantages and disadvantages in a theoretical and practical approach.

Keywords

EN

categorical imperative; Immanuel Kant; Corporate Social Responsibility; business ethics

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 7
• Pages: 85-96

Dates

published

2019-04-02

Contributors

author

Krzysztof Tapek

• Jagiellonian University, Chair of Economic Policy on Department of Law and Administration

References

• Albert, E., Denise, T., & Peterfreund, S. (1980). Great traditions in ethics. New York: Van Nostrand.
• Bauder, M. (2013). Master of the universe [original title: Der Banker: Master of the Universe]. 3sat/ARTE, Bauderfilm, Hessischer Rundfunk, Germany-Austria.
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
• Chryssides, G., & Kaler, J. (1999). Wprowadzenie do etyki biznesu [An Introduction to Business Ethics] (H. Simbierowicz, & Z. Wiankowska-Ładyka, Trans.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Dubbink, W., & von Liedekerke, L. (2009). A Neo-Kantian foundation of corporate social responsibility. Ethic Theory and Moral Practice, 12(2), 117–136.
• Fredriksen, C., & Nielsen, M. (2013). The ethical foundations of CSR. In J. Okpara, & S. O. Idowu (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility challenges, opportunities and strategies for 21st century leaders (pp. 17–34). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40975-2
• Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.
• Hill, T. E. (1971). Kant on imperfect duty and supererogation. Kant-Studien, 62, 55–76.
• Hill, T. E. (1992). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Hill, T. E. (2002). Human welfare and human worth: Kantian perspective. New York: Clarendon Press.
• Kant, I. (1991). Metaphysics of morals. Cambridge–New York–Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (2001). Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals] (M. Wartenberg, Trans.). Kęty: Antyk.
• L’Etang, J. (1992). A Kantian approach to codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 737–744.
• Mansell, S. (2013). Shareholder theory and Kant’s “Duty of Beneficence”. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 583–599.
• Masaka, D. (2008). Why enforcing corporate social responsibility (CSR) is morally questionable. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13(1), 13–21.
• Masulis, R. W., & Reza, S. W. (2015). Agency problems of corporate philanthropy. Review of Financial Studies, 28(2), 592–636.
• McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.
• Mendes, E. (2007). The moral argument against the business case for corporate social responsibility: A call for a new moral and spiritual approach. University of Ottawa. http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Mendes-detailed-pa per.pdf
• Ohreen, D., & Petry, R. (2012). Imperfect duties and corporate philanthropy: A Kantian approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 367–381.
• Oplustil, K. (2010). Instrumenty nadzoru korporacyjnego (corporate governance) w spółce akcyjnej. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Tapek, K. (2016). Corporate Social Resposonsibility w kontekście imperatywu kategorycznego Kanta. Annales. Ethics in Economic Life, 19(1), 7–19.
• Wicks, A. C. (1990). Norman Bowie and Richard Rorty on multinationals: Does business ethics need “Metaphysical Comfort”? Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 191–200.
• http://biznes.newsweek.pl/luksemburg-leaks-ktore-firmy-uciekly-z-podatkami-do-luksemburga-,artykuly,351344,1.html
• http://mhcinternational.com/monthly-features/articles/95-csr-in-turbulent-times
• http://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/publikacje/badanie-menedzerowie-500lider-csr/
• http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/esg-reporting/env-report-2008.pdf
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/shitty-deal-goldman-exec_n_553541.html
• http://www.pfizer.com.pl/o-firmie/wartosci-firmy-i-spoleczna-odpowiedzialnosc
• https://www.db.com/poland/pl/content/filozofia_biznesu.html

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1899-2226.21.7.06