CSR i etyka przekonań

• Authors: Maciej Soin

Title variants

CSR i etyka przekonań

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

Examples of scandals related to exposing the unethical practices of companies which are classified as CSR leaders include cases where their declarations on undertaking social responsibility, as well as spending a lot of money on spectacular social campaigns and then rigorously reporting it in the appropriate documents, are accompanied by acts of abusing workers’ and environmental rights, misleading customers, i.e., abusing consumer rights, and finally “tax optimisation”, which generates measurable losses to the local communities. These cases raise the question about the reason for corporate social responsibility not being immune to abuse or opportunities to treat it as merely an image-related issue. The problem is presented using Max Weber’s widely known typology. It contrasts the ethics of conviction (ruled by the principle of intentionally keeping to the rules which have been adopted as being right) with the ethics of responsibility for the consequences of actions, including those that were undertaken in good faith but which have unintentional consequences. The usefulness of Weber’s typology when considering CSR problems becomes evident when we notice that the dominant interpretation of the corporate social responsibility concept, with its characteristic emphasis on voluntariness and positivity of actions within CSR, brings this concept closer to the ethics of conviction model. Voluntary actions in the field of CSR should go beyond carrying out regular goals of economic activities, i.e., the maximisation of profits, by providing good quality, desirable goods and services. However, what should be considered a prosocial activity –and thus, social responsibility –remains unclear in some companies. In accordance with the thesis of the paper, this ambiguity is one of the important factors that create discrepancies between declarations and real corporate activities. As we can see, the focus on voluntarily doing good which has been adopted in the current interpretation of CSR pre-empts the pursuit to avoid bad practices, both in theory and in the implementation of CSR programmes. Moreover, the CSR-dominant interpretation leads to a particular terminological confusion and replaces the companies’ responsibility towards concrete stakeholders, which is appropriate for the economic activity, with an abstractly understood responsibility towards an abstractly understood society. In this sense, the conceptual analysis of the relationship between CSR and ethics reveals that one of the important sources of problems with CSR is joining this concept with an unsuitable model of ethics. This is not because of the alleged defects of the ethics of conviction, appreciated by Weber, among other thinkers, but because it is a model that, in fact, is not suitable for business ethics. If the ethics of conviction is private, then it cannot be used to regulate social relations. In conclusion, it may be stated that, paradoxically, a dominant way of thinking about the social responsibility of corporations leads more to separation than to bringing together ethics and business. CSR, in its current form, cannot be an efficient means of implementing ethical objectives in business because it defines the issue of social responsibility as a sphere of private beliefs and arbitrary interpretations. Therefore, it undermines the relevance of the proper and socially significant notion of responsibility for economic activities and their consequences. Of course, the CSR concept can and should be modified; the question remains as to whether eliminating the elements that bring it closer to the ethics of conviction does not actually translate into giving it up entirely.

Keywords

EN

CSR; ethics of conviction; ethics of responsibility; Max Weber

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 55-69

Dates

published

2019-06-30

Contributors

author

Maciej Soin

• Lodz University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Production Engineering, Institute of Social Sciences and Management of Technologies

References

• Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 314–332.
• Berger-Walliser, G., & Scott, I. (2018). Redefining corporate social responsibility in an era of globalization and regulatory hardening. American Business Law Journal, 55(1), 167–218.
• Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.
• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
• Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
• Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethics practices. Management Decision, 49(4), 586–600.
• Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu. (2018). Raport Odpowiedzialny biznes w Polsce. Dobre praktyki. https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/publikacje/raport-2018
• Höffe, O. (1995). Immanuel Kant (M. Kaniowski, tłum.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• ISO 26000. (2010). International Standard Guidance on social responsibility. https://www.iso.org/iso-26000-social-responsibility.html
• Jahdi, K. S., & Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 103–113.
• Kant, I. (1785/1984). Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności (M. Wartenberg, tłum.). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
• Komisja Europejska. (2001). Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2001/EN/1-2001-366-EN-F1-1.Pdf
• Komisja Europejska. (2006). Realizacja partnerstwa na rzecz wzrostu gospodarczego i zatrudnienia: uczynienie Europy liderem w zakresie odpowiedzialności społecznej przedsiębiorstw. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0136:FIN:PL:PDF
• Komisja Europejska. (2011). Odnowiona strategia UE na lata 2011–2014 dotycząca społecznej odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2011/PL/1-2011-681-PL-F1-1.Pdf
• Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300–326.
• Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928–1936.
• Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115–136.
• Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
• Ostas, D. T. (2001). Deconstructing corporate social responsibility: Insights from legal and economic theory. American Business Law Journal, 38(2), 261–299.
• Sikka, P. (2010). Smoke and mirrors: Corporate social responsibility and tax avoidance. Accounting Forum, 34(3), 153–168.
• Soin, M. (2018). CSR i problem organizacyjnej hipokryzji. Prakseologia, 160, 223–241.
• Sternberg, E. (1998). Czysty biznes. Etyka biznesu w działaniu (P. Łuków, tłum). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.
• Weber, M. (1919/2011). Polityka jako zawód i powołanie (A. Kopacki, tłum.). W: M. Weber, Racjonalność, władza, odczarowanie (red. M. Holona). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1958/1972). Dociekania filozoficzne (B. Wolniewicz, tłum). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1899-2226.22.2.04