Advertisement

CSR - the Cuckoo’s Egg in the Business Ethics Nest

  • Matthias P. Hühn
Essay

Abstract

Corporate/collective moral responsibility is a thorny topic in business ethics and this paper argues that this is due a number of unacknowledged and connected epistemic issues. Firstly, CSR, Corporate Citizenship and many other research streams that are based on the assumption of collective and/or corporate moral responsibility are not compatible with Kantian ethics, consequentialism, or virtue ethics because corporate/collective responsibility violates the axioms and central hypotheses of these research programmes. Secondly, in the absence of a sound theoretical moral philosophical foundation, business ethicists have based their ideas on legal and political epistemologies, yet still claim to be ethics-based. Thirdly, research is often driven by an intention to prove that a specific social goal is right, not by open and critical inquiry. Finally, today, corporate/collective moral responsibility is widely accepted as the Truth as most researchers are unaware of any issues because they are untrained in philosophy. The paper identifies the confusion about the epistemic basis as a major impediment for delivering a thick concept of the role of corporations as moral agents. Thus, the paper does not argue against corporate or collective agency as such, but points out an obvious but forgotten paradox: corporate and collective personhood cannot, at the moment at least, be epistemologically grounded in the field in which business ethics claims to operate: moral philosophy.

Keywords

Collective moral responsibility Corporate moral responsibility Epistemology Humanism Milton Friedman 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Studies

This is an essay: it did not involve tests on humans or animals.

References

  1. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy 33 (124): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., and D.A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning: II. Theory, method, and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle (2009) Nicomachean ethics, the internet classics archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html. Accessed 10 Nov 2018.
  4. Blaug, M. 1992. The methodology of economics: Or, how economists explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaug, M. 2002. Ugly trends in modern economics. In Fact and fiction in economics: models, realism and social construction, ed. U. Mäki, 37–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bolman, L.G., and T.E. Deal. 1984. Reframing organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bratman, M.E. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical resaon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bratman, M.E. 1993. Shared intention. Ethics 104: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society 38 (3): 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciepley, D. (2017) Corporate directors as purpose fiduciaries. Paper presented to the symposium on "the idea of fiduciary governance," UCLA School of Law, June 7–8, 2017.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, D.E. 1968. Collective responsibility. Philosophy 43 (165): 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copp, D. 2007. The collective moral autonomy thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (3): 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copp, D. 1979. Collective actions and secondary actions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16 (3): 177–186.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. 1926. The historic background of corporate legal personality. The Yale Law Journal 35 (6): 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dierksmeier, C. 2013. Kant on virtue. Journal of Business Ethics 113 (4): 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dierksmeier, C. 2016. What is 'Humanistic' about humanistic management? Humanistic Management Journal 1 (1): 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downie, R.S. 1969. Collective responsibility. Philosophy 44 (167): 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elster, J. 2007. Explaining social behavior: More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. French, P.A. 1979. The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (3): 207–215.Google Scholar
  20. French, P.A. 1992. The corporation as a moral person. In Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics, ed. L. May and S. Hoffman, 133–150. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman, M. 1953. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  23. Gergen, K.J. 1999. An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hasnas, J. 2012. Reflections on corporate moral responsibility and the problem solving technique of Alexander the Great. Journal of Business Ethics 107 (2): 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasnas, J. 2017. The phantom menace of the responsibility deficit. In The moral responsibility of firms, ed. E.W. Orts and N.C. Smith Oxford Scholarship Online, 89.Google Scholar
  28. Hasnas, J. 2018. Should corporations have the right to vote? A paradox in the theory of corporate moral agency. Journal of Business Ethics 150 (3): 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hendry, J. 2001. Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (01): 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hess, K. 2017. The unrecognized consensus about firm moral responsibility. In The moral responsibility of firms, ed. E.W. Orts and N.C. Smith Oxford Scholarship Online, 169.Google Scholar
  31. Huehn, M.P. 2008. Unenlightened economism: The antecedents of bad corporate governance and ethical decline. Journal of Business Ethics 81 (4): 823–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huehn, M.P. 2016. Ethics as a catalyst for change in business education? Journal of Management Development 35 (2): 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huhn, M. 2005. What is management? International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy 1 (4): 290–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hühn, M.P. 2015. The unreality business-how economics (and management) became anti-philosophical. Philosophy of Management 14 (1): 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hühn, M.P. 2017. Adam Smith's Philosophy of Science: Economics as Moral Imagination. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Kant, I. 1784. What is enlightenment? On history: 3–10.Google Scholar
  37. Klonoski, R.J. 1991. Foundational considerations in the corporate social responsibility debate. Business Horizons 34 (4): 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koehn, D. 2014. Kantian virtue ethics in the context of business: How practically useful can it be? Business Ethics Journal Review 2 (3): 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koehn, D. (2017). Ontological corporate social responsibility: What can we learn from the history of early American corporations about the social responsibility of business corporations? Presentation at the Society for Business Ethics Annual Conference, 5 August 2017, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  41. Kusch, M. 2014. The metaphysics and politics of corporate personhood. Erkenntnis 79 (9): 1587–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kutz, C. 2007. Complicity: Ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lakatos, I. 1976. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Can theories be refuted? 205–259. New York City: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lampert, M. 2016. Corporate social responsibility and the supposed moral agency of corporations. Ephemera 16 (1): 79.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, H.D. 1948. Collective responsibility. Philosophy 23 (84): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. List, C., and P. Pettit. 2011. Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lukács, G. 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. Vol. 215. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mäki, U. 2002. Fact and fiction in economics: Models, realism and social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mäki, U. 2003. The methodology of positive economics’ (1953) does not give us the methodology of positive economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4): 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mäki, U. 2009. The methodology of positive economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mäki, U. 2014. Mark Blaug's unrealistic crusade for realistic economics. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 6 (3): 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Melé, D. 2016. Understanding humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal 1 (1): 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, S. 2007. Against the collective moral autonomy thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (3): 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  56. Moldoveanu, M.C., and R.L. Martin. 2008. The future of the MBA: Designing the thinker of the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. San Francisco: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Narveson, J. 2002. Collective responsibility. The Journal of Ethics 6 (2): 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Orts, E.W. 2017. Conclusion. The moral responsibility of firms: Past, present, and future. In The moral responsibility of firms, ed. E.W. Orts and N.C. Smith, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Phillips, M.J. 1992. Corporate moral personhood and three conceptions of the corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly 2 (04): 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Popper, K.R. 1934. Logik der Forschung. Berlin: Julius Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. Reed, D. 1999. Three realms of corporate responsibility: Distinguishing legitmacy, morality and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1): 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rona, P., and L. Zsolnai. 2018. Economic objects and the objects of economics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rönnegard, D. 2015. The fallacy of corporate moral agency. Vol. 44. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Rönnegard, D., and M. Velasquez. 2017. On (not) attributing moral responsibility to organizations. In The moral responsibility of firms, ed. E.W. Orts and N.C. Smith Oxford Scholarship Online, 123.Google Scholar
  66. Schudt, K. 2000. Taming the corporate monster: An Aristotelian approach to corporate virtue. Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (03): 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seele, P. 2016. Business ethics without philosophers? Evidence for and implications of the shift from applied philosophers to business scholars on the editorial boards of business ethics journals. Metaphilosophy 47 (1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seele, P. 2018. What makes a business ethicist? A reflection on the transition from applied philosophy to critical thinking. Journal of Business Ethics 150 (3): 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swanson, D., and B.P. Niehoff. 2001. Business Citizenship outside and inside organisations. In Perspectives on corporate citizenship (Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Szigeti, A. 2015. Why change the subject? On Collective Epistemic Agency. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (4): 843–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Teichman, M. (2014) Interview with Philip Pettit. Episode 56 Philip Pettit discusses corporate rights and responsibilities. Retrieved in August 2017 at https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2014/02/10/episode-56-philip-pettit-discusses-corporate-rights-and-responsibilities/
  72. Tuomela, R. 1993. Corporate intention and corporate action. Analyse & Kritik 15 (1): 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tuomela, R. 2000. Collective and joint intention. Mind & Society 1 (2): 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Velasquez, M.G. 1983. Why corporations are not morally responsible for anything they do. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 2 (3): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Velasquez, M. 2003. Debunking corporate moral responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly: 531–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. von Gierke, O. 1887. Die Genossenschaftstheorie und die deutsche Rechtsprechung. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
  77. Waddock, S. 2001. Integrity and mindfulness: Foundations of corporate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 1 (1): 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wankel, C., and B. de Fillippi, eds. 2002. Rethinking management education for the 21st century. Vol. 1. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  79. Weber, M. 1946/1958. Essays in sociology. In From max Weber, ed. M. Weber, H. Gerth, and C.W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Weber, M. (J.P. Mayer) 1909/1944. Max Weber on Bureaucratization in 1909. In Max Weber and German politics. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  81. Werhane, P.H. (1985) Persons, rights, and corporations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  82. Williams, B. 2006. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  83. Zimmerman, M.J. 1985. Sharing responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22 (2): 115–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Vincent CollegeLatrobeUSA

Personalised recommendations