Is the concept of corporate social responsibility nothing more than ‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business intent on making profits? Flashcards
(12 cards)
Introduction
- Define CSR
- Present the key debate
- Introduce relevant thinkers and theories
- LOA
• Define Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
CSR is the idea that businesses are morally responsible not only to their shareholders but to all stakeholders—employees, customers, communities, and the environment.
• Present the key debate:
Critics argue CSR is often a shallow PR tool—‘hypocritical window-dressing’—used by profit-driven corporations to mask exploitation. Proponents claim CSR is a genuine moral obligation and vital to ethical business conduct.
• Introduce relevant thinkers and theories:
Milton Friedman (shareholder theory), Kant (deontology), Utilitarianism (especially Rule Utilitarianism), and Marxism provide contrasting views.
• Line of Argument:
While some CSR practices are indeed used for public relations, to dismiss the entire concept as hypocritical ignores the real ethical potential of CSR when grounded in moral theory. When guided by Kantian ethics or Rule Utilitarianism, CSR can represent authentic ethical reform rather than a facade.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: CSR is often hypocritical window-dressing (AO1 + AO2)
Paragraph 1: CSR is often hypocritical window-dressing (AO1 + AO2)
AO1: Present key criticisms of CSR
• Milton Friedman – Shareholder theory: The only responsibility of business is to maximise profit within legal boundaries. CSR is not a moral duty but a voluntary PR move.
• Marxist critique – Capitalism is inherently exploitative. CSR merely masks systemic inequalities and alienation. CSR pacifies public criticism without changing core injustices.
• Anand Giridharadas’ example – Jeff Bezos funding education for children whose families are underpaid by his own company illustrates self-serving hypocrisy.
• Globalisation and sweatshops – Businesses exploit cheap labour abroad, yet present a moral front through superficial CSR schemes.
Paragraph 1: CSR is often hypocritical window-dressing (AO1 + AO2)
Strengths:
• There is empirical evidence (e.g., Primark sweatshops) showing that CSR initiatives are often reactive and serve image management.
• Global corporations can use CSR as a smokescreen to secure favourable laws or distract from unethical practices. • Marx’s idea of alienation explains how workers may feel used even if CSR appears externally positive.
Paragraph 1: CSR is often hypocritical window-dressing (AO1 + AO2)
Weaknesses:
• This critique generalises all CSR as disingenuous, failing to differentiate between empty gestures and structurally embedded responsibility.
• Marxist solutions (e.g., communism) have historically failed or led to worse conditions (e.g., authoritarian regimes, economic collapse). • Friedman’s shareholder theory neglects the moral obligations businesses have in social democracies, where taxation and redistribution are part of the social contract.
Paragraph 1: CSR is often hypocritical window-dressing (AO1 + AO2)
Conclusion of this paragraph:
CSR can indeed function as ‘window-dressing’ in a capitalist system, especially when motivated solely by PR. However, dismissing it outright overlooks how CSR can function differently under alternative ethical frameworks.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: CSR can be genuine ethical responsibility when grounded in moral theory (AO1 + AO2)
Paragraph 2: CSR can be genuine ethical responsibility when grounded in moral theory (AO1 + AO2)
A01: Introduce Kantian and Utilitarian ethical support for CSR
Kant:
CSR is morally required because exploiting stakeholders (e.g., via sweatshops or unsafe labour) treats people as mere means, violating the categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism:
Act Utilitarianism can justify exploitation if it increases overall happiness (e.g., Will MacAskill’s defence of sweatshops), but this is morally controversial.
Rule Utilitarianism (Mill):
provides a more stable ethical basis for CSR: rules against exploitation and for fair treatment (e.g., minimum wage, health & safety) maximise happiness in the long term.
Mill’s harm principle supports CSR by stating individuals (or businesses) can act freely only if they do not harm others.
Application to whistleblowing:
Both Kant and Mill support whistleblowing as a moral duty—either to uphold truth (Kant) or prevent greater harm (Utilitarianism).
Paragraph 2: CSR can be genuine ethical responsibility when grounded in moral theory (AO1 + AO2)
Strengths
• Kant’s deontology offers a principled, consistent basis for CSR: it is always wrong to exploit, regardless of profit.
• Rule Utilitarianism avoids calculation issues of Act Utilitarianism and promotes long-term, systematic ethical behaviour—like protecting workers’ rights and the environment.
• Mill’s vision even suggests moving towards worker-owned co-ops, aligning profit-making with ethical treatment.
Paragraph 2: CSR can be genuine ethical responsibility when grounded in moral theory (AO1 + AO2)
Criticisms and responses
• Kantian extremism (e.g. no lying even to save a life) is counter-intuitive, but it upholds strong ethical limits on exploitation.
• Utilitarian ambiguity (e.g. sweatshops justified if workers would starve otherwise) is countered by Rule Utilitarianism’s preference for socially beneficial rules rather than isolated decisions.
• Empirical counter: While CSR may reduce short-term profits, it can create long-term value through consumer trust and employee loyalty (i.e., ethical behaviour is not always anti-profit).
Paragraph 2: CSR can be genuine ethical responsibility when grounded in moral theory (AO1 + AO2)
Conclusion of this paragraph
When guided by coherent moral principles (Kant or Mill), CSR can represent genuine ethical reform rather than hypocrisy. It pushes businesses toward justice and long-term societal benefit.
Conclusion
- Restate debate
- LOA
- Broader implication
• Restate debate: CSR is often criticised as shallow virtue signalling that conceals corporate greed. This critique has merit, especially in the context of exploitative capitalism and globalisation.
• Final Judgement / Line of Argument:
However, this view is too reductionist. CSR can be used unethically, but when grounded in coherent ethical theory (Kantian deontology or Rule Utilitarianism), it becomes more than mere ‘window-dressing.’ It is a practical route for making capitalism more just and humane.
• Broader implication:
The future of ethical business lies in reforming capitalism through consistent moral standards—where CSR is not optional PR, but a moral imperative embedded in business practices.
