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

Krzysztof Tapek

doi:10.18778/1899-2226.21.7.06

Autor

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

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.21.7.06

Słowa kluczowe:

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

Abstrakt

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.

Bibliografia

Albert, E., Denise, T., & Peterfreund, S. (1980). Great traditions in ethics. New York: Van Nostrand.
Google Scholar

Bauder, M. (2013). Master of the universe [original title: Der Banker: Master of the Universe]. 3sat/ARTE, Bauderfilm, Hessischer Rundfunk, Germany-Austria.
Google Scholar

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Google Scholar

Chryssides, G., & Kaler, J. (1999). Wprowadzenie do etyki biznesu [An Introduction to Business Ethics] (H. Simbierowicz, & Z. Wiankowska-Ładyka, Trans.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Google Scholar

Dubbink, W., & von Liedekerke, L. (2009). A Neo-Kantian foundation of corporate social responsibility. Ethic Theory and Moral Practice, 12(2), 117–136.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.
Google Scholar

Hill, T. E. (1971). Kant on imperfect duty and supererogation. Kant-Studien, 62, 55–76.
Google Scholar

Hill, T. E. (1992). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar

Hill, T. E. (2002). Human welfare and human worth: Kantian perspective. New York: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1991). Metaphysics of morals. Cambridge–New York–Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Kant, I. (2001). Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals] (M. Wartenberg, Trans.). Kęty: Antyk.
Google Scholar

L’Etang, J. (1992). A Kantian approach to codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 737–744.
Google Scholar

Mansell, S. (2013). Shareholder theory and Kant’s “Duty of Beneficence”. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 583–599.
Google Scholar

Masaka, D. (2008). Why enforcing corporate social responsibility (CSR) is morally questionable. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13(1), 13–21.
Google Scholar

Masulis, R. W., & Reza, S. W. (2015). Agency problems of corporate philanthropy. Review of Financial Studies, 28(2), 592–636.
Google Scholar

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

Ohreen, D., & Petry, R. (2012). Imperfect duties and corporate philanthropy: A Kantian approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 367–381.
Google Scholar

Oplustil, K. (2010). Instrumenty nadzoru korporacyjnego (corporate governance) w spółce akcyjnej. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar

Tapek, K. (2016). Corporate Social Resposonsibility w kontekście imperatywu kategorycznego Kanta. Annales. Ethics in Economic Life, 19(1), 7–19.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

http://biznes.newsweek.pl/luksemburg-leaks-ktore-firmy-uciekly-z-podatkami-do-luksemburga-,artykuly,351344,1.html
Google Scholar

http://mhcinternational.com/monthly-features/articles/95-csr-in-turbulent-times
Google Scholar

http://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/publikacje/badanie-menedzerowie-500lider-csr/
Google Scholar

http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/esg-reporting/env-report-2008.pdf
Google Scholar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/shitty-deal-goldman-exec_n_553541.html
Google Scholar

http://www.pfizer.com.pl/o-firmie/wartosci-firmy-i-spoleczna-odpowiedzialnosc
Google Scholar

https://www.db.com/poland/pl/content/filozofia_biznesu.html
Google Scholar