Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Listen to this postCorporation’s responsibility to stakeholders representing the concerns of the people, the planet and the profit (Angus-Leppan, Metcalf, & Benn, 2010). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) depend on a moral framework that has four moral theories. The first theory is egoism which is the morally correct action that display the corporate social responsibility. The action is done to maximize the shareholder profits but not because of the obligations toward social responsibilities (Frederiksen, 2010). The organization stop the harmful acts and maximize the socially acceptable acts because such acts are in the organizations self-interest. The second theory is libertarianism. This theory state that libertarian believe in avoiding disturbing the negative rights but not doing the positive duties. The libertarian would avoid harming the society or deny the community its basic rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion (Frederiksen, 2010). The libertarian is not obligated, according to the theory, to help anybody positively.

Utilitarianism theory state that utilitarian organization would always seek the best possible outcome from its actions. The best outcome can be helping a society in another country and not helping the close by society (Frederiksen, 2010). Utilitarian would target maximizing happiness regardless of the place. Common-sense morality theory is somehow in between the egoism and the libertarianism because the common-sense morality theory state that the organization should not violate the societies tights and should he same time act positively towards certain groups of the society (Frederiksen, 2010). Those groups can be the organization’s employees, members of the society or people closely related to the organization.

Lee (2010) state that businessmen are more honest than the preachers because the customer would test the products sold or recommended by the business person. Nobody would be able to come alive again and tell the community about the preachers claims validity. Similarly, the organizations cannot mislead the society in claiming that their products are not as advertised, they would be easily spotted while violating their claims.



Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: an examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189-213. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0221-y

Frederiksen, C. (2010). The relation between policies concerning corporate social responsibility (CSR) and philosophical moral theories – an empirical investigation. [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 357-371. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0226-6

Lee, D. R. (2010). Why businessmen are more honest than preachers, politicians, and professors. Independent Review, 14(3), 435-444. doi:

%d bloggers like this: