Marketing

This article will use ethical analysis to further explain why altruistic CSR isnot proper for publicly held firms but is for privately owned businesses. Itwill conclude with recommendations for use of strategic CSR as well asaltruistic CSR by private firms and by managers as individuals.

Ethical bases for social responsibilities preclude altruistic CSR

There exist three basic moral theories which are useful for separating acompany's mandatory moral responsibilities (ethical CSR) from its optionalsocial responsibilities (strategic CSR or altruistic CSR)[1]. One objective isto further clarify the boundaries between ethical CSR, altruistic CSR, andstrategic CSR, giving guidance to practicing managers. The primary purpose,though, is to further demonstrate the illegitimacy of altruistic CSR forcorporations.Three mainstream ethical theories are:(1) teleological or consequences-based (consequentialism), usually usingprinciples of utility (e.g. utilitarianism);(2) deontological or duty-based, focusing on people's duties to upholdnorms, using principles of rights and of justice; and(3) virtue-based, considering whether behavior promotes ethical values andgood character, and entails caring for stakeholders.We shall see that expansive views on rights, justice and caring have resultedin spurious altruistic responsibilities being thrust on business organizations.Thus, ethical analysis will show the reader that the parameters for socialresponsibilities are narrower than popular thinking claims.

Teleological ethics

Consequences-based philosophy judges morality based on the outcomes of actions ± behavior is ethically right, if its consequences are good, and wrong,if its results are bad or evil. According to the most popular teleologicaltheory, utilitarianism, formulated by Mill (2000), we should seek the greatestgood for the greatest number among the company's various publics.However, most modern ethicists reject consequentialism as a foundation forethical CSR. Ethical...