Constructive and Moral Normatives of Corporate Social Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31558/2786-5835.2025.1.6Keywords:
corporate social responsibility, human rights, sustainable development, moral goals, constructive norms, moral normsAbstract
The article examines the moral goals of business and the proper relationship between business and society with an emphasis on human rights and sustainable development. Two types of norms of behavior for participants in relationships, especially for a corporate entity, are considered: morally neutral, which are not based on ethical standards; morally meaningful, which are based on them. A norm as a social expectation of behavior may or may not be based on an ethical standard. The difference between constructive and moral norms of behavior is determined by the fact that the latter are based on ethical principles of right and wrong, and not on desires or cultural expectations. The presence of a moral obligation imposes a socially conditioned or ethically binding responsibility in corporate social responsibility. Norms as moral imperatives are more binding or mandatory for compliance than norms that do not have a moral basis. At the same time, there are moral violations that cause social harm, although the behavior of the subject is formally legal. However, laws themselves can be immoral, leading stakeholders to encourage corporate actors to violate them as positive CSR actions. In such cases, the judicial prohibition of doing the right thing outweighs the constructive requirement to comply with the law. Developments in the field of CSR include: strategic/economic theories focused on wealth creation; institutional theories emphasizing human rights and sustainable development; stakeholder theory focusing on stakeholder structures, including stakeholder relationships.
The interaction between business and society is dynamic and evolves over time and can have the following consequences: both sectors gain by creating shared value; business gains too much power in the management of the public policy process, negating or even harming society; failure to comply with legal, regulatory or ethical constraints leads to negative CSR; both sectors lose when CSR programs and projects fail; as a result of the combined failures of business and government, both sectors become ineffective – and as a result, the entire socio-economic system suffers.
References
Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (Guiding Principles), A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011).
ISO 26000:2010 Standard Guidelines on Social Responsibility. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 44(2). P. 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002
Business Roundtable (2019, August 19). Business roundtable redefines the purpose of a corporation to promote «an economy that serves all Americans». URL: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans
Donaldson, T. (2021). How values ground value creation: The practical inference framework. Organization Theory. Vol. 2(4). P. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211036712
Durand, R., Hawn, O., Ioannou, I. (2019). Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 44. P. 299–320. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0107
Frederick, W. C. (1995). Values, nature and the American corporation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195094114.001.0001
Hansen, S. D., Mouritsen, M., Davis, J. H., Noack, D. (2019). Operationalizing stakeholder theory and prioritizing ethics in MBA programs: The utility of a trust approach. Business and Society Review. Vol. 124. P. 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12190
Peifer, J., Winkler, A.-L. P. (2018). The moral mechanisms that drive stakeholder responses to corporate social irresponsibility [Paper presentation]. Academy of Management Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.17617abstract
Mitnick, B. M. (2021). The theory of agency redux. Academy of Management Discoveries. Vol. 7. P. 171–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0136
Obara, L. J., Peattie, K. (2018). Bridging the great divide? Making sense of the human rights-CSR relationship in UK multinational companies. Journal of World Business. Vol. 53. P. 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.10.002
Wettstein F. (2020). The history of «Business and Human Rights» and its relationship with «Corporate Social Responsibility». Deva, S., Birchall, D. (eds.). Research handbook on human rights and business (pp. 23–45). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786436405.00007
Wettstein, F., Schrempf-Stirling, J. (2019). Business, peace, and human rights: A political responsibility perspective. Miklian, J., Alluri, R. M., Katsos, J. E. (eds.). Business, peacebuilding and sustainable development (pp. 27–43). Routledge.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 22. P. 853–886.
Wood, D. J., Mitchell, R. M., Agle, B. R., Bryan, L. M. (2021). Stakeholder identification and salience after twenty years: Progress, problems, and prospects. Business & Society. Vol. 60. P. 196–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816522
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 4. P. 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. (1995). Stakeholder thinking in three models of management morality: A perspective with strategic implications. Näsi, J. (ed.). Understanding stakeholder thinking (pp. 47–74). LSR-Publications.
Zak, P. J. (ed.). (2008). Moral markets: The critical role of values in the economy. Princeton University Press.
Kang, Y. C., Wood, D. J. (1995). Before-profit corporate social responsibility: Turning the economic paradigm upside-down. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society. Vol. 6. P. 809–829. https://doi.org/10.5840/iabsproc1995672
Baden, D. (2016). A reconstruction of Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility for the 21st century. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility. Vol. 1. Article 8.
Schwartz, M. S., Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol. 13. P. 503–530. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
European Commission (2011, October 25). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility (681 final). URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF
Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., Phillips, R. A. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management. Vol. 47. P. 1757–1770.
Zingales, L. (2017). Towards a political theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 31(3). P. 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.3.113
