glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Tuesday, 7th February 2006
In just two weeks and two days, I am flying to the Czech Republic, to give another lecture at Prague College. Last time I was there, I delivered a paper on Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Dialogue for the Prague College 'Open Lecture' series. This time, I will be giving a talk to a class of advanced business ethics students on the theme of 'the possibility of a business ethic'.
I'm also hoping to meet up again with one of the Directors of the British Chamber of Commerce PhDr. Miroslav Sedlak, External Relations Manager of Provident Financial. Like Robin Aram, the retiring VP of External Relations and Policy Development at Shell who I met in October, Dr Sedlak is an ex-academic and pretty formidable in discussion.
I have been commissioned by the BCC to write a section on the 'Philosophy of CSR' for a booklet which they are producing which will be distributed to businesses based in the Czech Republic. The original deadline was the end of February, which has been extended to the end of March. But I'm hoping to have a draft of my section ready before I fly out.
For my piece on CSR, I envisaged a possible question that you might come across in a business ethics exam:'Corporate Social Responsibility: What is it? Why do it?'
CSR is one of those slippery terms, heavily infected with spin and PR, which have gained currency largely outside academic debate. The term was originally coined in the 1930s by Harvard professors A.A. Berle and C.G. Means. This is one of those interesting facts which sound impressive but is not necessarily relevant to current discussion as the use of the term has undergone so many shifts of meaning since then.
Here's a potted history. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 revealed the terrible extent of corporate irresponsibility. Millions of lives were wrecked. The world of big business lay smashed and broken. For some, those who looked to Russia as the land of freedom and opportunity (little did they know), the cruel, merciless face of capitalism was finally revealed in all its horror. Meanwhile, recoiling from the socialist alternative, Berle and Means asked whether there was any way that capitalism could be fixed, just as I have done in my rather naive way.
The parallel does seem interesting and is worth pursuing. However, my interest is philosophical rather than historical. Is there any useful meaning that, in a reasonably generous spirit one could attach to the term 'corporate social responsibility' today? Does the term denote a coherent idea? If it does, how does that idea, that concept translate into reasons for action? In other words, what arguments can be given for doing CSR?
In my Open Lecture, I took the sceptical line that there was neither a self-interested nor an ethical case for CSR. However, I also said that looking for arguments for doing CSR was not necessarily the best way to persuade corporations to take the idea seriously, that is to say, as something more than a mere 'PR figleaf'. We are all agreed that it would be a good thing for society at large if CSR was done. But this fact is not necessarily an argument for doing it from a corporation's perspective.
I'm pretty sure I'm right about that, but I'm going to take a look at the arguments again, just to be sure. One idea I would like to explore further is that we are dealing here with a prisoners dilemma scenario, where it is clearly against a corporation's self-interest to take the lead in CSR, and yet if everyone did it, everyone would be better off. It seems plausible, at first sight. I won't say any more than that.
If that diagnosis is correct, what it would show is that we are dealing primarily with a problem of political philosophy rather than ethics. But that is jumping ahead. Let's take things one step at a time.
I have already expressed extremely sceptical views about the idea of a 'business ethic':
I've thought business ethics through and I see it clearly now, right down to the very bottom. Actually, there's nothing to see because the whole concept is vacuous, without any meaning of significance. Mere lying propaganda.
The only ethics is the ethics of dialogue. Apart from that there are the ground rules for competing in the business arena, and the duties which we voluntarily take on when we sell our labour for money and become loyal 'company men' (page 94).
I stand by what I said, even though I was in a rather angry mood at the time. I said some rather impolite things about Robin Aram which I somewhat regret now (but only somewhat). It was Michael Levy's article that sparked it off. You cannot seriously look at ethical questions relating to business unless you tackle the question of greed. If you don't, then your so-called 'ethic' is merely bluff or PR, a way of looking good while holding on to as much as you can.
A true ethic teaches us to let go. Can a business ethic ever do that? What would it be like if it did? Discuss.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!