Posts
“Corporate social responsibility is not a fad.” (Angel Cabrera)
Second, as far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with non- “eco-friendly” businesses. That is, businesses shouldn't be expected to consider the welfare of the environment when it comes to how they conduct their affairs.
Sure, some businesses are genuinely concerned about the environment; it's part of their corporate personality. These firms are willing to take steps, often at the cost of less profit, to treat the environment better. And this is okay, so long as that's the way the shareholders (i.e. owners) want the business to be run.
But there are also businesses that just don't give a fuck about the environment. They, more than anything, just care about profit. It's not that they're interested in destroying the environment it's just that they've got their priorities straight – earning cash. I think this is your typical business. And that, too, is okay.
These businesses – whose owners don't think the business should consider the welfare of the environment – aren't doing anything wrong. Businesses or, rather, those who chiefly run businesses (let's call them managers) have one obligation: to do that which the owners want. Typically that involves maximizing profits while conforming to the rules of law. End of story. After all, that's what businesses are – they're a mechanism to derive a profit by offering a service.
We can say that the managers, as individual moral persons, have obligations to whatever (possibly, let's say, the environment). While this is true, it'd be immoral for a manager to run her employing firm such that it serves as a means for her to meet any obligations she has to the environment (or whatever). Managers are, plainly, paid to run the business however the owners want it run; to do it otherwise would be immoral insofar as it'd be immoral to waste company or shareholder money on stuff they don't want. It's, essentially, equivalent to stealing. If a manager is concerned with the welfare of the environment, cool. But that's wholly separate from her role as manager. She can spend her free time and her own money however she sees fit; it's an abuse of power for her to make the business something other than what the owners want.
Okay so can we say that the owners, who have the ability to direct the managers on how to run the business, have an obligation to see it run in a specific (e.g. “green”) way? Well, no. Firstly for them to have such obligations the owners would need to have some sort of obligation (e.g. to the environment)... and I'm not convenience that they have such an obligation. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to throw the good for nuthin' hippies a bone – let's assume that the owners do have an obligation to the environment. Still, this is a personal obligation of each individual, not one of their business. They have the prerogative to meet any such obligations however they deem fit. But they aren't morally required to do it through their business. Again, the purposes of their business is to derive a profit (by offering a service). Just because the individuals who own and run a business have some peripheral obligation doesn't mean that that business needs to be run in a certain way; a way that's a perversion of the role businesses are meant to play.
So, then, why are there "eco-friendly" businesses out there? This is, really, a side issues that's different than what I wanted to talk about... so I'll only say that there could be any number of explanations (none of which denote a moral obligation of the right kind): The owners might not realize that their perverting the purpose of a business by making it "eco-friendly"; Or, they could consider it the best way to capitalize on a niche market (what better way to milk the dollars outta those dirty hippy hands); Or, maybe, they're just stupid hippies themselves trying (unsuccessfully) to play the capitalist game.
Businesses aren't wrong for not acting to benefit the environment. That's not their role and it's not the responsibility of a business to ensure the environment is cared for. If the people, at large, want businesses to be "eco-friendly", they have the ability to make it happen: through their power as consumers and/or through government regulation on business practices.
At the end of the day, it's cool if businesses are "eco-friendly", but it has to be for the right reasons -- which are limited to the rules of law, the consumer demands, and the desires of the owners. Barring that it'd be immoral for the employees to make it a "green" company. The sole focus of those who run any business is to do their part in making the company earn a profit while acting in accordance with the rules of law and any other restrictions stipulated by the owners (which may or may not include environmental considerations). That is, in short, why those lamewad green-thumbs shouldn't expect businesses to be "eco-friendly". I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
3 comments:
As a brief addendum here I'll point out that I'm buying into the Shareholder Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. I only offered a brief sketch of the position in this post. The famous economist Milton Friedman infamously defended it robustly here:
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
If you're gonna have a moan about what I argued (and by all means do), read Friedman article at the link first and make sure your moan is justified (don't worry it's short).
I have a few issues with your argument.
"Just because the individuals who own and run a business have some peripheral obligation doesn't mean that that business needs to be run in a certain way; a way that's a perversion of the role businesses are meant to play."
Firstly, shouldn't moral concerns supervene on all actions relevant to the principle at issue? If the actions of individuals instantiated via an organization can either act in accord with a moral imperative or fail to do so, then it is immoral to ignore the imperative. Furthermore, shouldn't any aims be conducted in a way that conforms with moral principles?
"Businesses or, rather, those who chiefly run businesses (let's call them managers) have one obligation: to do that which the owners want. Typically that involves maximizing profits while conforming to the rules of law."
I would disagree that managers, or CEOs, or whatever, have only one obligation. While their role as a manager means they have an obligation to do their job (maximize profits) they also have other obligations prior to this obligation, and thus the duty to maximize profit must be discharged in a way that does not conflict with these other moral duties.
As a final note, I take issue with the idea that a business cannot have moral obligations because such obligations are only possessed by individuals. As businesses or other social institutions are, in effect, the sum of the actions of their members (individuals) these institutions have obligations insofar as they are the result of a collective group of individuals acting together with a single aim. In essence, the obligations the business has are possessed by the agents whose actions the business consists of. An analagous case here would be states; we normally believe these entities to have moral obligations i.e. just war theory.
I'm not sure I get what Anthony means by 'moral imperative.' Some stuff is morally obligatory, and some stuff is morally praiseworthy. I'm guessing you mean 'obligation' by 'imperative.' I'd argue that, while it might be morally praiseworthy for shareholders to run their business in an environmentally-friendly way, it's not a moral obligation. Failing to do something morally praiseworthy isn't immoral.
I do agree with Anthony that collectives can have moral obligations. But I'm not sure if businesses are one such collective. While we do talk about states having social moral obligations, businesses don't play the same role in relation to their customers that states do to their citizens (or the citizens of other states, like in just war theory). Businesses and customers are basically trying to exploit one another to get the best deal, whereas states serve as guardians or whatever to their citizens. So the analogy between states and businesses doesn't hold.
Post a Comment