It is one of the basics in the CSR consulting scene: convincing potential clients that the introduction of CSR management, i.e. the management of corporate responsibility, pays off in the long term. The arguments put forward are positive effects on reputation, better conditions on the capital market or greater attractiveness as an employer. Although the business case (“CSR is worthwhile”) is certainly applied in companies, its prerequisite for dealing with CSR is an expression of a business management mindset that perverts the concept of responsibility and subjects it to market-liberal dogmas.
In short, it makes a huge difference whether companies say: “We behave responsibly because we can achieve higher profits as a result” or: “We behave responsibly because it is the right thing to do. If this also generates profit, it also confirms our actions.” Conversely, the first statement means: “If we don’t benefit monetarily from CSR, we don’t want to have anything to do with it.” This is a highly problematic approach from an ethical point of view, but it often corresponds to reality. One of the main reasons for such ways of thinking is the still undifferentiated understanding and definition of corporate responsibility. Numerous terms exist, all of which attempt to describe something similar but not quite the same thing: Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability, Corporate Citizenship, Business Ethics etc. So how can the concept of responsibility be summarized and defined more precisely? There is no doubt that a common understanding of what it means would help to question the messed-up logic of the business case.
An approach to determining responsibility
The philosopher and business ethicist Martin Booms provides an approach that attempts to solve the limitation of the dimension of responsibility via four theses. Thesis one prioritizes qualitative responsibility over quantitative responsibility and thus speaks out against “unreflected maximization of responsibility”. It is therefore not important to set up a comprehensive CSR portfolio that addresses all possible social and ecological problems, but to do business in such a way that no ethically objectionable claims by third parties arise from the conduct of one’s own business activities. This means that corporate responsibility is specific and limited (thesis two). If companies see themselves as responsible for every conceivable social, ecological or economic grievance, their efforts will end in the quantitative measures they are not striving for. This results in different “responsibility profiles” for companies, which are shaped differently depending on the production method, corporate purpose, social environment, etc.
These profiles are to be distinguished from the arbitrariness of philanthropic actions, since responsibility describes the ethical obligation to fulfill a justified, objectifiable and clearly addressed claim of those affected to the responsible authority (thesis three). This “band of obligation” describes the area of corporate responsibility. The more such causalities exist and the more actual or potential damages (“malum”) are associated with them, the more extensive the spectrum of responsibility becomes. This is thus defined as an objective moral obligation (“ought”), which differs from philanthropic arbitrariness (“want”) and prescribed laws (“must”). As a company’s responsibility is directly linked to all its sub-areas within the activities of its core business, it should not be seen as a mere “add-on”, but must be anchored in all areas of the company, starting at management level (thesis four). If the awareness of responsibility is not anchored in the management level at all, its value is very likely to be misjudged.
The lessons learned
Boom’s theses help companies to determine the extent to which they must fulfill their responsibilities (profiles) in their core business. Although the approach’s focus on potential damage (malum) excludes factors that are often also assigned to the area of corporate responsibility (e.g. innovation of sustainable products, job creation, etc.), it could at least serve as the lowest common denominator in the definition debate. This definition, which requires companies to meet the ethically justified, objectifiable and clearly addressed demands of those affected, should actually make it clear within the company that these demands are met without discussion, regardless of monetary profit.
In this respect, it is actually unbelievable that there are still a large number of companies that only want to fulfill their responsibility if it is economically worthwhile or is forced upon them by law. Unfortunately, it is still necessary in the consulting scene or for sustainability managers, and understandable from a consultant’s point of view in the current economic system, to try to make the topic of CSR palatable to board members via the business case. However, the fact that this is the case is basically sad and moves the discourse on corporate responsibility in a direction that is characterized by market-liberal ideas and opportune “application ethics”. To begin with, it would be important to provide more information and standardize the definition of the term so that there is at least clarity across the board on how to deal with one’s own responsibility.
