CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY - KANT VS. RAWLS

Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR, is a self-regulating business model in which companies integrate social, environmental, and ethical concerns into their decisions in order to make a positive impact.

Let’s begin with Immanuel Kant. Before analyzing his beliefs in business, let’s analyze his general philosophical ideas. First, delving into Immanuel Kant’s beliefs, one of his most important ideas is the Formula of Humanity. This idea is that we must act in a way that we treat humanity as never just a means to an end. Another idea of his is that moral worth depends solely on acting from duty, regardless of the consequences or personal desires. Essentially, Kant believes that we must all have good will.

Because Kantianism urges us to have a good will, this would necessitate that corporations follow honest advertising and fairer labor practices, despite their lower profit rates. Likewise, companies must respect consumer autonomy and have a strong, positive moral intent. Unfortunately, the reality is that many corporations today do not follow these principles. This reality makes it much more difficult for other corporations to follow Kant ideas as they are put at a monetary disadvantage.

Now, let’s discuss Rawls’ framework. Rawl believes in the idea of the veil of ignorance, where we are thrown into a world in which we know nothing of our personal status, advantages, and disadvantages. Therefore, rather than making decisions in our own interest, we must make decisions that benefit all. Rawls also has two core principles of justice. The first is the Liberty Principle, in which one must guarantee equal basic liberties for all. The second principle, of the Difference Principle, states that we must only allow socioeconomic inequalities if they benefit the least advantaged.

The application of Rawls’ framework into the world of business is frankly quite simple. Rawl would advocate for fair wage structures, as they promote equal rights for all. Likewise, he would advocate for worker protections and equal access to opportunity. He would also advocate for executive compensation limits; although these may harm the company, they would benefit the employees and workers–or the less advantaged–making it permissible under Rawls’ framework. However, one important caveat to note here is that Rawls’ theory does permit inequality, which can snowball into negative outcomes rather than the intended positive ones.

An important point of tension between Rawls and Kant is that Kant focuses on intentions while Rawls focuses on real outcomes. Additionally, Rawls is more focused on institutional design and social contract, whereas Kant focuses on individual duties.