Essay Sample on 21st Century Businesses: Corporate Social Responsibility & Corporate Citizenship

Introduction

In the 21st century, businesses operate under the corporate social responsibly (CSR), which is the self-regulating business models focusing on social accountability to itself, to the stakeholder, and the public. The corporate citizenship helps to keep companies conscious of their impacts on the aspects of the society such as the social, economic, and environmental aspects. Every company is obligated to engage in the CSR as it is a key indicator that the company is operating in ways that enhance society and environmental and not contributing in ways that harm them. Thus, the consideration of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), of the given company to stop paying for the waste management services or not is in accordance with the corporate social responsibility. Discontinuing the payments of the waste management services will mean that the company will dispose of the waste into the local stream. The waste from such companies always consists of hazardous chemicals and materials which will have direct effects on flora and fauna.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The action that the CEO of this given company is yet to undertake can be viewed from both the utilitarianism and the Kantian perspective. Utilitarianism refers to the theory of normative ethics. The utilitarianism theory defines the morality of the actions of individuals (Mill, John and Andrew 35). In its most basic form, the theory states that an action is considered to be moral or good from the results it produces which must be good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is a theory of normative ethics which asks whether a given action is good or bad, moral or immoral. The theory tries to answer the good or bad, moral or immoral question from an economic perspective basing its facts on the lives of the humans. Thus, from the lives of the people, the theory tends to conclude that those actions that make people happy are good, while those that make them sad are bad.

The Kantian theory, on the other hand, is based on the view that only the intrinsically good actions are good. The theory is ascribed to the German philosopher known as Immanuel Kant and was developed as a result of the enlightenment rationalism. The philosopher argued based on the maxim of goodness of human actions (Wood 5). The maxim looks into the principle behind a given action which must always be in line with the duty to the moral law. Kant constructed this theory based on cognitive imperative. The cognitive imperative moral law is applicable to individual regardless of their life interests and desires. The theory was formulated by Kant in various ways. The key aspect of this theory is the principle of universalizability which requires any permissible action to be applicable to all people without any contradiction. In the event of a contradiction while applying this theory then, it fails to be in line with the non-contradiction concept of Aristotle, which insinuates that just actions do not often lead to contradictions.

Kant also applied the categorical imperative in the formulation of humanity. Kant stated that, as an end in itself, people ought not to treat others with contempt as a means to an end; rather, they need to treat these individuals as the ends themselves (Wood 54). The formulation of this theory denotes that the rational agents are bound to the moral law by their will. Thus, Kant requires individuals to act in a manner that their actions establish a law for the hypothetical kingdom. The Kantian theory brings a distinction between the perfect and the imperfect duties of individuals. Kant denotes that a perfect duty always holds while the imperfect duties can always be flexible and are only applicable in given times and places.

Thus, taking into account these two theories in the case of the given company's CEO who is considering whether or not to pay for the waste management services, the theories refute the actions of the CEO as it is harmful to people. According to the utilitarianism theory, which defines the morality of actions of an individual, the action yet to be taken by the CEO is considered immoral. The theory considers an action to be moral or good only when the results it produces is good and favorable for the greatest number of people. Nonetheless, in this case, discharging the factory wastes which consists of hazardous chemicals and materials would not produce a favorable result to the greater number of people. Instead, discharging the hazardous chemicals and materials from the company will only result in water and environmental pollution.

The industrial waste being discharged into the river comprises of dangerous and toxic chemicals which have greater human and environmental impacts as these chemicals find their way into the sewage systems and get to use by humans. In the end, the action of the CEO of this given company will have effect on the people living around the company as well as those who will in one way or the other consume the products made using the water from the given sewerage system. Utilitarianism asks whether a given action is good or bad, moral or immoral (Mill, John and Andrew 97). The action that is yet to be undertaken by the CEO of the given company is bad and immoral from both the economic and moral perspective. From the economic perspective, the action will affect the people employed in the waste management services while on the human perspective, the action will also have a direct effect on the people consuming water from the river in which the industrial wastes are going to be discharged. The theory insinuates that the actions that make people happy are good, while those that make them sad are bad. The preempted outcome of the CEO's action is that it will make people sad thus it is bad.

On the other hand, according to the Kantian theory, which states that only the intrinsically good actions are good. The CEO's action of discharging the waste into the river can be viewed as good and bad depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. From the CEO's perspective, the action would be considered as good as it will help him in cutting the costs of paying for waste management services. Eliminating the waste management services payment would mean more profits for the company resulting in a pay raise for the employees and the more benefits for the stakeholders. From this perspective, there will be a group of happy individuals from the CEOs action. However, taking into account the intrinsic aspect of good actions as per the Kantian theory, the CEO's action will be bad.

The action of the CEO of discharging the industrial waste into the river will be bad because it is not in line with the duty to the moral law. The Kantian theory operates on the principle of universalizability which requires any permissible action by individuals to apply to all people without any contradiction (Wood 17). However, in the case of releasing the industrial waste into the river, the action is not permissible as there are outlined channels that ought to be followed to treat the industrial wastes or hand them over to the waste management services before releasing them back to the sewer system. The action is not also applicable to all individuals as it will have greater effects on the lives of the people who will consume the water and the aquatic animals such as fish. The action may also have a long-lasting effect on the environment leading to the development of diseases and the death of flora and fauna.

Works Cited

Mill, John S, and Andrew Bailey. Utilitarianism. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press 2016. Print.

Wood, Allen W. Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.