< Précédent | Suivant > |
---|
Abstract
This paper examines how it is possible for firms in controversial sectors, which are often marked by social taboos and moral
debates, to act in socially responsible ways, and whether a firm can be socially responsible if it produces products harmful
to society or individuals. It contends that a utilitarian justification can be used to support the legal and regulated provision
of goods and services in these areas, and the regulated and legal provision of these areas produces less harm than the real
alternative—illegal and unregulated supply. Utilitarianism is concerned as much with harm minimisation as good maximisation,
and both are equally important when it comes to maximising welfare (Bentham 1789, 1970; Mill [1863] 1964). Any adequate theory of CSR must, therefore, have the capacity to handle a business that minimises harm as well as those
that more straightforwardly maximise good. In this paper we therefore attempt two tasks. First, we argue that the legal but
regulated provision of products and services may be better from an overall utilitarian perspective than a situation in which
these harmful or immoral goods and services are illegal but procurable via a black market. Porter and Kramer’s (2006) strategic CSR framework is then presented to describe how firms in these controversial sectors can act in socially responsible
ways. This model highlights the importance of firm strategy in selecting areas of socially responsible behaviours that can
be acted upon by firms in each industry.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 1-11
- DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1493-1
- Authors
- Margaret Lindorff, Department of Management, Monash University, 3800 Clayton, VIC, Australia
- Elizabeth Prior Jonson, Department of Management, Monash University, 3800 Clayton, VIC, Australia
- Linda McGuire, Department of Management, Monash University, 3800 Clayton, VIC, Australia
- Journal Journal of Business Ethics
- Online ISSN 1573-0697
- Print ISSN 0167-4544