The article determines the relation between policies concerning CSR &

philosophical moral theories. This study is part of an empirical investigation

whoms objective is to determine which moral theory (egoism, libertarianism,
utilitarian, common-sense morality) act as a basis for CSR policies.
The entire article is divided into 5 main components :
1)Description of moral framework and hypotheses
2)Description of research design
3)Findings
4)Basis for CSR policies
5)Conclusion
MORAL FRAMEWORK & HYPOTHESES
4 types of Moral Theories :
1)EGOISM It states that morally correct action is one that maximises the good
for the moral agent. Thus, CSR is not concerned with a moral obligation to
benefit others, but to benefit the company which means that the co. must worry
about its employees, needy strangers, local community etc. only if it is in the
co.s self interest.
2)LIBERTARIANISM This theory believes in the existence of negative rights
such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of coercion etc. , but
not in positive duties like donating to charity.
3)UTILITARIANISM This theory believes that moral agents always have to
promote the best possible outcome i.e. maximum happiness from an impartial
perspective.
4)COMMON-SENSE MORALITY This theory believes in the existence of both
negative rights & positive duties. Supporters of this theory believes that co. have
a moral obligation not to violate anyones right and that they also have positive
duties towards certain groups.
Hypothesis on the basis of above framework :
H1: CSR policies of a co. engaged in CSR concerning positive duties are not
based on ethical egoism.
H2: CSR policies of a co. engaged in CSR concerning positive duties are not
based on are not based on libertarian.
H3: CSR policies of a co. engaged in CSR concerning positive duties are not
based on utilitarian.
H4: CSR policies of a co. engaged in CSR concerning positive duties are based on
some kind of common-sense morality.
METODOLOGY
The companies chosen in this study are all engaged in CSR activities for long
time & are national CSR frontrunners. Apart, from this they all are very different

from each other. 21 semi-structured & partly semi-structured qualitative

interviews with key CSR personnel, 7 from each co. were conducted. Later on,
they were asked with their views on the cases :- Moral Case 1A, Moral Case 1B &
Moral Case 2 & the 2 questions. Purpose of these questions & moral cases asked
was to be able to confirm or reject the hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4) & to find out
whether the CSR policies of companies engaged in CSR are based on ethical
egoism, libertarianism, utilitarianism or common-sense morality.
FINDINGS
1)SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT Some respondents used a logical version,
whereas some used an empirical version of slippery slope argument.
2)SHAREHOLDER ARGUMENT It depends on the interest of the shareholders
because their interests can either be purely financial or non-financial.
3)UNIQUE COMPETENCIES ARGUMENT Respondents from all the three
companies seemed to make this point, but to use their competency locally & not
globally.
4)PROXIMITY ARGUMENT All the respondents seemed to argue that physical
distance matters morally.
5)Moral Case 1A/1B None of the CSR policies of all the three companies were
based on utilitarian moral theory.
6)Moral Case 2 - None of the CSR policies of all the three companies were based
on utilitarian moral theory.
7) Questions - None of the CSR policies of all the three companies were based on
utilitarian moral theory.
8)Respondents of all the 3 companies support all the 4 principles given below :
a)Fiduciary duties towards shareholders
b)Physical proximity principle
c)Social proximity principle
CONCLUSION
The CSR policies of companies engaged in CSR are based on common-sense
morality rather than on teleological moral theories like egoism, libertarianism &
utilitarian. Therefore, on the basis of above findings hypotheses H1, H2, H3 are
rejected & hypothesis H4 is accepted which states that, CSR policies of a co.
engaged in CSR concerning positive duties are based on some kind of commonsense morality. This also indicates that the moral foundations of the official
ethical guidelines of companies do not seem to mirror the moral foundations of
managers.