scholarly journals V.S. Solovyov on the Correlation between Economy and Morality: Modern Aspects

Author(s):  
A.A. Morozova

The processes of the development of a market economy, entailing the commercialization in all spheres of social life, raise the question of the correlation between the role of human beings as economic subjects and our role as moral beings. In economics, this this issue is associated with the discussion about the way norms pervade economic theory, expressed in the dichotomy between holistic and individualistic methods. The scope of the influence of governmental bodies and large corporate structures on the socio-economic, cultural and natural environment highlights the philosophical problem of applying moral criteria to collective economic actors, which is reflected in the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The author, in this paper, opines that the question of introducing ethical principles into economic practice cannot be entirely resolved within the framework of economic theory and requires an appeal to moral philosophy. The problem of the correlation between the economic and the moral spheres is considered on the basis of V.S. Solovyov’s work “The Justification of the Good”. The principal economic ideas stated in this work are discussed in the context of assessments by past and present researchers, of economic history, and of philosophical and economic-managerial conceptions. The author presents a comparative analysis of V.S. Solovyov’s ideas about the correlation between economics and morality and the principal ideas behind corporate social responsibility. The author reveals axiological and teleological differences between the two conceptions. Whereas V.S. Solovyov deals with moral and religious categories and notions of progress, the concept of corporate social responsibility is based on economic and legal priorities and is focused on sustainable development. At the same time, the similarities identified between the concepts (such as their complex nature, the acknowledgement of the role of moral principles of the economic participants, the importance of environmental issues and legal regulators) lead us to conclude about the possibility of their further convergence and the surmounting of the limitations of corporate social responsibility based on the teachings of V.S. Solovyov.

Author(s):  
Gerard Hanlon

This article argues that corporate social responsibility (CSR) does not represent a challenge to business. On the contrary, it suggests that CSR represents a further embedding of capitalist social relations and a deeper opening up of social life to the dictates of the marketplace. Furthermore, it protests that CSR is not a driving force of change but rather an outcome of changes brought on by other forces. Most particularly, it is the result of a shift from a fordist to a post-fordist regime of accumulation at the heart of which is both an expansion and a deepening of wage relations. This article somewhat conveniently traces the (re)emergence of CSR as an issue beyond the academy from the 1990s whilst acknowledging the academic work on CSR carried out earlier (Carroll, 1979 or Owen, 2003 on the democratic push in CSR during the 1970s).


Author(s):  
Jonathon W. Moses ◽  
Bjørn Letnes

This chapter considers the role of international oil companies (IOCs) as global political actors with significant economic and political power. In doing so, we weigh the ethical costs and benefits for individuals, companies, and states alike. Using the concepts of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “corporate citizenship” as points of departure, we consider the extent to which international oil companies have social and political responsibilities in the countries where they operate and what the host country can do to encourage this sort of behavior. We examine the nature of anticorruption legislation in several of the sending countries (including Norway), and look closely at how the Norwegian national oil company (NOC), Statoil, has navigated these ethical waters.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000765032110159
Author(s):  
Cynthia E. Clark ◽  
Marta Riera ◽  
María Iborra

In this conceptual article, we argue that defining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) as opposite constructs produces a lack of clarity between responsible and irresponsible acts. Furthermore, we contend that the treatment of the CSR and CSI concepts as opposites de-emphasizes the value of CSI as a stand-alone construct. Thus, we reorient the CSI discussion to include multiple aspects that current conceptualizations have not adequately accommodated. We provide an in-depth exploration of how researchers define CSI and both identify and analyze three important gray zones between CSR and CSI: (a) the role of harm and benefit, (b) the role of the actor and intentionality, and (c) the role of rectification. We offer these gray zones as factors contributing to the present lack of conceptual clarity of the term CSI, as a concept in its own right, leading to difficulties that researchers and managers experience in categorizing CSI acts as distinct from CSR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document