Imperfect Duties and Corporate Philanthropy: A Kantian Approach

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in society. Unfortunately, many such organizations are chronically underfunded and struggle to meet their objectives. These facts have significant implications for corporate philanthropy and Kant's notion of imperfect duties. Under the concept of imperfect duties, businesses would have wide discretion regarding which charities receive donations, how much money to give, and when such donations take place. A perceived problem with imperfect duties is that they can lead to moral laxity; that is, a failure on the part of businesses to fulfill their financial obligations to nonprofit organizations. This article argues the problem of moral laxity rests on a misinterpretation of Kantian ethics and, therefore, is really not a problem at all. As such, we argue corporate philanthropy while an imperfect duty should be interpreted more akin to perfect duties and, as a consequence, moral laxity does not arise for those corporations committed to acting on the basis of the moral law. More specifically, firms have duty-based obligations on the basis of benevolence, and as good corporate citizens, to help fund non-profit organizations.

A Qualified Account of Supererogation: Toward a Better Conceptualization of Corporate Social Responsibility

“…More generally, until now, the CSR literature has provided only partial or inadequate attention to the phenomenon of firms that voluntarily provide more than the expected. Research has recently criticized the idea that CSR is voluntary or aspirational (Ohreen & Petry, 2012;Wettstein, 2009). The argument is that if we reduce CSR to a discretionary affair, we risk shifting the need to address serious social and environmental issues that are linked to business activities to the realm of the optional.…”

“…Even if the motives of companies like The Home Depot were genuinely otherregarding, skeptics could further insist that offering one's own services is obligatory, because it complies with a charitable duty of wealthy firms to help those in difficulty. Such obligation is a case of imperfect duties, which arise when the agent has multiple courses of action for achieving an end that is morally required (Ohreen & Petry, 2012). For example, well-to-do agents have the moral duty to assist the poor, but they are allowed to choose when to do it, how much to give, and to whom to donate.…”

Weeding Out Flawed Versions of Shareholder Primacy: A Reflection on the Moral Obligations That Carry Over from Principals to Agents

“…One can divide the positions taken in the literature into three categories that differ according to how ethically demanding they are: Minimal : Minimal versions of shareholder primacy, by far the most widespread in the literature, argue that the moral obligations that constrain the activities of businesses are minimal: businesses are required to, at most, comply with the law and respect basic obligations such as fulfilling contracts and avoiding deception, theft, and coercion (Friedman 1962, 1970; Hasnas 1998; Sternberg 2000, 2010). 6 Maximal : Maximal versions of shareholder primacy propose that the moral obligations of businesses are equivalent to the moral obligations of shareholders (Goodpaster 1991; Kriegstein 2016; Mansell 2013, 2015; Ohreen and Petry 2012). Encompassing : Encompassing versions of shareholder primacy assert that the obligations of businesses extend significantly beyond what is required by minimal versions of shareholder primacy but are still less demanding than the obligations that are imposed on shareholders and human beings in general.…”

“…Maximal : Maximal versions of shareholder primacy propose that the moral obligations of businesses are equivalent to the moral obligations of shareholders (Goodpaster 1991; Kriegstein 2016; Mansell 2013, 2015; Ohreen and Petry 2012).…”

The Management Nexus of Imperfect Duty: Kantian Views of Virtuous Relations, Reasoned Discourse, and Due Diligence

“…Although imperfect duties have limited explorations in some previous business literature, broad notions beyond beneficent charity have not been explored. Ohreen and Petry (2012) explore the imperfect duty of business strictly in the context of corporate philanthropy. Mansell (2013) also explores this duty of beneficence in order to extend corporate moral obligations to wider stakeholder groups than shareholders, but does not venture into the categories explored here.…”