View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Kantian Corporate Philanthropy
1/3
Kantian Corporate Philanthropy
Kantian morality indicates that there exists what are called categorical imperatives, namely laws
that are rational and can be applied universally. Charitable donations can be considered a
categorical imperative because since everyone has benefited from benevolence in one way or
another, it is ones duty to give. A society where giving is not performed and the act of non-beneficence is a universal maxim would contradict the help and aid that most people receive at
least once in their lives (Ohreen, 369). An issue arises as to how much and how often one should
give. Beneficence is a perfect duty because to do otherwise and apply it universally would be
irrational and contradictory. However, how much or to whom beneficence is directed is an
imperfect duty, because it is impossible to give to everyone in need.
The amount that a corporation should give is complicated. There is a constant struggle between
investors who wish to maximize their own returns at the expense of corporate philanthropy, and
activists and consumers who want the corporation to be ethically responsible. If a corporation
gives too much, its investors will flee, and the corporation will be no longer able to function. If itgives too little, it risks alienating consumers who are becoming increasingly more socially
conscious. A utilitarian approach to moral laxity within the framework of Kantian ethics
suggests that if there are others suffering, and we can alleviate their suffering at minimal material
loss, then we should give until we experience material loss. Essentially we should give until it
hurts. Applied to a person, this is fairly simple. It would make sense to give to hungry children
but not to the point where you cant feed your own. However, a corporation cannot give until it
hurts, because its investors want a return on their investments.
A solution to this could be to have a mandated corporate philanthropy amount, which would be a
percentage of pre-tax revenue. This would treat corporate philanthropy as an expense, and itwould still be incurred even if there was a fiscal loss, thus protecting charities and nonprofits
during economic recessions. As a percentage of revenue, it would encourage the employees to
work harder and the managers to reduce costs and increase revenue to ensure a profit and
increase its philanthropy. Essentially, this system would create stability, because it would be a
predictable amount, and investors will not be surprised of this expense, and non-profit
organizations could reasonably count on future revenue. The exact percentage of revenue that
corporate philanthropy should account for will depend on the tolerance of the investors.
Applying Kantian morality, the companys corporate philanthropy level should be the percentage
that if it were to be increased by any amount, investors would sell their shares. So if two
companies A and B both follow this guide-line and their corporate philanthropy percentages are
15 and 5 percent respectively, then both companies would be acting ethically despite the
difference.
In the future, large companies such as General Electric should collaborate with other large
companies to create an industry standard rate that would be deemed as normal for fortune 500
companies. This would normalize corporate philanthropy by creating a corporate philanthropy
7/30/2019 Kantian Corporate Philanthropy
2/3
percentage floor and investors would not be able to protest any increase to meet that floor
because all other companies would be donating at that rate. Also, companies who choose to
ignore the floor rate will be chastised for it in the media and by consumer groups, causing its
public relations image to decrease. In the minds of the public, there is no specific amount of
corporate philanthropy that is sufficient, or insufficient. When the public complains that a
company does not donate enough, they simply compare that company to other companies within
that industry. While this is not a flattering comparison, it is one that hardly will have any impact
on a companys image because there is no definitive rule. What the corporate percentage rate
creates is a categorical imperative and a perfect duty for companies to follow. A company must
give a specific percentage; to give less would be unethical.
However, this is a delicate number; companies in different industries experience different profit
expectations. Consequentially, companies in low profit industries may be adversely affected by
this. If this percentage is applied universally, certain companies will give far less with respect to
their gross profit, creating an imperfect duty. In addition, there should be a universal rate, and an
industry specific rate. For instance, the universal rate may be 5 percent, and the software industry
may agree collectively to donate 15 percent, so a software company should donate 20 percent.
The last problem with corporate philanthropy is what organizations companies should give to. In
Canada, there are 161,000 nonprofit organizations including 90,000 charities, and 71,000 other
types including foundations (Hall et al. 2005). Of these charitable organizations, the majority of
businesses (58%) provide financial support to the sports/recreation (33%), grant-making and
fundraising (15%), and arts and culture (10%) sectors, while social services, environmental, and
development/housing organizations, which make up 23% of non-profit organizations in Canada,
received just 9% of corporate donations (Ohreen, 372). Clearly, there is a preference for sports
programs and the arts. Applying Kants notion of imperfect duties, this would mean that
donating to recreational charities would count as much as donating to organizations helping the
homeless. Failure to give to organizations helping those truly in need is a problem of moral
laxity. Corporate philanthropy should begin on a needs basis, the non-profits who help those
most vulnerable should receive funding first. This approach contrasts with a utilitarian approach,
which would advocate non-profits that support the arts or sports and recreation programs because
they impact a larger group of people, thus donating to the arts or sports programs would cause
the greatest good. However even a utilitarian approach would have to contend with the
categorical imperative that if there are those that are suffering for no just cause, and there exists a
way to alleviate this, there is no excuse for not providing assistance.
This categorical imperative, while well understood by society, nevertheless is rarely
implemented in corporate philanthropy. Donating to cancer awareness, the arts and sports and
recreation benefit a wider demographic, and benefit those who are more affluent. Corporations
hope that by donating to these organizations, it will raise its image amongst consumers who are
brand conscious. Corporate sponsorships of non-profits are no different in nature than
7/30/2019 Kantian Corporate Philanthropy
3/3
sponsorships of for-profits; the point is to create a correlation between a company and the cause
or activity that consumers support.
While this strategy may be completely different in approach from donating to charities and non-
profits that affect the most vulnerable, there exists overlap. By donating to diverse charities that
support causes such as the arts, sports, health care, research, social issues and the environment, acompany can send the message that it benefits the entire community in which it operates, not just
certain aspects. Also, the corporation cannot be accused of partisanship or advocacy; many
companies are criticized in the press for donating to non-profits that support controversial causes.
Consumers today feel that corporations that do business in their neighborhoods are a part of their
neighborhoods and should be responsible neighbors. Donating to a few national non-profits does
not make them responsible neighbors because these select non-profits do not directly benefit the
community in which the corporation operates. In essence, when it comes to corporate
philanthropy, a corporation should think globally, but act locally.
This also applies to corporate philanthropy in other countries. A comparative analysis of 34countries shows considerable cultural differences in regards to nonprofit funding and this could
be problematic in regards to whether an increase in corporate funding would be welcomed
universally. For example, in many Asian countries such as South Korea and China, social
welfare is the responsibility of the state (benevolent government), not philanthropy. From a
Scandinavian perspective (Sweden, Finland, and Norway), corporate expectations for engaging
in philanthropy are equally low given extensive state welfare systems, high levels of trust of
national companies, and the fact that managers already perceive themselves as being socially
responsible (Ohreen, 373). While corporate donations in those countries may not be deemed
necessary, consumers from those countries may view that corporations should engage in
corporate philanthropy elsewhere, in countries with less social benefits and impoverished
countries. This is especially true for corporations that are multinationals, such as General
Electric, because consumers in these countries do not approve of corporations that are
exploitative in other countries because consumers view human rights as a global, not local issue.
Moving forward, corporations not only have to determine what amount of revenue must be
contributed to corporate philanthropy, they must also determine which charities are most worthy,
while taking into consideration attitudes toward corporate philanthropy in other countries. Much
of a corporations image and reputation depends on this, along with the future of non-profits and
charities that rely on corporate philanthropy.
Recommended