normative principles, pure egoism, enlightened egoism, spiritual egoism, corporate social responsibility


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an important sphere in applied ethics. Different CSR theories have been presented during decades. Some of them are compatible with each other while some others are not.  By focusing merely on the contents, it seems impossible to evaluate the different theories or to explain why different CSR theories and programs have been presented. However, this paper suggests that the variety of the debate comes from the (philosophical) grounds these theories are based.  These grounds, as roots of CSR theories, can well explain, classify and evaluate different types of CSR theories. As a result of the philosophical classification and evaluation, it has been concluded that two types of CSR theories, pure and enlighten egoistic CSR, cannot be philosophically preferred. Instead, spiritual-egoistic CSR theories present better contents and programs in comparison with their rivals. Finally, as a suggestion for future investigations, it seems necessary for all CSR theories to both clarify and justify their grounds prior to presenting any other discussions.


Bandura, Albert. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, Vol. 71, No. 2: 364-74.

Berger, Ida E., Peggy H. Cunningham and Minette E. Drumwright. (2007). Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue. California Management Review, Vol. 49, No. 4, (Summer 2007):132-157

Carroll, Archie B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, Volume 34, Issue 4, 1991: 39-48.

Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology for Sustainability Program Policy and Global Affairs Division and National Research Council of the National Academies. (2011). Sustainability and the U.S. EPA, Washington D. C.: The National Academies Press.

Davis, K. (1973). The Case for and against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities. The Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/255331

Davis, Zachary and Anthony Steinbock, (2018). Max Scheler. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), <https://plato.standford.edu/archieves/win2018/entries/scheler/>.

Ferrell, O. C., John Fraedrich, and Linda Ferrell. (2015). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Frankena W. K. (1973(second ed.)). Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice–Hall.

Friedman, Milton. (1970). A Friedman doctrine- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. In New York Times, September 13, 1970. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

Henderson, Jeffery. (2011). Global Citizenship Examined: A Methodology of the New Triad Model. PhD diss., UGSM-Monarch Business School Switzerland.

Kant, Immanuel. (1889). "The Critique of Practical Reason" in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, etc. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbot. London: Longmans, Green & Co., Paternoster–Row.

Naughton, Michael. (2006). The Corporation as a community of work: Understanding the Firm within the Catholic Social Tradition. In Ave Maria Law Review 4:1 (4 2006): 33-47.

Novak, M. (1981 (rev. ed. 1990)). Toward a Theology of the Corporation, Washington D. C.: The AEI Press.

Palmer, Michele. (1991). Moral Problems: A Course Book. Canada: University of Toronto Press; Toronto Buffalo.

Paulus PP. II, Iaonnes. (1981). Laborem exercens. Rome: Vatican

Ross, W.D. (1930). The Right and the Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Scheler, Max. (1973). Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values. Translated by Manfred S. Frings and Roger L. Funk. Evatson. Northwestern University Press.




How to Cite

Mir Mohammadi, S. M. H. (2021). TAKING PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DEBATE SERIOUSLY. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Philosophy, 2(5), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.17721/2523-4064.2021/5-4/8