Content area
Full Text
Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 98:8597 Springer 2010 DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0536-8
Corporate Social Responsibility,Utilitarianism, and the CapabilitiesApproach Cecile Renouard
ABSTRACT. This article explores the possible convergence between the capabilities approach and utilitarianism to specify CSR. It defends the idea that this key issue is related to the anthropological perspective that underpins both theories and demonstrates that a relational conception of individual freedoms and rights present in both traditions gives adequate criteria for CSR toward the companys stakeholders. I therefore defend relational capability as a means of providing a common paradigm, a shared vision of a core component of human development. This could further lead to a set of indicators aimed at assessing corporate social performance as the maximization of the relational capability of people impacted by the activities of companies. In particular, I suggest a way of evaluating the contribution of extractive companies to the communities close to their industrial sites in extremely poor areas, not from the viewpoint of material resources and growth, but from the viewpoint of the quality of the social environment and empowerment.
KEY WORDS: capabilities approach, corporate social responsibility, Mill, Nussbaum, relational capability, Sen, utilitarianism
Introduction
Several studies on CSR highlight the lack of a shared denition of corporate social responsibility and performance (McWilliams et al., 2006). Windsor (2006) defends the idea that there are three main moral and political perspectives on CSR: the rst two are opposed, one called ethical and the other economic; the third, corporate citizenship (Moon et al., 2003) falls between the two, wavering between the ethical perspective that puts emphasis on the ideal role of the company within society and toward its different stakeholders (Freeman, 2001),
and the economic view that maintains that the rm must rst maximize the value creation for its shareholders, and only subsequently, may be accountable to society (Carroll, 1991, 1998; Jensen, 2002). Very often authors either try to demonstrate that CSR can be used as a tool to improve the competitive advantage or the nancial performance of the company (Husted and de Jesus Salazar 2006; Jones, 1995) or maintain that it is impossible to demonstrate a connection between nancial and social performance and insist upon a normative perspective (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Vogel, 2005). Two philosophical schools of thought underpin...