This essay argues that corporations hold moral obligations to society that extend beyond profit-making and legal compliance. Drawing primarily on James Fieser's framework from "Do Businesses Have Moral Obligations Beyond What the Law Requires?" the paper examines three grounding principles for corporate morality: the profit principle, the law principle, and morality as a third independent factor. It highlights how practices such as deceptive advertising can violate moral obligations without breaking any law, and uses the quasi-public theory to argue that corporations — especially large ones — owe a duty of care to the societies that sustain them. The essay concludes that returning value to society is both ethically proper and practically sound for long-term corporate success.
The paper demonstrates structured ethical framework analysis: it takes a multi-principle model from a peer-reviewed source and systematically evaluates each principle in turn, applying it to real-world business scenarios. This "framework application" technique is a core skill in applied ethics writing, showing how abstract theory translates into practical moral guidance.
The essay opens with a broad observation about corporate social awareness before narrowing to a clear thesis. It then builds its argument across three main analytical sections — each corresponding to one of Fieser's principles — before a brief conclusion that ties corporate self-interest to moral duty. The structure is logical and progressive, moving from weaker to stronger justifications for corporate moral obligation.
Recently, many businesses have become aware of the moral obligations they hold toward society. This is apparent in the diverse kinds of charity programs, youth programs, community programs, and many others that most businesses establish as part of their operations and as a response to their social obligations. Although some may view such programs as strategies and techniques businesses use to advertise their company, it remains important that companies observe their moral obligations to society.
According to James Fieser, in his article concerning the moral obligations of businesses, there are two possible connections that lead businesses to observe morality: the goal to make a profit, and the goal to obey the law. Both connections may sound compelling — social programs can serve as a form of advertising that adds income to a business, and the law is itself a powerful compulsion. However, despite this, the observation of moral obligations by businesses toward society can still mean a great deal, because it can encourage other businesses to establish similar programs that provide help and support to society.
Another form of moral obligation to society that corporations must observe concerns business ethics. Fieser found this to be somewhat ironic given that the business procedures followed by corporations may abide by the law while still falling short of genuine moral conduct. One clear instance is the exaggerated information found in some advertisements. Although exaggerating in advertisements is permitted by law, moral obligations are nonetheless violated by the dishonesty such advertisements display to viewers.
It is understandable that the main objective of a corporation is to earn money and provide services to people — by nature, that is the purpose of a business. But to what extent should that nature be allowed to operate unchecked?
Dishonesty toward people is a form of violating moral obligations to society. It violates business ethics that businesses are supposed to observe. There are many situations in business operations that demonstrate a clear failure to meet moral obligations to society. As noted above, exaggerating product information in advertisements is a form of dishonesty toward consumers. Consumers are sometimes led into danger when they encounter advertisements that do not convey correct information. Because consumers are drawn in by flattering descriptions, stated purposes, and exaggerated claims about product results, the safety of consumers — who may be susceptible to all kinds of information, whether believable or not — can be put at risk. In such cases, moral obligation to society is violated even though no business law has been broken.
Deception often involves presenting immoral business practices as moral ones. It has always been a difficult issue, especially when no legal violation occurs. It is therefore from common moral notions that we derive the standard for corporations' obligations to society. One compelling argument for why corporations should have moral obligations beyond simply making money is grounded in the quasi-public theory: corporations are considered semi-owned by the public because it is the public that makes the continuous operation and success of corporations possible. The public plays a decisive role in the success of many corporations, and it is therefore only proper that corporations observe and meet their moral obligations to society.
The size of a corporation is an important factor in this regard. The larger a corporation is, the larger the population it affects, and therefore that corporation must be especially cautious about the effects it has on the public.
Fieser, in his article "Do Businesses Have Moral Obligations Beyond What the Law Requires?" discusses three approaches on which a corporation's morality may be based:
From these three approaches, we can further explore why corporations should have moral obligations to society.
There are two versions of what this principle asserts. The first holds that good business ethics results in good business (Fieser, 1996). This is considered a relatively weak version of the principle, however, because the economic effects of moral practices a corporation implements may only become apparent after a considerable span of time. For instance, implementing moral principles designed to serve the best interests of the public — in hopes of building a long-term, trusting relationship with customers — may only yield an economic advantage after some time. The corporation must first seek and earn consumers' trust. Research and studies indicate that trust is typically extended by customers only after sustained satisfaction with a corporation's products or services over time.
Fieser provides the following examples to illustrate the limits of this principle:
On the other hand, the relationship between morality and profit can also provide a strong basis for corporations to observe moral obligations to society when it is anchored in actual consumer demand. When consumers demand safe products, for instance, it is logical that corporations maintaining moral obligations to society will succeed — they are simply satisfying consumer needs. Those corporations that do not may lose out in competition. This consumer-driven dynamic gives the profit principle practical force as a moral incentive.
Fieser, James. Do Businesses Have Moral Obligations Beyond What the Law Requires? Journal of Business Ethics, 1996, Vol. 15, pp. 457–468.
Gregg, Samuel. Corporate Obligations Should Reflect Stakeholders' Best Interest. 2001. Online Opinion.
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.