Ethics, CSR, and the Triple Bottom Line in Business
This paper examines whether a business's sole obligation is to maximize profit, arguing instead that the "triple bottom line"—people, planet, and profit—reflects a deeper ethical imperative. Drawing on deontological ethics, teleological ethics, moral objectivism, and ethical relativism, the paper contends that companies are duty-bound to consider all stakeholders, not just shareholders. It critically engages with Alfred North Whitehead's relativist claim that morality is merely majority preference, countering it with Kant's categorical imperative and Plato's concept of objective moral transcendentals. The paper concludes that ethical relativism offers an unstable foundation for corporate conduct, as illustrated by high-profile corporate failures such as Enron and AIG.
- Introduction: Profit, People, and the Triple Bottom Line: CSR, triple bottom line, and Whitehead's relativism as foil
- Deontological Ethics and Corporate Duty: Rule-based ethics and stakeholder duty
- Teleological Ethics and the Utilitarian Case for CSR: Outcomes-based ethics and community impact
- Moral Objectivism and the Good a Company Should Pursue: Plato's transcendentals applied to corporate purpose
- Ethical Relativism and Its Failures: Why relativism undermines ethical corporate conduct
- Conclusion: Objectivism, Kant, and Business Ethics: Kant versus Whitehead; businesses need objective ethics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically applies four distinct ethical frameworks — deontological, teleological, moral objectivist, and relativist — to a single concrete business question, demonstrating breadth of philosophical engagement.
- It anchors abstract ethical theory in real-world business examples (Enron, Bear Stearns, AIG, offshoring), making philosophical arguments accessible and applied.
- The use of Whitehead's quote as a thesis foil gives the paper a clear argumentative target and creates coherent through-line from introduction to conclusion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a structured counter-argument strategy: it introduces a relativist claim (Whitehead), then methodically refutes it by applying multiple competing ethical frameworks. This technique — sometimes called "thesis by negation" — is effective in philosophy and ethics writing because each framework independently supports the same conclusion, building cumulative argumentative weight.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the triple bottom line concept and CSR, then presents a provocative relativist claim as its argumentative foil. Each of the four body sections introduces and applies one ethical framework to the business ethics question. The conclusion synthesizes the contrast between Whitehead's process philosophy and Kant's categorical imperative, affirming that businesses governed by moral agents must adhere to objective ethical standards.
Introduction: Profit, People, and the Triple Bottom Line
Is it true that the "bottom line" of a business is profit and profit alone? Perhaps it is for some companies, but the idea of the triple bottom line has been around for quite some time — and it refers not just to profits but also to people and planet. The triple bottom line has received renewed interest since the rise of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which refers to a company's advocacy of and support for the values important to the "social, environmental and economic environment in which" the company operates (Castka, Bamber & Sharp, 2005, p. vii).
When companies fail to consider the triple bottom line — the impact of their business operations on people and the planet as well as on profits — they fall into that group of companies condemned by Feldman (2012) in his Sunday Review letter: such corporations fail to appreciate "how their obsession with the bottom line is shrinking their markets, both domestic and foreign." In other words, companies have a moral obligation to multiple stakeholders — consumers, suppliers, community members, and not just stockholders, as Sir James Goldsmith has argued (Rose, 1994).
However, Whitehead's statement calls into question the legitimacy of the moral argument, insisting that ethics is a purely subjective paradigm and is whatever the majority of people want it to be at any given time: "What is morality in any given time and place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike" (BrainyQuote, 2018). This paper argues why morality and ethics matter and why they must be objectively defined and fixed for the good of all — rather than, as Whitehead suggests, a loose concept that can be altered to justify an immoral and unethical course. It draws on deontological ethics, teleological ethics, moral objectivism, and ethical relativism to explain why this is so.
Deontological Ethics and Corporate Duty
In deontological ethics, morality is defined by a set of rules rather than by the outcome of a behavior. The rules are determined by the duty expected of one, as dictated by an ethical code of conduct. These rules are generally universal in character and are connected with traditional moral norms — for example, that lying is wrong and stealing is wrong. As Goldsmith points out, companies are duty-bound by the rules of conventional ethics to look after all stakeholders. This is a reference to the need for companies to be mindful of the triple bottom line, which is what Feldman (2012) also intimates.
Teleological Ethics and the Utilitarian Case for CSR
In teleological ethics, morality is determined by the outcome — that is, the impact an action has on the greatest number of people. Ethical duty is thus defined by outcomes rather than rules. Utilitarianism is the most common expression of teleological ethics, and even from a utilitarian perspective it can be shown that the bottom line of a business is more than just profit. A business exists in relationship with people and the planet; to ignore these other two aspects is to imagine that money comes simply because a business exists.
Goldsmith argues that businesses must think about the consequences of offshoring and of chasing cheap labor — they undercut their own communities and erode their own markets when they do so (Rose, 1995). Thus, from the teleological ethical standpoint, the triple bottom line is what companies must consider.
Conclusion: Objectivism, Kant, and Business Ethics
Whitehead's process philosophy — the belief that change and "becoming" serve as the foundation for reality and thus for ethics — can be sharply contrasted with Kant's categorical imperative, the belief that universals exist and can be objectively known. Whitehead is rooted in relativism, while Kant is rooted in classical objectivism. Businesses can and must have ethical standards — despite the fact that businesses are not themselves moral agents — because they are governed by moral agents, human beings, who must consider their duty to all stakeholders, the ends of their actions, and the objective ideals that exist to show them the way.
References
BrainyQuote. (2018). Alfred North Whitehead quotes. Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/alfred_north_whitehead_133258
Castka, P., Bamber, C., & Sharp, J. (2005). Implementing effective corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: A framework. UK: British Standards Institution.
Feldman, J. (2012). Sunday review: How corporations behave. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-how-corporations-behave.html
Plato. (2010). The dialogues, vol. 1. Online Library of Liberty. Retrieved from http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/111/Plato_0131-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Rose, C. (1994). Interview with Sir James Goldsmith. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.