”Is the concept of corporate social responsibility nothing more than
‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business
intent on making profits?” (40)
May 2, 2025
Social Corporate Responsibility refers to corporations taking actions to appease stakeholders who, on the surface
do not profit them. Milton Friedman, opposed to Social Corporate Responsibility, accused this of being ”Hypothetical
Window Dressing”. This means that corporations only carry out Social Corporate Responsibility to make themselves
look better. Essentially, Corporations only ”hypothetically” have a sense of morality. This question is important be-
cause corporations are the basis for almost every service and product that modern people use. Some scholars involved
in this debate are Kant, Friedman, Milton Friedman, and Adam Smith. Ultimately, Social Corporate Responsibility
is primarily used to make companies look better to attract customers for profit. It sugarcoats the ”greed” of every
for-profit business, whose primary aims are profit alone.
Firstly, Adam Smith would agree with the proposition. He believed that companies should engage in Social
Corporate Responsibility on account of it increasing profit. He asserted that a company with a good reputation,
including morally, will attract more customers. Therefore, companies benefit by benefiting others. An example of
this is Lush. They use eco-friendly packaging and vegan ingredients. They portray this as them following a moral
duty, however in reality these aspects are incredibly important for gaining and retaining environmentalist customers,
who make up a very large part of the customer-base. Stopping this impression would lose them much profit and many
customers. On the other hand, some may argue that them engaging in Social Corporate Responsibility at all points
towards this not being ”hypothetical”. That does not change the fact that their primary motive is profit. Therefore, it is
1
hard to substantiate this claim, since true Social Corporate responsibility should be done out of a sense of duty. This is
what Immanuel Kant would argue. He believed that good deeds should be done out of categorical imperatives. Kant
would also argue that engaging in Social Corporate Responsibility with the ulterior motive of attracting customers
is morally wrong because it is a hypothetical imperative. Moreover, their Social Corporate Responsibility is still
hypothetical, because since their first priority is profit, their ”responsibility” is ”hypothetical”. They do not consider
themselves to be responsible for anything but the appeasement of shareholders. Therefore, their ”responsibility” is
actually advertisement. Their actions are not hypothetical, but their responsibility certainly is. Ultimately, therefore,
Social Corporate Responsibility is ”Hypothetical Window Dressing” done to attract customers, increase profit, and
conceal greed.
Moreover, it is simply unrealistic to expect any for-profit company to take into account unprofitable stakeholders
without publicizing their actions for profit. Kant’s ideals would lead to no profitable company existing. There would
be no reason to start companies in Kant’s world. Social Corporate Responsibility, according to Kant, cannot therefore
be done morally in the real world. On the other hand, Ben and Jerry’s has claimed to selflessly pursue Social Corporate
Responsibility, claiming that it is ”the right thing to do”. Whilst this seems admirable, if they truly believed that they
were being Socially Responsible, they should have no reason to ever make videos about their responsibilities. The
company should continue acting out these alleged virtues without publicizing them. In conclusion, Social Corporate
Responsibility, even in a company as respected as Ben and Jerry’s (for Social Corporate Responsibility), is simply for
profit and is even a gimmick. If a truly Socially Responsible company existed, it would be unknown. Therefore, the
morality, especially from a Kantian perspective, of Social Corporate Responsibility is ”hypothetical”. It is ultimately
also a concealment for greed.
In conclusion, Social Corporate Responsibility is ”Hypothetical Window Dressing”. Usually, there is no responsi-
bility, making it hypothetical. A company is not truly being responsible if it is primarily driven by profit rather than
morality. In addition, Kant’s ideas on Social Corporate Responsibility are impossible to apply universally. From a
Kantian perspective, Social Corporate Responsibility it without a doubt a cover for greed.
