Summery: Der Autor Claus Dierksmeier führt mit anschaulichen Beispielen die Bedeutung der “soft facts” in der Unternehmenskultur für das Gelingen der Corporate Social Responsibility - Aktivitäten vor Augen.

In this article I argue that for the implementation of ethical standards the ‘soft facts’ of corporate culture are more important than commonly acknowledged.

Generally, the literature on CSR agrees on the ‘hard facts’ of corporate ethics: for example, that for business ethics to succeed, corporations need to do more than just write up a code of ethics. Companies should also educate employees to apply it properly, audit their performance (optimally through independent agencies), and report honestly about shortcomings and accomplishments. However, the ‘soft facts’ of the underlying corporate culture are at least as important when it comes to monitoring the achievement of ethical goals. When a corporation strives for higher ethical standards, a transformation of its entire corporate culture must take place.

Take, for instance, the internal incentive system. When promotion management proceeds just apart from newly proclaimed ethical objectives, it fails to undergird the process of ethical transformation. Promotion decisions may remain oriented at quantitative parameters alone, such as sales, production, and cost reduction, instead of taking into account qualitative standards as well, such as stakeholder involvement, employee satisfaction, etc. As decent business practices do not always allow the maximization of profits, such promotion management will necessarily punish employees careerwise who go along with the new corporate policies and thus ‘make lesser numbers’.

Workers and managers will perceive such a situation as one of double-dealing, and they are right: For the notion of corporate culture only makes sense if we are serious about the mutual influence of the corporate self-image and its factual performance. Similar to the way individuals perceive, and are driven ahead by the tensions between their own self-ideals and critical outside observation, a corporation relates to itself through its corporate imagery. Failing to consider the importance of symbolism in corporate culture is therefore one of the key mistakes in unsuccessful CSR policies. The metaphors invoked by codes of conduct, mission statements, and overall corporate philosophy must be consistent with corporate practice. If they are not, employees will bring down even the most elaborate ethical auditing system by stealthily counteracting it.

Several things are important: First of all, it is imperative that there be a normative ideal, set out in clear language and tangible imagery, that allows for ethical orientation. The mechanistic self-portrayals of old – the corporation as a ‘machine’ for mere profit-maximization – will not do as they, amongst other shortcomings, do not allow the necessary leeway for ethical action. An agent who is not free cannot be held responsible. A corporation that is entirely geared to profit-maximizing mechanisms is not free.

Second, it is essential that the ethical ideals are just as inspiring as they are demanding. As with individuals, some pragmatism is in order for corporations, yet an overly pragmatic approach to life crowds out any idealism and all the enthusiasm, energy, initiative, and innovation that come with it. Corporations, much like individuals, perform better if reaching out beyond the scope of their present possibilities instead of resting complacently within their limits. The presence of a lofty, yet attainable corporate ideal coherently brought to attention through all sectors of corporate culture, is in itself a considerable force towards the acchievement of its aims. As a rule of thumb, the outside reflects the inside: a corporation persuades the public of its ongoing ethical transformation only insofar as it convinces its own personnel.

Third, it is vital that corporations avoid inconsistency of any sort. If a corporation describes its internal culture, for instance, in metaphors of ‘family life’, or by the imagery of an interdependent ‘organism’, it is markedly contradictory to try to get rid of the respective ‘family members’, or ‘limbs’, as soon as they turn out to be temporarily unprofitable. A family would not, and an organism could not, do likewise. When workers perceive such a rift between pronounced ideals and practiced reality, they quickly come to the conclusion that, after all, the shining corporate philosophy is but empty talk. Nothing is more damaging than first stimulating ethical sensibilities, tapping into moral resources, and then frustrating the persons so motivated. Moreover, not only those negatively affected by such policies but also all observers will be turned cynical thereby. They will sense that their shared collective reality has been affronted. This will direct the moral energy of otherwise unaffected persons against the company.

Fourth, the endeavor for consistency should also extend to outside relations. Stakeholder relationships as well as PR-strategies and donation policies should be brought carefully in line with whatever the corporate self-image proclaims. Many corporations still overlook that. There is a remarkable indifference, for example, as to how to use the funds set aside for corporate donations. More often than not, such funds are simply spent according to the largely arbitrary discretion of the corporate officers in charge. Instead, it would make much more sense to focus corporate donations on projects that share a visible connection to the company’s core competence.

A carmaker, we may safely assume, has a higher competence in improving the world in and around his field of expertise than through, say, fighting breast cancer. Consequently, donations of time, money, and expertise are likely to be much more efficient when given in accord with that core competence, for instance in an effort to improve the ecological dimensions of private transport. Efficience and effectiveness are important features of ethical effort. After all, if you want to improve the world, you do want to acchieve something, and so you do not want to waste your energy imprudently. So, whether or not a company concentrates its outreaching efforts and donations around its core competence, gives us a good yardstick to evaluate the seriousness of such undertakings, discerning PR-stunts from earnest efforts to be good corporate citizens.

In sum, for corporate ethics to succeed, it is key that those who carry out the policies are themselves convinced of the integrity of their corporate culture. Workers as well as managers will turn their back on business ethics if they perceive a lack of sincerity in its implementation. Only if the entire corporate culture meshes with the proclaimed CSR-agenda will the individual employees find it in their interest to go along with it, only then will they trust that it is not the firm scheming to get the best of them; only then will they bring their personal initiative, their creative thinking, their productive energies, and their enthusiasm to bear on policies that otherwise lack zest, persuasiveness, and – ultimately – success.

Prof. Dr. Claus Dierksmeier
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Stonehill College / Philosophy Department
Easton, MA 02357