The corporate social responsibility movement and law's empire: Is there a conflict?

At the heart of corporate governance and social responsibility discourse is recognition of the fact that the modern corporation is primarily governed by the profit maximisation imperative coupled with moral and ethical concerns that such a limited imperative drives the actions of large and wealthy corporations which have the ability to act in influential and significant ways, shaping how our social world is experienced. The actions of the corporation and its management will have a wide sphere of impact over all of its stakeholders whether these are employees, shareholders, consumers or the community in which the corporation is located. As globalisation has become central to the way we think it is also clear that ‘community’ has an ever expanding meaning which may include workers and communities living very far away from Corporate HQ. In recent years academic commentators have become increasingly concerned about the emphasis on what can be called short-term profit maximisation and the perception that this extremist interpretation of the profit imperative results in morally and ethically unacceptable outcomes.1 Hence demands for more corporate social responsibility. Following Cadbury’s2 classification of corporate social responsibility into three distinct areas, this paper will argue that once the legally regulated tier is left aside corporate responsibility can become so nebulous as to be relatively meaningless. The argument is not that corporations should not be required to act in socially responsible ways but that unless supported by regulation, which either demands high standards, or at the very least incentivises the attainment of such standards such initiatives are doomed to failure. The paper will illustrate by reference to various chosen cases that law’s discourse has already signposted ways to consider and resolve corporate governance problems in the broader social responsibility context.3 It will also illustrate how corporate responsibility can and must be supported by legal measures. Secondly, this paper will consider the potential conflict between an emphasis on corporate social responsibility and the regulatory approach.4 Finally, this paper will place the current interest in corporate social responsibility within the broader debate on the relationship between law and non-legally enforceable norms and will present some reflections on the norm debate arising from this consideration of the CSR movement.

Moral shielding: A grounded theory of integrity maintenance in multidisciplinary teams

Using a classic grounded theory methodology (CGT), this study explores the phenomenon of moral shielding within mental health multidisciplinary teams (MDTS). The study was located within three catchment areas engaged in acute mental health service practice. The main concern identified was the maintenance of a sense of personal integrity during situational binds. Through theoretical sampling thirty two practitioners, including; doctors, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, counsellors and psychologists, where interviewed face to face. In addition, emergent concepts were identified through observation of MDTs in clinical and research practice. Following a classic grounded theory methodology, data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. A constant comparative approach was adopted and resulted in the immergence of three sub- core categories; moral abdication, moral hinting and pseudo-compliance. Moral abdication seeks to re-position within an event in order to avoid or deflect the initial obligation to act, it is a strategy used to remove or reduce moral ownership. Moral gauging represents the monitoring of an event with the goal of judging the congruence of personal principles and commitments with that of other practitioners. This strategy is enacted in a bid to seek allies for the support of a given moral position. Pseudo-compliance represents behaviour that hides desired principles and commitments in order to shield them from challenge. This strategy portrays agreement with the dominant position within the MDT, whilst holding a contrary position. It seeks to preserve a reservoir of emotional energy required to maintain a sense of personal integrity. Practitioners who were successful in enacting moral shielding were found to not experience significant emotional distress associated with the phenomenon of moral distress; suggesting that these practitioners had found mechanisms to manage situational binds that threatened their sense of personal integrity.