- 上一篇：带式输送机技术英文文献和中文翻译
- 下一篇：大型高压泵列车英文文献和翻译
ality is an integral characteristic of CSR (Clarkson 1991: 349) and of such
fundamental importance that it must be included and clearly depicted in any
proposed CSR model. Carroll's use of dotted lines separating the domains does
not fully capture the non-mutually exclusive nature of the domains, nor does it
denote two of the critical tension points among them, the tension between the eco-
nomic and ethical and the economic and philanthropic domains (Carroll 1993: 34).
Use of a Separate Philanthropic Category
In addition to the possible misunderstandings inherent in using a pyramid,
Carroll's use of a "philanthropic/discretionary" category can be confusing and
may be seen as unnecessary to some. Carroll acknowledges that it may in fact
be "inaccurate" (1979: 500) or a "misnomer" (1993: 33) to call such activities
"responsibilities" due to their voluntary or discretionary nature. Others agree
that philanthropy cannot be considered a responsibility in itself (L'Etang 1994;
Stone 1975). In this respect, philanthropy is not considered a duty or social responsibility of business ti.e. an expected act based on what Kantians might
refer to as a 4iperfect" duty) but something that is merely desirable or beyond
what duty requires (e.g., a supererogatory act based on what Kantians might
refer to as an "imperfect" duty)*
The new model proposes that such a categoryS if it were believed to exist7
would better be subsumed under ethical and/or economic responsibilities. The
central reasons for this placement are that, first it is sometimes difficult to dis-
tinguish between "philanthropic' and "ethical activities on both a theoretical
and practical level7 and second, philanthropic activities might simply be based
on economic interests.
At the theoretical levels the ethical principle of utilitarianism can be used to
justify many philanthropic activities, including all of the examples Carroll (1993:
33) refers to (e.g. giving to charity, adopting a school, providing a day-care cen-
ter for working mothers, conducting in-house programs for drug abusers). For
example, Shaw and Post (1993: 746) argue that rule utilitarianism supports cor-
porate philanthropy as a means of complying with a 4;rule" which maximizes the
public welfare.
In this vein, it could be argued that philanthropic activities are simply an ex-
ample of an ethically motivated activity. One formulation of Kant's categorical
imperative is that one should treat people as an end in themselves and not merely
as a means to an end. If a company provides a day-care center for working moth-
ers or conducts in-house programs for drug abusers, is it not possible that they are