Business ethics, social responsibility and sustainability
Ethics, CSR and sustainability questions are essay-shaped: you are given a decision - relocate production, source cheaper inputs, launch a green product - and asked to evaluate it for stakeholders and for sustainability. Marks come from structure: interests, criteria, trade-offs, recommendation.
Core concepts
- CSR is the voluntary integration of social and environmental concerns into strategy and operations, beyond legal minimums. Carroll's pyramid orders responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic.
- Stakeholders: shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the local community, the environment, public administrations. A stakeholder map weighs power and interest.
- Triple bottom line: economic, social and environmental results. ESG criteria (environmental, social, governance) are how investors operationalise the same idea.
- Tools: sustainability report under GRI standards, UN Sustainable Development Goals, circular economy (design out waste, keep materials in use), environmental management systems (ISO 14001, EMAS), carbon footprint, codes of conduct, whistleblowing channels.
- Greenwashing is a sustainability claim not matched by measurable practice.
Worked example
A textile firm can move dyeing to a country with weaker environmental rules and cut costs by 18%. Shareholders gain margin; current-plant employees lose jobs; customers gain lower prices but face reputational risk if pollution is exposed; the local community loses water quality. Triple bottom line: economic positive in the short term, social negative, environmental negative. Legally permitted, but inconsistent with the firm's published code of conduct. Recommendation: reject relocation as proposed, invest instead in water treatment at a quantified cost below 18%, and report the outcome - protecting the licence to operate, which is itself an economic asset.
Traps
- Treating philanthropy or sponsorship as the whole of CSR.
- Listing stakeholders without saying what each gains or loses.
- Confusing legality with ethics: "it is legal" does not settle the question.
- Presenting sustainability only as a cost, ignoring risk, brand and efficiency effects.
- Using green adjectives without any measurable indicator.