Critically assess the view that businesses have a moral duty to put their customers first. [40]
A key concept of business ethics is corporate social responsibility (CSR), in which businesses have
responsibility towards all stakeholders, including customers. However, it can be argued that businesses
should put their customers first and have a duty to do so. This idea can be supported through Kant’s
formula of ‘means to an end’, however, this view is outweighed with counters, such as Kant’s formula of
universalizability, CSR as a whole, Friedman’s approach, and lastly the utilitarian view. Therefore, in an
ideal world, businesses do not have a moral duty to put their customers first, but arguably towards the
whole is society, yet realistically their only duty is to make money in the current capitalist society.
The view that businesses have a moral duty to put their customers first is a strong idea and is supported
by Kantian ethics. Immanuel Kant focused heavily on duty in his moral teachings and developed his
formula of the end in itself, means to an end. This idea claims that every rational being exists as “an end in
himself”, thus implying that one should always treat people as ends, never as means only. This can be
applied well to business ethics and supports the view above, as it claims that businesses should focus on
the customers rather than profit gaining, or other stakeholders and shareholders. This idea can be further
supported through the example of the Ford Pinto case, as Henry Ford realised that his line of Ford Pintos
was faulty, with the engine exploding if the car collided with something going over 20mph. he weighed up
the cost of killing people and possibly lawsuits and the cost of recalling all the cars and found that it was
more cost effective to continue producing the Pintos, regardless of the risk to customers. This is a clear
example of how businesses have the moral duty to put their customers first, as Ford clearly were in the
wrong for this decision, and he shouldn’t have treated customers as a means to an end i.e., profit gains,
but instead considered the welfare of buyers. Through the Ford Pinto example and Kant’s formulation of
the end in itself, it is evident that businesses have a moral duty to put their customers first, in order to
reduce harm and treat people as people. However, questions can be raised to this idea and can be found
from Kant’s example of the honest shopkeeper. Kant uses the example of a shopkeeper being honest to
his customers for duty’s sake, rather than being honest to appeal to customers and increase the business’
popularity. This seems moral and aligns with Kant’s ideas, however, can businesses truly put customers
first for duty’s sake, or would they subconsciously be focusing on profit maximisation, derived from the
pleasant customer service. Through this issue, it could be observed that even if the Pintos were recalled,
this might not have been to protect the customers, but rather to avoid bad PR and to maintain profits,
therefore it can be inferred that in a capitalist society, it is very hard to put the customer first for duty’s
sake, as most firms will have profit gains at the back of their mind, no matter how much they care about
the customers. Through this, the view that businesses have a moral duty to put the customers first can be
supported, but clear issues arise when considering it businesses are doing this solely for the customers, or
if they have ulterior motives.
On the other hand, when applying Kantian ethics to business ethics, it may be inferred that businesses
have a moral duty towards stakeholders, shareholders, and the environment, as well as customers, due to
the formula of universalizability. This law was developed by Kant and claims that we should “act only
according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law”,
meaning that we should only do something it everyone else could and would, such as giving to charity.
Through this law, it can be inferred that businesses don’t have a moral duty to put their customers first, as
then the environment and other groups such as shareholders, workers, suppliers, future generations, and
the global community would suffer due to neglection. Why should the customers be put first and not
these other groups, as businesses have a moral duty towards all of them, not in a hierarchical order? This
is the idea of CSR and is a key issue here. Businesses arguably have a moral duty to strive towards CSR,
which is the responsibility that businesses have to others e.g., stakeholders, shareholders, the
environment, society, employers, employees, and more. Upon focusing on CSR in general as opposed to
businesses simply putting the customer first, the business can see a boost in employee morale, an
increase in customer retention and loyalty, it can stand out from competitors, and reinforce positive brand
recognition. Of course, businesses have a moral duty to have CSR, as opposed to focusing on the
outcomes, but we can see through this that it makes logical sense for businesses to not focus on one
single element of business i.e., the customers, and take a more holistic approach to responsibility.
