Ethical Pluralism and Multi-cultural Challenges: Enhancing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) with Inclusive Values

Abstract

The aim of this management ethics study is twofold. The first is to investigate which ethical position is most suitable and morally defensible in a multicultural context characterised by divergent or even incompatible moral outlooks. Three ethical theories (universalism, relativism, and pluralism) are critically analysed from a theoretical perspective. It is argued that ethical pluralism is the most defensible approach for explaining our moral experiences and resolving conflicts stemmed from heterogeneity of moral visions. The second aim builds on this pluralist framework to discuss and evaluate corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG). The conceptual evolution of CSR, as well as the controversies on the nature of corporation and its responsibilities, are introduced. Two models of corporation (shareholder-oriented and stakeholder-oriented) are discussed. Given the existence of plural and incommensurable values, it is argued that the stakeholder-oriented model of corporation is morally preferable. Against this background, ESG reporting, a practice which aims at incorporating environmental and social concerns into business operation and decision making, shall be discussed. It is argued that a more inclusive approach is required to make corporation socially responsible.

The thesis is divided into seven sections. Chapter 1 introduces the objectives and outline of the study. In Chapter 2, deductive and inductive approaches of ethical universalism are examined. It is argued that both approaches face serious difficulties in establishing the foundation for a global ethics. Ethical relativism is discussed and evaluated in Chapter 3. Although its emphasis on cultural identity and local context is insightful, relativism, at least in its extreme form, also fails to offer useful guidelines to deal with moral disputes, especially those resulted from cultural differences. In Chapter 4, ethical pluralism is introduced. It is argued that a pluralistic position is superior to the other two approaches since value pluralism affirms certain universal values as the threshold of good life but allows flexibility in application. ‘The problem of value pluralism’, which involves the practical difficulties in decision making and moral assessment without a supreme good or value, is also addressed. In Chapter 5, CSR is employed as an illustration to show that a plurality of value is evident and, consequently, corporate decision making should not be based on any singular supreme value only. Against this background, resolutions of CSR conflicts are introduced and discussed in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, a relevant discussion on ESG reporting is presented and a more pluralistic approach for reporting non-financial information should be adopted by corporations. Chapter 8 concludes the study, summarising key findings and implications.

Date of Award	9 Jan 2026
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	City University of Hong Kong
Supervisor	Ho Mun CHAN (Supervisor) & Che Lan Linda LI (Supervisor)