Corporate Social Responsibility

Obligation to the Nation

The personal, moral, social, and psychological reasons can demonstrate that private property is indeed a necessary institution, and that it is basic to normal human lifestyle. However, it must be said that these same reasons also point out that private ownership is a means and not an end in itself, that it is a natural personal right with corresponding social obligations (Maximiano, 1991).

As means to an end, private ownership is subservient to the higher needs of society, better known as common good or public welfare. It was the 13th-century Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas who formulated the fundamental logic behind the subservience of private ownership to common good in his work on "Common Good" in Summa Theologica (1947).

What are the reasons why the right to private property is a conditional right?

John Meisel (2005) complains about the curse and potential power of greed. According to him, one may not exercise his right to private property if, by exercising this specific entitlement, he does something detrimental to the common good and public welfare. Hence, private ownership is not what most people think it is, for it is definitely not an absolute right. It is a conditional right.

It is conditional because the natural right to private ownership is not an absolute right. The right to personal and private property has truly evolved, as it has become a necessity to the contemporary social life. Exceptions to this right, however, are possible if demanded by a higher law like, for instance, when common good and public interest demand it. By virtue of the inherent prioritization of rights, property right is not unlimited. The right to private property is not an absolute right, because it is a right conditioned by two factors: (1) our personal needs and (2) higher needs of the community.

Is our property right conditioned by our personal needs?

The rationale behind this is simple: It is natural for us to fulfill our basic needs. We are not, and no one is, justified to possess, to own, to keep for our exclusive use what we do not need, particularly when we know in conscience there are many others who are lacking the basic necessities in life. Greed--even under the pretext of property right--can never be justified at any time. We have the right to own, but not to own what is profligate, extravagant, and excessive. Although there is no exact measurement of extravagance, there is a way to know what luxury items are, like jewels, expensive liquor, and the so-called "sin" items.

This author estimates that a personal wealth of over twenty million dollars for anyone on earth is extravagant, for anyone who has a steady job and owns a huge mansion. Nobody, just nobody, needs three luxury cars (Ford Expedition, Jaguar, and Volvo), several condo units in Makati, Fort Bonifacio, and Ortigas, and a private vacation house in Boracay, to show off one's affluence, when in fact nearly three billion human beings live on less than two dollars a day (Maximiano, 2003).

It looks scandalous that the salaries of the chief executive officer (a.k.a. executive compensation) rise an average of more than10 percent every year while the rank and file subsists in the minimum wage. An outsized executive compensation violates anyone's basic sense of fairness. It is bothering to know that executives make so much money only because they have so much economic power (Abowd, J. A. & Kaplan, D. S., 1999).

It is true that no one is ordered to distribute to others what is required for his own necessities and for those of his household. No one is forced to give away what is reasonably required to keep up his condition in life. Aquinas (1947) insisted that "no one ought to live unbecomingly." But when necessity has been supplied and one's position fairly considered, it is a duty to give the indigent and those who have less in life out of the surplus of one's private property. In short, no one is justified to possess, to own, to keep for his exclusive use what he does not need.

Are our property right conditioned by the needs of the community?

The needs of the community condition the right to private property, which means that common good or the public welfare should prevail over private ownership. An example is the decision made by the banking authority in Zurich, where the Swiss Banking Commission agreed to waive the secrecy laws to permit the investigation of Switzerland's dealings with the Nazis and the missing Jewish assets from the time of the Holocaust. This decision is a "spectacular breakthrough," a lifting of the once unassailable property right, in an effort to recover the stolen Jewish wealth during the World War II, which was transferred by the Nazis to their Swiss bank accounts (Delegates, 1997).

This particular case is an astounding example of the private good's subordination to the common good, which is definitely a higher ethical principle and social responsibility. The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, cannot do away with the "creative original intention," which means that God intends to give the goods and resources of the earth to every person.

What do you mean by the universal destiny of the resources and goods of the earth?

Reality check leads us to a sad conclusion that a humongous percentage of the goods of the earth is owned by a tiny percentage of the population (the rich) and the remaining tiny percentage of the goods of the earth is subdivided among the remaining population (the poor), while the poorest among the poor owns absolutely nothing.

In the epicenter of our debate is a fundamental basis for socially responsible decision and business practice. This fundamental principle, the universal destination of the earthly goods, remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise. The universal destination of goods means that all the material goods of the earth are not meant to be owned and used by a powerful few individuals but, on the contrary, that all residents of this planet can equally own and use these goods in accordance with God's original plan.

Is the world is given to all?

A rich man's gift to the poor, in the first place, does not belong to the rich. The gift is actually the poor's property. This is what the venerable leader of the third century was saying. St. Ambrose