Socially Responsible Business Research Articles

Bioethics-CSR Divide

Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash ABSTRACT Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint of irresponsible actions by individuals and organizations. However, these fields of knowledge are seldom explored together. This article attempts to explain the motives behind the gap between bioethics and CSR, while arguing that their shared agenda – combined with their contrasting principles and goals – suggests there is potential for fruitful dialogue that enables the actualization of bioethical agendas and provides a direction for CSR in health-related organizations. INTRODUCTION Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seem to be cut from the same cloth: the concern for human rights and the response to scandal. Both are tools for the governance of organizations, shaping how power flows and decisions are made. They have taken the shape of specialized committees, means of stakeholder inclusion at deliberative forums, compliance programs, and internal processes. It should be surprising, then, that these two fields of study and practice have developed separately, only recently re-approaching one another. There have been displays of this reconnection both in academic and corporate spaces, with bioethics surfacing as part of the discourse of CSR and compliance initiatives. However, this is still a relatively timid effort. Even though the bioethics-CSR divide presents mostly reasonable explanations for this difficult relationship between the disciplines, current proposals suggest there is much to be gained from a stronger relationship between them. This article explores the common history of bioethics and corporate social responsibility and identifies their common features and differences. It then explores the dispute of jurisdictions due to professional and academic “pedigree” and incompatibilities in the ideological and teleological spheres as possible causes for the divide. The discussion turns to paths for improving the reflexivity of both disciplines and, therefore, their openness to mutual contributions. I.     Cut Out of the Same Cloth The earliest record of the word “bioethics” dates back to 1927 as a term that designates one’s ethical responsibility toward not only human beings but other lifeforms as well, such as animals and plants.[1] Based on Kantian ethics, the term was coined as a response to the great prestige science held at its time. It remained largely forgotten until the 1970s, when it resurfaced in the United States[2] as the body of knowledge that can be employed to ensure the responsible pursuit and application of science. The resurgence was prompted by a response to widespread irresponsible attitudes toward science and grounded in a pluralistic perspective of morality.[3] In the second half of the twentieth century, states and the international community assumed the duty to protect human rights, and bioethics became a venue for discussing rights.[4] There is both a semantic gap and a contextual gap between these two iterations, with some of them already being established. Corporate social responsibility is often attributed to the Berle-Dodd debate. The discussion was characterized by diverging views on the extent of the responsibility of managers.[5] It was later settled as positioning the company, especially the large firm, as an entity whose existence is fomented by the law due to its service to the community. The concept has evolved with time, departing from a largely philanthropic meaning to being ingrained in nearly every aspect of a company’s operations. This includes investments, entrepreneurship models, and its relationship to stakeholders, leading to an increasing operationalization and globalization of the concept.[6] At first sight, these two movements seem to stem from different contexts. Despite the difference, it is also possible to tell a joint history of bioethics and CSR, with their point of contact being a generalized concern with technological and social changes that surfaced in the sixties. The publishing of Silent Spring in 1962 by Rachel Carson exemplifies this growing concern over the sustainability of the ruling economic growth model of its time by commenting on the effects of large-scale agriculture and the use of pesticides in the population of bees, one of the most relevant pollinators of crops consumed by humans. The book influenced both the author responsible for the coining bioethics in the 1971[7] and early CSR literature.[8] By initiating a debate over the sustainability of economic models, the environmentalist discourse became a precursor to vigorous social movements for civil rights. Bioethics was part of the trend as it would be carried forward by movements such as feminism and the patients’ rights movement.[9] Bioethics would gradually move from a public discourse centered around the responsible use of science and technology to academic and government spaces.[10]  This evolution led to an increasing emphasis on intellectual rigor and governance. The transformation would unravel the effort to take effective action against scandal and turn bioethical discourse into governance practices,[11] such as bioethics and research ethics committees. The publication of the Belmont Report[12] in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, as well as the creation of committees such as the “God Committee,”[13] which aimed to develop and enforce criteria for allocating scarce dialysis machines, exemplify this shift. On the side of CSR, this period represents, at first, a stronger pact between businesses and society due to more stringent environmental and consumer regulations. But afterward, a joint trend emerged: on one side, the deregulation within the context of neoliberalism, and on the other, the operationalization of corporate social responsibility as a response to societal concerns.[14] The 1990s saw both opportunities and crises that derived from globalization. In the political arena, the end of the Cold War led to an impasse in the discourse concerning human rights,[15] which previously had been split between the defense of civil and political rights on one side and social rights on the other. But at the same time, agendas that were previously restricted territorially became institutionalized on a global scale.[16] Events such as the European Environment Agency (1990), ECO92 in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and the UN Global Compact (2000) are some examples of the globalization of CSR. This process of institutionalization would also mirror a crisis in CSR, given that its voluntarist core would be deemed lackluster due to the lack of corporate accountability. The business and human rights movement sought to produce new binding instruments – usually state-based – that could ensure that businesses would comply with their duties to respect human rights.[17] This rule-creation process has been called legalization: a shift from business standards to norms of varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation.[18] Bioethics has also experienced its own renewed identity in the developed world, perhaps because of its reconnection to public and global health. Global health has been the object of study for centuries under other labels (e.g., the use of tropical medicine to assist colonial expeditions) but it resurfaced in the political agenda recently after the pandemics of AIDS and respiratory diseases.[19] Bioethics has been accused from the inside of ignoring matters beyond the patient-provider relationship,[20] including those related to public health and/or governance. Meanwhile, scholars claimed the need to expand the discourse to global health.[21] In some countries, bioethics developed a tight relationship with public health, such as Brazil,[22] due to its connections to the sanitary reform movement. The United Kingdom has also followed a different path, prioritizing governance practices and the use of pre-established institutions in a more community-oriented approach.[23] The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Rights followed this shift toward a social dimension of bioethics despite being subject to criticism due to its human rights-based approach in a field characterized by ethical pluralism.[24] This scenario suggests bioethics and CSR have developed out of similar concerns: the protection of human rights and concerns over responsible development – be it economic, scientific, or technological. However, the interaction between these two fields (as well as business and human rights) is fairly recent both in academic and business settings. There might be a divide between these fields and their practitioners. II.     A Tale of Jurisdictions It can be argued that CSR and business and human rights did not face jurisdictional disputes. These fields owe much of their longevity to their roots in institutional economics, whose debates, such as the Berle-Dodd debate, were based on interdisciplinary dialogue and the abandonment of sectorial divisions and public-private dichotomies.[25] There was opposition to this approach to the role of companies in society that could have implications for CSR’s interdisciplinarity, such as the understanding that corporate activities should be restricted to profit maximization.[26] Yet, those were often oppositions to CSR or business and human rights themselves. The birth of bioethics in the USA can be traced back to jurisdictional disputes over the realm of medicine and life sciences.[27] The dispute unfolded between representatives of science and those of “society’s conscience,” whether through bioethics as a form of applied ethics or other areas of knowledge such as theology.[28] Amid the civil rights movements, outsiders would gain access to the social sphere of medicine, simultaneously bringing it to the public debate and emphasizing the decision-making process as the center of the medical practice.[29] This led to the emergence of the bioethicist as a professional whose background in philosophy, theology, or social sciences deemed the bioethicist qualified to speak on behalf of the social consciousness. In other locations this interaction would play out differently: whether as an investigation of philosophically implied issues, a communal effort with professional institutions to enhance decision-making capability, or a concern with access to healthcare.[30] In these situations, the emergence and regulation of bioethics would be way less rooted in disputes over jurisdictions. This contentious birth of bioethics would have several implications, most related to where the bioethicist belongs. After the civil rights movements subsided, bioethics moved from the public sphere into an ivory tower: intellectual, secular, and isolated. The scope of the bioethicist would be increasingly limited to the spaces of academia and hospitals, where it would be narrowed to the clinical environment.[31] This would become the comfort zone of professionals, much to the detriment of social concerns. This scenario was convenient to social groups that sought to affirm their protagonism in the public arena, with conservative and progressive movements alike questioning the legitimacy of bioethics in the political discourse.[32] Even within the walls of hospitals and clinics, bioethics would not be excused from criticism. Afterall, the work of bioethicists is often unregulated and lacks the same kind of accountability that doctors and lawyers have. Then, is there a role to be played by the bioethicist? This trend of isolation leads to a plausible explanation for why bioethics did not develop an extensive collaboration with corporate social responsibility nor with business and human rights. Despite stemming from similar agendas, bioethics’ orientation towards the private sphere resulted in a limited perspective on the broader implications of its decisions. This existential crisis of the discipline led to a re-evaluation of its nature and purpose. Its relevance has been reaffirmed due to the epistemic advantage of philosophy when engaging normative issues. Proper training enables the bioethicist to avoid falling into traps of subjectivism or moralism, which are unable to address the complexity of decision-making. It also prevents the naïve seduction of “scientifying” ethics.[33] This is the starting point of a multitude of roles that can be attributed to the bioethicists. There are three main responsibilities that fall under bioethics: (i) activism in biopolicy, through the engagement in the creation of laws, jurisprudence, and public policies; (ii) the exercise of bioethics expertise, be it through the specialized knowledge in philosophical thought, its ability to juggle multiple languages related to various disciplines related to bioethics, or its capacity to combat and avoid misinformation and epistemic distortion; (iii) and, intellectual exchange, by exercising awareness that it is necessary to work with specialists from different backgrounds to achieve its goals.[34] All of those suggest the need for bioethics to improve its dialogue with CSR and business and human rights. Both CSR and business and human rights have been the arena of political disputes over the role of regulations and corporations themselves, and the absence of strong stances by bioethicists risks deepening their exclusion from the public arena. Furthermore, CSR and business and human rights are at the forefront of contemporary issues, such as the limits to sustainable development and appropriate governance structures, which may lead to the acceptance of values and accomplishment of goals cherished by bioethics. However, a gap in identifying the role and nature of bioethics and CSR may also be an obstacle for bridging the chasm between bioethics and CSR. III.     From Substance to Form: Philosophical Groundings of CSR and Bioethics As mentioned earlier, CSR is, to some extent, a byproduct of institutionalism. Institutional economics has a philosophical footprint in the pragmatic tradition[35], which has implications for the purpose of the movement and the typical course of the debate. The effectiveness of regulatory measures is often at the center of CSR and business and human rights debates: whatever the regulatory proposal may be, compliance, feasibility, and effectiveness are the kernel of the discussion. The axiological foundation is often the protection of human rights. But discussions over the prioritization of some human rights over others or the specific characteristics of the community to be protected are often neglected.[36] It is worth reinforcing that adopting human rights as an ethical standard presents problems to bioethics, given its grounding in the recognition of ethical pluralism. Pragmatism adopts an anti-essentialist view, arguing that concepts derive from their practical consequences instead of aprioristic elements.[37] Therefore, truth is transitory and context dependent. Pragmatism embraces a form of moral relativism and may find itself in an impasse in the context of political economy and policymaking due to its tendency to be stuck between the preservation of the status quo and the defense of a technocratic perspective, which sees technical and scientific progress as the solution to many of society’s issues.[38] These characteristics mean that bioethics has a complicated relationship with pragmatism. Indeed, there are connections between pragmatism and the bioethics discourse. Both can be traced back to American naturalism.[39] The early effort in bioethics to make it ecumenical, thus building on a common but transitory morality,[40] sounds pragmatic. Therefore, scholars suggest that bioethics should rely on pragmatism's perks and characteristics to develop solutions to new ethical challenges that emerge from scientific and technological progress. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a problem for bioethics when it bleeds from a metaethical level into the subject matters themselves. After all, the whole point of bioethics is either descriptive, where it seeks to understand social values and conditions that pertain to its scope, or normative, where it investigates what should be done in matters related to medicine, life sciences, and social and technological change. It is a “knowledge of how to use knowledge.” Therefore, bioethics is a product of disillusionment regarding science and technology's capacity to produce exclusively good consequences. It was built around an opposition to ethical relativism—even though the field is aware of the particularity of its answers. This is true not only for the scholarly arena, where the objective is to produce ethically sound answers but also for bioethics governance, where relativism may induce decision paralysis or open the way to points of view disconnected from facts.[41] But there might be a point for more pragmatic bioethics. Bioethics has become an increasingly public enterprise which seeks political persuasion and impact in the regulatory sphere. When bioethics is seen as an enterprise, achieving social transformation is its main goal. In this sense, pragmatism can provide critical tools to identify idiosyncrasies in regulation that prove change is needed. An example of how this may play out is the abortion rights movement in the global south.[42] Despite barriers to accessing safe abortion, this movement came up with creative solutions and a public discourse focused on the consequences of its criminalization rather than its moral aspects. IV.     Bridging the Divide: Connections Between Bioethics and CSR There have been attempts to bring bioethics and CSR closer to each other. Corporate responsibility can be a supplementary strategy for achieving the goals of bioethics. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), an institution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), highlights the concept that social responsibility regarding health falls under the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). It is a means of achieving good health (complete physical, mental, and social well-being) through social development.[43] Thus, it plays out as a condition for actualizing the goals dear to bioethics and general ethical standards,[44] such as autonomy and awareness of the social consequences of an organization’s governance. On this same note, CSR is a complementary resource for healthcare organizations that already have embedded bioethics into their operations[45] as a way of looking at the social impact of their practices. And bioethics is also an asset of CSR. Bioethics can inform the necessary conditions for healthcare institutions achieving a positive social impact. When taken at face value, bioethics may offer guidelines for ethical and socially responsible behavior in the industry, instructing how these should play out in a particular context such as in research, and access to health.[46] When considering the relevance of rewarding mechanisms,[47] bioethics can guide the establishment of certification measures to restore lost trust in the pharmaceutical sector.[48] Furthermore, recognizing that the choice is a more complex matter than the maximization of utility can offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations dealing with existentially relevant choices understand their stakeholders.[49] However, all of those proposals might come with the challenge of proving that something can be gained from its addition to self-regulatory practices[50] within the scope of a dominant rights-based approach to CSR and global and corporate law. It is evident that there is room for further collaboration between bioethics and CSR. Embedding either into the corporate governance practices of an organization tends to be connected to promoting the other.[51] While there are some incompatibilities, organizations should try to overcome them and take advantage of the synergies and similarities. CONCLUSION Despite their common interests and shared history, bioethics and corporate social responsibility have not produced a mature exchange. Jurisdictional issues and foundational incompatibilities have prevented a joint effort to establish a model of social responsibility that addresses issues particular to the healthcare sector. Both bioethics and CSR should acknowledge that they hold two different pieces of a cognitive competence necessary for that task: CSR offers experience on how to turn corporate ethical obligations operational, while bioethics provides access to the prevailing practical and philosophical problem-solving tools in healthcare that were born out of social movements. Reconciling bioethics and CSR calls for greater efforts to comprehend and incorporate the social knowledge developed by each field reflexively[52] while understanding their insights are relevant to achieving some common goals. - [1]. Fritz Jahr, “Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Beziehungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze,” Kosmos - Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1927): 2–4. [2]. Van Rensselaer Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14, no. 1 (1970): 127–53, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015. [3]. Maximilian Schochow and Jonas Grygier, eds., “Tagungsbericht: 1927 – Die Geburt der Bioethik in Halle (Saale) durch den protestantischen Theologen Fritz Jahr (1895-1953),” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 21 (June 11, 2014): 325–29, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02807-2. [4] George J. Annas, American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). [5] Philip L. Cochran, “The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Horizons 50, no. 6 (November 2007): 449–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004. p. 449. [6] Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, and Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 4, no. 1 (December 2019): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y. [7] Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival.” p. 129. [8] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” p. 4. [9] Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). p. 368-371. [10] Jonsen. p. 372. [11] Jonathan Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice,” Health Care Analysis 24, no. 1 (March 2016): 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2. [12]. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 18, 1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf. [13] Shana Alexander, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” in LIFE, by Time Inc, 19th ed., vol. 53 (Nova Iorque: Time Inc, 1962), 102–25. [14]. Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [15]. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Por Uma Concepção Multicultural Dos Direitos Humanos,” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 48 (June 1997): 11–32. [16] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [17]. Anita Ramasastry, “Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953. [18]. Kenneth W Abbott et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Legalization and World Politics, 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–4019. [19]. Jens Holst, “Global Health – Emergence, Hegemonic Trends and Biomedical Reductionism,” Globalization and Health 16, no. 1 (December 2020): 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00573-4. [20]. Albert R. Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.21. [21]. Solomon R Benatar, Abdallah S Daar, and Peter A Singer, “Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 7 (July 26, 2005): e143, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020143. [22]. Márcio Fabri dos Anjos and José Eduardo de Siqueira, eds., Bioética No Brasil: Tendências e Perspectivas, 1st ed., Bio & Ética (São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Bioética, 2007). [23]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8-9. [24]. Aline Albuquerque S. de Oliveira, “A Declaração Universal Sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos e a Análise de Sua Repercussão Teórica Na Comunidade Bioética,” Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 1, no. 1 (2010): 124–39. [25] John R. Commons, “Law and Economics,” The Yale Law Journal 34, no. 4 (February 1925): 371, https://doi.org/10.2307/788562; Robert L. Hale, “Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 43, no. 5 (July 1943): 603–28, https://doi.org/10.2307/1117229; Karl N. Llewellyn, “The Effect of Legal Institutions Upon Economics,” The American Economic Review 15, no. 4 (1925): 665–83; Carlos Portugal Gouvêa, Análise Dos Custos Da Desigualdade: Efeitos Institucionais Do Círculo Vicioso de Desigualdade e Corrupção, 1st ed. (São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2021). p. 84-94. [26] Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html. [27] Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8. [28] John Hyde Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). [29] David J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, 2nd pbk. ed, Social Institutions and Social Change (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). p. 3. [30] Volnei Garrafa, Thiago Rocha Da Cunha, and Camilo Manchola, “Access to Healthcare: A Central Question within Brazilian Bioethics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27, no. 3 (July 2018): 431–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000810. [31] Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics.” [32] Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics. p. 75-79, 94-96. [33] Julian Savulescu, “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress,” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284. [34] Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere, “Can Bioethics Be an Honest Way of Making a Living? A Reflection on Normativity, Governance and Expertise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3 (March 2021): 159–63, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105954; Jackie Leach Scully, “The Responsibilities of the Engaged Bioethicist: Scholar, Advocate, Activist,” Bioethics 33, no. 8 (October 2019): 872–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12659. [35] Philip Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, Evolutionary Economics I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, 21, no. 3 (September 1987): 1001–38. [36] David Kennedy, “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 101–25. [37] Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6 (August 1980): 717+719-738. [38]. Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics.” [39]. Glenn McGee, ed., Pragmatic Bioethics, 2nd ed, Basic Bioethics (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003). [40]. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). [41]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” [42]. Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino, “What Can Be Learned from the Global South on Abortion and How We Can Learn?,” Developing World Bioethics 23, no. 1 (March 2023): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12385. [43]. International Bioethics Committee, On Social Responsibility and Health Report (Paris: Unesco, 2010). [44]. Cristina Brandão et al., “Social Responsibility: A New Paradigm of Hospital Governance?,” Health Care Analysis 21, no. 4 (December 2013): 390–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0206-3. [45] Intissar Haddiya, Taha Janfi, and Mohamed Guedira, “Application of the Concepts of Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics to Healthcare Organizations,” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (August 2020): 1029–33, https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258984. [46]The Biopharmaceutical Bioethics Working Group et al., “Considerations for Applying Bioethics Norms to a Biopharmaceutical Industry Setting,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 31–41, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00600-y. [47] Anne Van Aaken and Betül Simsek, “Rewarding in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 115, no. 2 (April 2021): 195–241, https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.2. [48] Jennifer E. Miller, “Bioethical Accreditation or Rating Needed to Restore Trust in Pharma,” Nature Medicine 19, no. 3 (March 2013): 261–261, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0313-261. [49] John Hardwig, “The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?,” Journal of Business Ethics 91, no. 3 (February 2010): 329–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0086-0. [50] Stefan van Uden, “Taking up Bioethical Responsibility?: The Role of Global Bioethics in the Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Corporations Operating in Developing Countries” (Mestrado, Coimbra, Coimbra University, 2012). [51] María Peana Chivite and Sara Gallardo, “La bioética en la empresa: el caso particular de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa,” Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, no. 13 (January 12, 2015): 55–81, https://doi.org/10.17345/rio13.55-81. [52] Teubner argues that social spheres tend to develop solutions autonomously, but one sphere interfering in the way other spheres govern themselves tends to result in ineffective regulation and demobilization of their autonomous rule-making capabilities. These spheres should develop “reflexion mechanisms” that enable the exchange of their social knowledge and provide effective, non-damaging solutions to social issues. See Gunther Teubner, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17, no. 2 (1983): 239–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.

Organizational development strategy and social responsibility of business

The article examines the relationship between the social responsibility of business and the development strategy of the organization in the modern economic situation. In current conditions, one of the pressing issues of doing business is the question of its social responsibility. Social responsibility of business has many definitions, but at its core it is the organization’s voluntary contribution to the development of society in all its spheres.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Analysing Its Impact on Customer Loyalty in the Textile Industry of Maharashtra

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is gaining importance for corporations and is attracting a lot of attention. A company can be held socially responsible to its consumers, stockholders, and the general population by implementing a corporate policy of self-policing called social responsibility in business (CSR). By fulfilling their social obligations, businesses can become aware of how their actions affect society’s financial, social, and environmental conditions. Efficient corporate social responsibility practices aid businesses in improving their reputations among consumers, who are then motivated to support and show loyalty to the business. The company’s social responsibility will increase trust, which will boost customer loyalty. Huge corporations participate in corporate social responsibility mostly because it is viewed as a strategic edge and offers advantages to businesses, including enhancing their image, lowering marketing and operating expenses, and attracting investors and talents. Therefore, corporate social responsibility offers businesses several benefits, including boosting brand loyalty, trust, and positive sentiments about a company as well as fighting off the unfavourable press. By the support of managers and supervisors of the textile industry in Maharashtra, the recent study’s aspiration is to check and assess numerous aspects of corporate sustainability’s in customer loyalty. The major elements of corporate social responsibility enclosed beneath the study take in environmental responsibility, ethical responsibility, philanthropic responsibility, economic responsibility, and legal responsibility. Since customer loyalty is a significant determinant of corporate success, elements that foster loyalty are of considerable interest to businesses. All of this demonstrates the worth and necessitates for thorough study in the area of corporate social responsibilities impacting customer loyalty. This study intends to analyse the control of business social responsibilities on consumer loyalty in the textile industry of Maharashtra.

Trends and Focuses for ESG Investment Support: A Cross Country Comparative Analysis

Currently, the modern society faces a measure of challenges, connected with the lack of balance between the economic and social development issue. This has caused the growing recognition of sustainable and responsible practices within the financial decisions making process, providing a measure of transformations of both financial and business landscape, contributing to a more equitable and environmentally conscious society. The modern researches in finance are significantly influenced by the increasing demand for ESG, the strengthening of ESG principles implementation in wealth and assets management. According to PwC researches, the ESG-oriented assets under management market in Europe is already about 172 % in compartment with 2021 year, the forecasted increase till 2026 year will be nearly 50 % comparing to the current volume. Thereby, there is an urgent need to summarize the theoretical descriptions of ESG investing along with the current trends of particular ESG components transformation along with the considering analytical research on trends and focuses for ESG investing’s support. The current research problem lays in the highlighting the functionality of ESG-oriented activity and its investment attractiveness trough the overview of theoretical definitions of ESG, comparing with the Trends and focuses for ESG investing’s support within the representative sampling on countries from the World Bank’s databases. The study is focused on the detailed analysis of separate indicators within a group of ten different countries. “Agricultural land”, “Electricity production from coal sources” and “CO2 emissions” indicators are analyzed within the environmental component. The social component of ESG is represented by the “Government expenditure on education” and “Individuals using the Internet” indicators. The “Regulatory Quality”, “Rule of Law” and “Voice and Accountability” indicators are considered as a part of governmental component. The chosen countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States of America) represent deferent environment and approaches to ESG management and its investment support. The current research aims to represent the possibility to balance the ESG components, creating synergetic effect in case of their combinations. In particular, the attention is paid to the instruments of monetary and fiscal policy to balance ESG in the COVID-19 time. The elaboration of possible scenarios of ESG’s components balancing is possible in case of implementation of systematic measures to monitor debt sustainability and increase the transparency of banking institutions' balance sheets along with the developing the targeted measures to maintain an adequate level of liquidity and solvency of national economies, and coordination of national strategies and policies 
 Keywords: sustainable development, sustainable finance, ESG investing, social-responsible business 

Social Responsibility in Business

Dynamic environmental changes due to internal and external factors force business people not only to increase profits and employment systems, but also to overcome social problems. The greater power an entrepreneur has, the greater his influence on the quality of life of society, both individually and in society. It even impacts every life in the world. This phenomenon gave rise to statements of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR emphasizes that corporate responsibility does not only apply to economic activities (generating profits for the sustainability of the company), but also social responsibility, including the environment. Social responsibility in business does not only focus on social responsibility that prioritizes humanism, love, concern for religion and morality, but also on the obligations that must be fulfilled by business. To solve social problems. Many things have been done consciously in developing CSR. This means that implementing CSR means investing in the development and continuity of a company, which is seen as a benefit, not a cost. CSR is still a global trend.

ТЕОРЕТИКО-МЕТОДОЛОГІЧНІ ЗАСАДИ ВИВЧЕННЯ СОЦІАЛЬНОГО ПІДПРИЄМНИЦТВА

The article examines the essence and historical development of social entrepreneurship to solve and mitigate social problems, proposes its functions, and outlines the differences between social entrepreneurship and socially responsible business. It is proposed to distinguish the following functions of social entrepreneurship: social function, economic function, innovative function, mobilizing function, and motivational function. The five components of social responsibility of business are summarized: a responsible producer, a responsible employer, a responsible participant in social relations, a responsible participant in economic and political relations with the state, and a responsible business partner, and the essence of each of them is revealed. Several advantages arising from the implementation of social responsibility are emphasized, among them: increasing the reputation of the organization as socially active, increasing the level of public trust in the activities of the organization and its products, increasing the professionalism of the company, and preserving the personnel potential; increase in the level of loyalty of the company's employees; creation of a safe environment for the operation and development of the company; compliance with global standards of business activity; formation of partnership and trusting relations with the authorities, public sector and mass media. The difference between social entrepreneurship and the social responsibility of business is substantiated. It is noted that the social responsibility of business is expressed in the implementation of the main activity of the enterprise, taking into account social and environmental aspects. In contrast, social entrepreneurship's social goal is the basis of its existence. The main goal of socially responsible enterprises is to make a profit, and for social enterprises, it is to solve social problems with the help of the obtained profit. In addition, the percentage of profit spent on social goals within the social responsibility framework can vary within individual decisions or commitments. In contrast, this percentage is clearly defined and fixed in social enterprises.

СОЦІАЛЬНА ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНІСТЬ РЕКЛАМИ ЯК КОМПОНЕНТ СОЦІАЛЬНО-ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНОГО МАРКЕТИНГУ

Manipulative advertising technologies, through the formation of pseudo-needs, become a powerful factor in stimulating demand, stratifying society into subjectively meaningful communities based on the criterion of access to prestigious brands, imitation of life strategies, manner and style of behavior of advertising characters. With the help of advertising, certain standards and life priorities are imposed, a new lifestyle and standards of behavior are formed, which leads to a change in the value-normative component of culture. A frugal attitude to resources is changing to a consumerist lifestyle, which poses the task of socially responsible marketing to take into account the concept of sustainable development, the formation of ethical consumption as a social phenomenon based on the type of consumer behavior and is a response to the growing concern of the world community about environmental problems, balanced, non-destructive and inexhaustible use of natural resources. The stability of social development will be facilitated by propaganda in the field of advertising universal human values and ethical norms of behavior. Socially responsible advertising, as a component of responsible marketing, through the provision of reliable information about goods and services, their compliance with the ethical and cultural values of different cultures, through the formation of a universal system of values and norms of social behavior, can become a powerful factor in a socially responsible approach to the development of business and society , contributing to the realization of the goals of sustainable development, which is on the agenda of today's unstable world. Therefore, the issue of enshrining in the legislation of Ukraine the concept of socially responsible advertising and observing its principles in the activities of advertising companies is urgent. First of all, public organizations should be involved in the social responsibility of business, which will give their assessment of business, including advertising, and give recommendations on whether to display it, change or abandon advertising that is socially dangerous.

Does ESG privilege climate action over social and governance issues? A content analysis of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink’s annual letters

Milton Friedman famously argued that the social responsibility of business is to maximize shareholder wealth. Friedman’s view is challenged by the proponents of corporate social responsibility who suggest that firms should consider the interests of all stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Following the stakeholder approach, BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink has made the case that firms should use the ESG (environmental, social, and governance) metric to evaluate their performance as opposed to short-term profit maximization. Fink employs his annual “Dear CEO” letters as a platform to outline his views on ESG. While these letters focus on all three ESG dimensions, the media tends to portray Fink as a climate advocate. We examined the texts of the ten letters Fink has published since 2012 to assess the extent to which Fink focused on climate issues. We found that Fink emphasized the climate dimension over social and governance dimensions only in two letters (2020 and 2022), which suggests that the thrust of Fink’s letters differs from how the media frames them. Broadly, our paper suggests that norm advocates sometimes cannot fully control how their advocated norm is interpreted and framed. Limiting ESG to climate issues has implications for its business acceptability. Specifically, this framing links business incentives to adopt ESG to the policy salience of climate issues as well as the fortunes of both the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy sector. Second, if businesses face a legitimacy crisis from governance shortfalls or inadequate social performance, ESG will serve as a less effective tool in alleviating stakeholder concerns.

Basics of brand building in the banking industry

This article explores the fundamentals of brand building in the banking industry, emphasizing the increasing importance of brand management in a globalized and competitive market. The study delves into the theoretical and practical aspects of brand formation, drawing on insights from scholars such as K. Keller, D. Aaker, and others. It highlights the role of relationship marketing strategies in cultivating customer loyalty and underscores the significance of employees in brand building, particularly in the retail banking sector.
 The research reveals that service quality is a critical factor influencing customer satisfaction and loyalty, with a specific focus on electronic banking services. It discusses the challenges in building and promoting bank brands, including attracting consumer attention, promoting recall, and creating lasting relationships. The article also addresses the evolving landscape of the banking sector, emphasizing the impact of technology integration and heightened competition.
 Corporate image and reputation emerge as key elements in ensuring sustainable business growth, with a positive image contributing to customer retention and loyalty. The study underscores the importance of factors such as reliability, quality, customer orientation, social responsibility, and ethical business conduct in shaping a bank's corporate reputation. Additionally, the article explores the complex nature of service branding in the financial sector, particularly in retail banking, and the challenges associated with valuation and risk assessment.
 The quality of services, especially in electronic banking, plays a crucial role in customer satisfaction, loyalty, and retention. The article highlights the significance of meeting customer expectations and the role of emotional associations in shaping perceptions of service quality. It discusses the impact of trust on customer behavioral intentions, emphasizing the importance of security and risk considerations in electronic banking services.
 In conclusion, the article provides insights into the multifaceted dynamics of brand building in the banking industry, shedding light on the interconnectedness of service quality, customer satisfaction, and brand loyalty.

Good and Bad Corporate Social Responsibility in Islamic Business Ethics Perspective

Abstract
 This research aims to analyze good and bad corporate social responsibility practices when viewed with Islamic business ethics. The method used is a qualitative method with a grounded theory approach using secondary data sources where the source comes from several examples of company cases in Indonesia which are then reviewed with literature on Islamic business ethics in particular and Islamic economics in general. The results of the study concluded that the application of business social responsibility that is less professional actually has a negative impact on the company itself. One example of violations that occur in the application of corporate social responsibility is the practice of corruption and policies that only provide benefits for certain groups. In Islamic business ethics, the implementation of good corporate social responsibility can refer to the maqasid sharia principle, namely with the aim of protecting religion, soul, mind, property, and lineage

Portuguese Corporate Social Responsibility: Features and Stakeholder Views

Social responsibility has become a key factor in business success, as it can lead to competitive advantages, positive stakeholder relations, and employee satisfaction. This study explores the characteristics of companies that adopt social practices, evaluates innovative social responsibility initiatives in Portuguese companies, and examines the motivations, benefits, and challenges associated with these practices. The study found that most respondents recognize the relevance of social responsibility to company growth, particularly in terms of human capital development. The primary motivations for adopting social practices are to improve employee well-being and satisfaction. The main benefits include proactive positioning in the market, strategic integration of social concerns, and decision-making that aligns with social values. However, challenges such as the absence of direct financial returns, resistance from older workers, resource limitations, and a lack of participation can hinder the implementation of social responsibility initiatives. The article concludes by discussing the study’s limitations and suggesting directions for future research on social responsibility in business.

Ecological awareness of stakeholders as a key determinant of ESG effects in the chain “Green Brand – Corporate Social Responsibility”

Introduction. In the modern world, where environmental issues and sustainable development are gaining increasing attention, the role of environmental awareness becomes critically important. ESG effects (environmental, social, and governance) influence business activities, investment decisions, contribute to sustainable development and social responsibility, and shape a country’s green brand. It is worth noting that stakeholders with a high level of environmental awareness play a crucial role in this process as they can influence decisions aimed at achieving environmental and social responsibility in business. The paper aims is to determine the level of public awareness of ESG effects, the green brand, and corporate social responsibility in the context of achieving sustainable development goals.Research methods. To determine the level of environmental awareness, a survey was conducted involving participants from various sectors and age groups. The survey was created using the Google Forms tool and conducted online.Results. According to the survey results, the level of education has a significant impact on awareness of sustainable development goals. Respondents aged 30 to 59, who are already employed, showed a greater interest in sustainable development, indicating the importance of practical experience and participation in the business environment. Furthermore, increasing the level of education contributes to reducing indifference towards sustainable development issues, and education in higher educational institutions plays a crucial role in shaping competencies and knowledge about sustainable development, thereby increasing awareness of ESG effects, the green brand, and corporate social responsibility.Perspectives. Despite the significant volume of scientific research related to ESG effects, the green brand, corporate social responsibility, and the achievement of sustainable development goals, it is important to provide practical justification for the impact of environmental awareness on the formation of a country’s green brand. Additionally, determining the role of education in stimulating conscious consumer behavior, participation in green innovation programs, and promoting sustainable consumption is a vital task. Future research can focus on analyzing the effectiveness of social programs and business initiatives in achieving sustainable development goals.

Situational model of bullying in business communication

The subject of the study is speech activity affecting the participants of bullying situations in the context of business communications; linguistic means of implementing business bullying strategies and tactics when creating a negative media image of companies and persons in the context of information attacks; media linguistic characteristics of texts related to bullying phenomena in business communication (structure, vocabulary, style, etc.); extralinguistic factors influencing the manifestation and perception of bullying in the business environment, including socio-cultural, psychological and economic aspects. The object of the study is destructive verbal content with signs of business bullying placed in open communication channels, including its media and linguistic manifestations. Within the framework of this work, the emphasis is placed on the specifics of the media linguistic analysis of business communication texts in the context of bullying, as well as on external factors that can influence this process. Special attention is paid to the structure of subject-object relations in the practice of information aggression directed against business.  The methodology has developed under the influence of modern media linguistics, when an activity-procedural, praxeological approach to the analysis of the media text is implemented. The thematic discourse of business bullying is distinguished by the length of time, complex interactions, and multicomponent structure of the linguistic architecture of media communication, so the basic method was the praxeological transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary integration of research methods, procedures and techniques – formed the basis of the work. The relevance of the research is due to the combination of the rapidly changing digital landscape, the social responsibility of business and the need for effective strategies to prevent or respond to bullying cases in business communication. The scientific novelty lies in the identification of linguistic signs of business bullying and the construction of communication models of business bullying. The results obtained can be used both in academic research and in the practical activities of the business community. The author proposes to build communication situational models of bullying in the context of business communication on the basis of subject-object relations, which allow to determine patterns of information aggression, analyze components, specify the role of participants, isolate manipulative practices, build business risk strategies, formulate strategies to combat and overcome the consequences of business bullying.

Corporate social responsibility, board characteristics, and family business in Thailand

AbstractExploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy, family business, and board characteristics in Thailand provides invaluable insights into how boards of family businesses integrate CSR considerations, leading to responsible business practices and sustainable development in Thailand. Relying on the top 100 listed firms in the Stock Exchange of Thailand and the Refinitiv's CSR strategy score, we find that family business firms or firms with CEO serving as the chairman of board engage less CSR strategy, being consistent with the agency cost hypothesis and the expropriation view of family businesses. Additionally, in line with the resource dependency theory, female directors, independent directors, board tenure, and board size positively influence a firm's CSR. Additional analyses including the Heckman's sample selection bias and 2SLS instrumental variable approaches show that our results are robust and are not driven by unobserved heterogeneity. More importantly, gender diversity is an exemplary governance mechanism as it is the only board characteristic with a positive effect on CSR in both family and non‐family sub‐samples. While board tenure is positively associated with CSR in the non‐family business sample, larger board size and more board independence in the family business positively influence a firm's CSR. Findings from the family business sample support the functional view of board and socioemotional wealth of family firms.

Social responsibility of business during periods of emergency situations on the example of the COVID-19 pandemic

The first cases of coronavirus infection were detected in December 2019. In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the virus a pandemic. The coronavirus pandemic has led to a decline in well-being, large financial losses, economic damage, political consequences and has drastically worsened people’s quality of life. The purpose of this study is to study the role of social responsibility of business in emergency situations and during periods of struggle with their consequences. The article examines the consequences of the state of emergency in connection with the outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus infection, reviews and analyzes the domestic and international experience of social responsibility of business in a pandemic. To achieve this goal, the article analyzes GDP indicators for 2019–2021 in the context of a number of countries, examines the main directions of business social responsibility during the pandemic in several companies in Kazakhstan, in particular, caring for employees, responsibility to customers, partner support, assistance to the population. In times of emergencies and during the liquidation of their consequences, private companies, both large and small and medium-sized businesses, can also act as financial sources, along with state ones. The examples of the world experience of social responsibility of business during the pandemic are also considered were considered. The authors have compiled a diagram of the percentages of the degree of trust in brands during the coronavirus pandemic, and proposed the creation of reserve funds for business social responsibility.

Comparative Analysis of Ethical and Legal Principles in the Islamic Business Management Model

In recent decades, businesses based on Islamic principles have experienced significant growth. Business models that are in line with Islamic values have become a major concern for Islamic business and economic actors. This phenomenon has triggered intense discussions on the impact of ethics and Islamic law on Islamic business practices. This study will analyse the comparison between ethics and Islamic law in the context of Islamic business. This research is a qualitative literature study that incorporates data from 1991 to 2023 taken from sources found on Google Scholar. The qualitative literature review research method is used to investigate, analyse, and compile a comprehensive understanding of developments, trends, and significant findings in various fields of knowledge relevant to the topic of this research. The results show that business management in the Islamic context is based on ethical and legal principles derived from Islamic religious teachings. These principles complement each other and form the basis for the Islamic business management model. Ethical principles, such as taqwa, good deeds, justice and ihsan, encourage integrity, honesty and social responsibility in business. Meanwhile, legal principles, involving sharia, contracts, zakat, waqf, haram, and halal, govern the legal aspects of business, ensuring compliance with Islamic values and rules.

Social Responsibility of Business as a Potential of Russian-African Relations (Empirical Research Experience in the Countries of the African Continent)

The image of Russia and the credibility of its policies are closely linked to the image of its business. The positive or negative perception of Russia as a whole largely depends on how Russian companies do business in Africa. The article presents a study of the social perceptions of Africans of the social responsibility of businesses operating in African countries. A comparative analysis of the representations of the «African side» and the «Russian side» is demonstrated. The empirical basis of the study was the data collected by the author. The results obtained demonstrate significant differences in the perceptions of social responsibility of business among African and Russian respondents. In some cases, diametrically opposite results were obtained. The data indicate that there is a problem area at the level of social perceptions – a potential basis for a lack of understanding or even a conflict between the Russian and the African sides. The author concludes that the ideas of the «correct» models of social responsibility of business among Africans are connected with their value system, with the understanding of «social justice». Knowledge of preferred and rejected business social responsibility models among African partners can be a competitive advantage in establishing Russian-African business relations. It can be assumed that information about the «problem areas» will help to avoid communication errors and «traps» associated with ignorance, misunderstanding and disregard of the social perceptions of African partners. The author suggests that knowledge of the social perceptions, needs, moods, «requests» of the African side is an important condition for building effective business communications and can contribute to the realization of the potential of the Russian-African partnership.

Business model innovation driven by corporate social responsibility in a digital innovation ecosystem: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers

AbstractThis study focuses on examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) fulfillment and business model innovation (BMI) in the context of China's business environment. The research utilizes data from 1028 manufacturing firms in China and specifically explores the impact of CSR fulfillment on BMI within the digital innovation ecosystem. The findings indicate that both internal CSR (ICSR) and external CSR (ECSR) have a significant positive influence on BMI, with ECSR having a stronger effect. Additionally, the study reveals that value co‐creation (VCC) plays a mediating role in strengthening the relationship between CSR fulfillment and BMI. Furthermore, the study highlights that the positive association between CSR fulfillment and BMI is more prominent in firms with higher digital platform capability (DPC). Overall, this research provides valuable insights for manufacturers seeking to achieve BMI and sustainable development.

Social responsibility of business as the basis of business security in modern conditions

Introduction. Social responsibility contributes to building a positive image for the company and strengthening the trust and loyalty of customers and partners, which are critically important aspects in maintaining competitiveness and security of business. In addition, the responsible behavior of companies reduces the risks associated with non-compliance with environmental standards and norms of social justice. Considering global challenges such as war, inequality, and the need for sustainable development, the social responsibility of business becomes an element of corporate strategy and an essential component of overall economic security. The study and implementation of the principles of social responsibility in the conditions of the modern business environment have a significant potential for increasing the level of economic security of enterprises, promoting their stable development, and positively impacting society in general. Thus, this article focuses on essential aspects of a business's social responsibility in supporting and expanding commercial activity in Ukraine in modern conditions. The article aims to study modern processes of the development of social responsibility in business to strengthen the security of entrepreneurship in modern economic conditions. The results. The main aspects of the social responsibility of business and its role in increasing the efficiency of enterprise security are studied. The level of social responsibility of Ukrainian companies is characterized. Ways to increase business activity by forming a positive image, strengthening reputation, and establishing strong relations with clients and partners were studied. The concept of "social responsibility of business" is defined. The main functions of social responsibility in business have been studied. Conclusions. The development of social responsibility in crises, in particular during war, is substantiated. Recommendations on applying a modern social responsibility model to increase business activity have been developed, considering the values and specifics of Ukrainian society. Keywords: social responsibility, entrepreneurship, business, competitiveness, social projects

Transformation of marketing of agricultural enterprises in wartime conditions

The article presents the research results on the generalization and formation of features of management of marketing activities of enterprises of the agricultural sector of the economy in martial law conditions. The importance of marketing in increasing the productivity and competitiveness of agriculture is emphasized, which is recognized in countries with developed market economies as the central concept of managing a business entity in conditions of high competition. The specificity of farm products determines the peculiarities of marketing in agricultural enterprises due to their exceptional importance for society and increased demand for them. It is noted that in the Ukrainian economy, particularly in the farming sector, the role of marketing is insignificant and is associated with measures to increase sales and methods of increasing profits at the enterprise. In wartime, management is focused on growing sales in the here and now without considering the business's long-term prospects. Cutting costs for marketing and advertising under current circumstances is a wrong decision that will have negative consequences for the future development of enterprises. It is substantiated that during martial law, marketing transformed, changing its purpose, tasks, principles, main functions, and tools. At the same time, it remains relevant during the war, as it aims to reduce enterprises' risks, increase their competitiveness, and help entrepreneurs survive in difficult times. It was concluded that in the conditions of constant changes and uncertainties, the pandemic, and military operations in the country, marketing should be approached strategically and consciously, providing more purposefulness in business development. At the same time, for effective business activity, it is advisable to consider modern marketing trends: speed, flexibility in marketing decisions, maneuverability to respond to dynamic changes, situationally, appropriateness, humanity, social responsibility, Digital development, support of counterparties, consumers, and the country's economy, etc. In wartime, the emphasis in marketing shifts towards building relationships of trust, support, and care with buyers and customers. All marketing activities during martial law must be consistent with the humanitarian component of business activities, responses to the preservation of supply chains, sales, and market entry strategies. Modern marketing tools, suitable for rural businesses, are related to Internet resources and should cover the entire information space to achieve the company's goals. It is argued that marketing in the agricultural sector after the war will receive a new impetus for its development since the reconstruction of the country in the post-war period will provide new business opportunities, which means that there will again be a need for effective marketing strategies and tools that will ensure high performance of business entities and their competitiveness. Keywords: marketing, marketing activity, marketing management, marketing strategy, marketing tools, competitiveness of enterprises, agricultural business.