Corporate responsibility and corporate personhood

In this paper, I consider the claim that a corporation cannot be held to be morally responsible unless it is a person. First, I argue that this claim is ambigious. Person flags three different but related notions: metaphysical person, moral agent, moral person. I argue that, though one can make the claim that corporates are metaphysical persons, this claim is only marginally relevant to the question of corporate moral responsibility. The central question which must be answered in discussions of corporate moral responsibility is whether corporations are moral agents or moral persons. I argue that, though we can make a case for saying corporations are moral agents, they are not moral persons, and hence, we can hold them responsible. In addition, we need not treat them the way we would be obligated to treat a moral person; we needn't have the same scruples about holding a corporation morally responsible as we would a moral person. Rita C. Manning is Lecturer at California State College, San Bernardino. She has published in Southern Journal of Philosophy and in Informal Logic.     

Unredistributable corporate moral responsibility

Certain cases of corporate action seem especially resistant to a shared moral evaluation. Conservatives may argue that if bad intentions cannot be demonstrated, corporations and their managers are not blame-worthy, while liberals may insist that the results of corporate actions were predictable and so somebody must be to blame. Against this background, the theory that sometimes a corporation's moral responsibility cannot be redistributed, even in principle, to the individuals involved, seems quite attractive.This doctrine of unredistributable corporate moral responsibility (UCMR) is, however, ultimately indefensible. I show this in several steps. After first locating UCMR in the context of the evolving debate about corporate moral agency, the paper reexamines cases cited in defense of UCMR and takes up the attempt to defend it by identifying corporate moral agency with corporate practices. A further section explores the claim that UCMR is a convention distinct from, yet compatible with, traditional natural notions of responsibility. The final section develops a notion of combined akratic agency to provide an alternate explanation, compatible with rejection of UCMR, of the phenomena which make the doctrine attractive. Jan Edward Garrett is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Western Kentucky University, with major interests in business ethics, the metaphysics of social organizations, and ancient philosophy. He has published on Aristotle's conception of techne (craft) in The Modern Schoolman (1987) and his article Persons, Kinds and Corporations: An Aristotelian View has appeared in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. He attended Peter French's NEH Summer Seminar on Corporate Responsibility in 1983.     

Investing in Socially Responsible Companies is a must for Public Pension Funds – Because there is no Better Alternative

>With assets of over US$1.0 trillion and growing, public pension funds in the United States have become a major force in the private sector through their holding of equity positions in large publicly traded corporations. More recently, these funds have been expanding their investment strategy by considering a corporations long-term risks on issues such as environmental protection, sustainability, and good corporate citizenship, and how these factors impact a companys long-term performance. Conventional wisdom argues that the fiduciary responsibility of the pension funds trustees must be solely focused on their beneficiaries and, therefore, their investment criteria must be based strictly on narrowly defined financial measures. It is also asserted that well-established financial measurements of corporate performance already include long-term risk assessment through discounted present value of future flow of earnings. Consequently, all other criteria are contrary to the best interest of the pension funds beneficiaries. In this paper, we assert that, contrary to conventional wisdom, pension funds, and for that matter other mutual funds, must be concerned with the long-term survival and growth of corporations. These measures are generally referred to socially responsible investing (SRI) and when applied to corporations, it is termed socially responsible corporate conduct (SRCC). We demonstrate that current measurement of future risk assessment invariably understates, and quite often completely overlooks, these long-term risks because of the inherent bias towards short-run on the part of financial intermediaries whose compensation depends greatly on short-term results. Furthermore, there is ample evidence to suggest that these intermediaries have been engaging in self-serving practices and thus failing in their duties to serve their clients, i.e. pension funds, best interests. Because of their large holdings in the total market as well as individual companies, these funds cannot easily divest from poorly performing companies without destabilizing the companies stock and overall markets. Hence, they must opt for a strategy of emphasizing investment criteria that encourage companies to take into account long-term aspects of their operations in terms of their impact on environment, sustainability, and community welfare, to name a few. We argue that an exclusionary, and even a primary, focus on short-term financial criteria is no longer a viable option. It also calls for the pension funds to encourage greater transparency and accountability of the entire corporate sector through improved corporate governance. Thus socially responsible investing practices are not merely discretionary and desirable activities; they are a necessary imperative, which both the corporations and public pension funds, and other large institutional holders, will ignore at serious peril to themselves. Finally, the paper considers some of the recent developments where corporations have been responding to these challenges and how their actions might be strengthened through greater disclosure and transparency of corporate activities. It also makes recommendations for the pension funds to support further research in creating new measurement standards that further refine the concept of socially responsible investing as a necessary ingredient of long-term corporate survival and growth in the context of a changing economic, environmental and socio-political dynamic.     

A reply to Thomas Mulligan's “critique of Milton Friedman's essay ‘The Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Its Profits’”

Professor Thomas Mulligan undertakes to discredit Milton Friedman's thesis that The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. He attempts to do this by moving from Friedman's paradigm characterizing a socially responsible executive as willful and disloyal to a different paradigm, i.e., one emphasizing the consultative and consensus-building role of a socially responsible executive. Mulligan's critique misses the point, first, because even consensus-building executives act contrary to the will of minority shareholders, but even more importantly, because he assumes that the mandate of a shareholder majority brings legitimacy to efforts of corporate managers to utilize corporate wealth in solving social problems. It is the role of our democratic institutions to deal with national agenda issues such as inflation, unemployment, and pollution, not that of the private sector. Corporations and private individuals do have a role to play in enhancing the quality of the human environment, however, and the author suggests a coherent means of developing that role in an effort rescue corporate social responsibility from Mulligan no less than from Friedman. Bill Shaw, Lynette S. Autrey Visiting Professor of Business Ethics at the Jesse H. School of Administration, Rice University, is Professor of Business Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He is staff editor of the American Business Law Journal and the Midwest Law Review. Among his most recent publications are The Structure of the Legal Environment (with Art Wolfe), Environmental Law: Text and Cases, The Global Environment: A Proposal to Eliminate Marine Oil Pollution (With Frank Cross and Brenda Winslett, The Natural Resources Journal), and Comparable Worth and Its Prospects (The Labor Law Journal).     

Corporate democracy and the rights of shareholders

Some have argued that because of weaknesses in corporate democracy, there is widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. I describe a number of horror stories that shareholders might tell to support this claim. Then I argue that despite appearances to the contrary, there is not widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. This is because (i) corporations, when doing things that look abusive, are generally violating neither the legal rights nor the charter rights of shareholders and (ii) shareholders — in their role as shareholders — have no other rights than these. William B. Irvine is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wright State University. He is the author of The Ethics of Investing, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3.     

The Texaco incident

The topic of this paper concerns corporate responsibility and worker safety. In particular it focuses on the notions of willing and intending and how these relate to risk-taking in the workplace. I discuss the metaphysical status of the corporation, the distinction between willing and intending and the motivations of each, and Austin's distinction between accidents and mistakes in light of a single industrial accident which occurred at the Texaco Oil Refinery, Port Arthur, Texas, in October, 1982. My aim is to argue that corporations do not alleviate themselves from moral responsibility in the workplace solely because they might not intend to produce harm in a given situation. Joan Catherine Whitman Hoff is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Bentley College. She has been given the NEH 1983 Summer Seminar for College Teachers award and the Northern Kentucky University 1985 Faculty Summer Fellowship. Her most important publications, with J. Ferrante Wallace, Women in Sports and The Black Athlete, appear in Sports History: Selected Materials from Colleges and Universities (eds. D. A. Novern and L. E. Ziewarz).Many sincere thanks to the NEH for having provided the time and money for this research, to Dr. Peter French for his helpful seminar, and to Mr. Peter Applebome for his stimulating comments.     

Reconciling the irreconcilable: The global economy and the environment

This paper focusses on the relationship among structural adjustment policies and practices, the business activities of transnational corporations and what Robert Reich has called the coming irrelevance of corporate nationality. The argument presented is that the force of these combined factors makes environmental sustainability impossible.Dr. Deborah Poff is a professor of philosophy and the Dean of Arts and Science at the University of Northern British Columbia. Professor Poff has published extensively in the areas of feminism, equity, violence and applied ethics. She is the editor of theJournal of Business Ethics.     

Norman Bowie and Richard Rorty on multinationals: Does business ethics need ‘metaphysical comfort?’

Norman Bowie wrote an article on the moral obligations of multinational corporations in 1987. This paper is a response to Bowie, but more importantly, it is designed to articulate the force and substance of the pragmatist philosophy developed by Richard Rorty. In his article, Bowie suggested that moral universalism (which he endorses) is the only credible method of doing business ethics across cultures and that cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are not. Bowie, in a manner surprisingly common among contemporary philosophers, lumps Rorty into a bad guy category without careful analysis of his philosophy and ascribes to him views which clearly do not fit. I attempt to provide both a more careful articulation of Rorty's views, and to use his pragmatism to illustrate an approach to business ethics which is more fruitful than Bowie's. This brand of philosophy follows the Enlightenment spirit of toleration and attempts to set aside questions of Truth, whether religious or philosophical, and have ethics centered around what James called that which is good in the way of belief. Rather than looking for metaphysical foundations or some type of external justification, ethicists perform their craft from within the cultural traditions, narratives and practices of their society.Andrew C. Wicks, M.A. in Religious Ethics. Currently a fourth year Doctoral Candidate in the Religious Studies Department at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.     

Sexual harassment: Why the corporate world still doesn't “Get It”

This paper shows that in order to understand and to resolve the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, the corporate world will have to relinquish some myths. Sexual harassment does not result from ignorance about fact or law. It is not merely a cultural, gender, or communication problem. It is a problem which will be resolved only when the corporate world recognizes that sexual harassment is a moral problem and provides moral education for employees. Until then, it will remain an explosive problem for communication specialists.Vaughana Macy Feary, is currently teaching philosophy courses at Fairleigh Dickinson University (Madison Campus) and works as an education and ethics consultant for museums, hospitals, and correctional facilities. She is the author of articles in applied ethics which include an article, Taking the Right to Freedom of Commercial Speech Seriously published in the Journal of Business Ethics last year.     

An Exercise in Moral Philosophy: Seeking to Understand “nobody”

The late Hannah Arendt proposed that many, perhaps most monstrous deeds are not committed by moral monsters but by individuals who do not think. However, understanding the significance of activity of thinking as such requires a moral philosophy that transcends rational actor assumptions and instrumental reason centering, instead, on the conditions of self-knowledge. The ubiquitous and often lethal phenomenon of information distortions provides a vehicle for expanding our understandings of individual moral response-abilities in our modern times.     

Issues management and ethics

Issues management (IM) is becoming widely accepted in the business-and-society literature as a policy tool to enhance the social performance of corporations. Its acceptance is based on the presumption that firms have incorporated ethical norms into their decision-making process. This paper argues that IM is simply a technique to identify, analyze, and respond to social issues. It can be used either to improve or forestall corporate social performance. Different values will steer IM practitioners in different policy directions.If IM is to be more than a social gadget, designed to promote the firm's narrow economic objectives, it must be self-consciously grounded in ethics. Stakeholder analysis and the comprehensive corporate ethic are concepts that can help forge links between ethics and the administrative process, between values and decision-making in IM. Jeanne M. Logsdon is Assistant Professor of Management at Santa Clara University. She received a Ph. D. in Business and Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley in 1983. Her dissertation received the Best Dissertation Award from the Social Issues in Management Division of the Academy of Management. A brief summary of her dissertation, Organizational Responses to Environmental Issues: Oil Refining Companies and Air Pollution, appears in Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 7.David R. Palmer is Assistant Professor of Management at Santa Clara University where he teaches courses in Business Policy and Business and Public Policy. He holds an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and a Ph.D. in Business and Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley.     

The ethical implications of corporate records management practices and some suggested ethical values for decisions

While the ethical implications of corporate actions have received increasing attention, one important area overlooked by both researchers and corporate codes of ethics is the significant ethical implications of corporate records management practices. This article discusses the operational and strategic purposes of modern corporate records management programs—including scorched earth programs which seek to reduce exposure to potential liability by eliminating documentary evidence from corporate files that could be used to establish culpability in future governmental investigations or in litigation by persons injured by corporate actions. As a first step toward developing relevant ethical guidelines and decision criteria for socially-responsible records management practices, the ethical values of freedom of choice and avoidance of harm are applied to various corporate decisions as to (1) which information should be retained as records and for how long, (2) subsequent disclosure or non-disclosure of that information and to whom, and (3) decisions as to when information in corporate records may properly be destroyed. John C. Ruhnka, Associate Professor of Legal Environment and Management at the University of Colorado at Denver, has written extensively on corporate obligations to disclose material adverse events and preliminary merger negotiations in the Harvard Business Review and Securities Regulation Law Journal. He has also written on design considerations for records management programs and legal and regulatory retention requirements that apply to business records in a series of articles in the Corporate Confidentiality and Disclosure Letter. Dr. Steven Weller is on the faculty of The National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, and has written extensively on problems of court process and organizational behavior. He has previously written on The Effectiveness of Corporate Codes of Ethics in the Journal of Business Ethics.     

Saturday Review's annual advertising awards

Saturday Review's long, commendable effort to identify corporations willing to promote the general good through their advertising was damaged in 1977 because of procedural changes in the awards. Prior to 1977 the named judges made the important distinction between public-service (non-image) and public-relations (corporate image) advertising. But in 1977 the judges were not named and the public service/public relations distinction was eliminated, replaced by the single category of public spirited ads. Most of these ads, however, were not public spirited, but were public relations ads. But in 1978 this deception was ended by the empaneling of a new kind of jury, one drawn from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. James Richard Bennett is Professor of English at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He is the editor of Style, a Journal of Stylistics. He won the Fulbright Teaching Award in Yugoslavia in 1968–69. His most important publication is: Prose Style: A Historical Approach Through Studies, 1971.I wish to thank Professor Leonard White of the Department of Economics at the University of Arkansas for his advice concerning several of the ads discussed herein.     

Adam Smith and the ethics of contemporary capitalism

This paper presents a theoretical elaboration of the ethical framework of classical capitalism as formulated by Adam Smith in reaction to the dominant mercantilism of his day. It is seen that Smith's project was profoundly ethical and designed to emancipate the consumer from a producer and state dominated economy. Over time, however, the various dysfunctions of a capitalist economy — e.g., concentration of wealth, market power — became manifest and the utilitarian ethical basis of the system eroded. Contemporary capitalism, dominated as it is by large corporations, entrenched political interests and persistent social pathologies, bears little resemblance to the system which Smith envisioned would serve the common man. Most critiques of capitalism are launched from a Marxian-based perspective. We find, however, that by illustrating the wide gap between the reality of contemporary capitalism and the model of amoral political economy developed by Smith, the father of capitalism proves to be the most trenchant critic of the current order.G. R. Bassiry is currently professor of Management and international business at California State University, San Bernardino, California. Formerly he served as Vice President and Acting President of Farabi University. His most recent articles on business ethics include Ethics, Education, and Corporate Leadership,Journal of Business Ethics and Business Ethics and the United Nations: A Code of Conduct,Sam Advanced Management Journal. He has also published numerous journal articles on international business, corporate strategy and corporate leadership, and is the author ofPower vs. Profit by Arno Press of New York Times.Marc Jones is a management lecturer at the University of Otago, New Zealand. His research interests include multinational corporations and economic development. He has worked as a financial analyst for Electronic Data Systems Corporation and as a management consultant for Peat Marwick Main & Company.     

Corporate accountability in Australia: Managing the information environment for corporate accountability

Accountability is a significant factor in the soundness of the organisational environment in Australia, for both the public and private sectors. The accountability process rests on the quality and accessibility of organisational records, the information environment. While the Australian liberal democratic open society and free market system relies on accountability, paradoxically accountability is constrained by the needs of the open society and the market. Setting appropriate mechanisms for accountability while preserving civil liberty and innovative free markets is a difficult task, and is one that falls to government. Governments have a ubiquitous role in implementing accountability in both the public and the private sectors, and the Australian federal system further complicates governments' difficult role. The 1990s will bring further corporate pathologies, similar to those of the 1980's. However the public and private sectors can reduce the impact of corporate pathologies in the 1990's by learning the lessons of the 1980's, through placing a priority on inculcating ethical and moral behavior, emphasising democratic values, and raising the organisational status of records.Lance McMahon is a lecturer specialising in government in the School of Management and Marketing, Curtin Business School. He has previously worked as a senior policy adviser in the Western Australian State Government.     

Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property

The moral justification of intellectual property is often called into question when placed in the context of pharmaceutical patents and global health concerns. The theoretical accounts of both John Rawls and Robert Nozick provide an excellent ethical framework from which such questions can be clarified. While Nozick upholds an individuals right to intellectual property, based upon its conformation with Lockean notions of property and Nozicks ideas of just acquisition and transfer, Rawls emphasizes the importance of basic liberties, such as an individuals right to health, superceding such secondary rights as intellectual property rights. From a policy perspective, patent protection for pharmaceutical products necessarily entails the balancing of corporate intellectual property interests and public interests in healthcare. The moral dilemma that occurs when these two interests clash is not easily resolved. Aside from corporate and public interests, the state maintains an interest in creating and preserving policies that regulate the moral dilemma itself. This paper analyzes the economic and ethical factors surrounding the production and distribution of the anti-HIV medication, AZT. Potential policy implications and recommendations are also discussed.     

Designing Ethical Organizations: Avoiding the Long-Term Negative Effects of Rewards and Punishments

Ethics researchers advise managers of organizations to link rewards and punishments to ethical and unethical behavior, respectively. We build on prior research maintaining that organizations operate at Kohlbergs stages of moral reasoning, and explain how the over-reliance on rewards and punishments encourages employees to operate at Kohlbergs lowest stages of moral reasoning. We advocate designing organizations as ethical communities and relying on different assumptions about employees in order to foster ethical reasoning at higher levels. Characteristics associated with ethical communities are identified and AES Corporation and Semco S/A serve as examples of corporations exhibiting the design characteristics and assumptions of ethical organizations.     

Governmental Incentives for Corporate Self Regulation

This article presents an overview of traditional legal and regulatory incentives directed at achieving lawful corporate behavior, together with examples of more recent governmental incentives aimed at encouraging self regulation activities by corporations. These incentives have been differentiated into positive incentives that benefit corporations for actions that encourage or assist lawful behavior, and punitive incentives that only punish corporations for violations of legal or regulatory standards. This analysis indicates that traditional legal and regulatory incentives for lawful corporate behavior are overwhelmingly punitive in their intended effects, while more recent governmental incentives to encourage voluntary corporate self regulation are much more positive in their intended effects.A prototype private compliance system containing typical features specified in governmental incentives for corporate self regulation was then analyzed applying the same positive/punitive analysis that was performed with the governmental incentives. This analysis suggests that corporate compliance programs that are structured to comply with Department of Defense regulations for defense contractors or the new Federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines will reflect the same overwhelmingly punitive balance of incentives for lawful and ethical employee conduct as do the traditional legal and regulatory incentive systems for lawful corporate behavior.Finally, the question of whether governmental incentives for corporate self regulation are succeeding was investigated by examining the behavior of the Fortune 1000 companies in enacting or revising corporate codes of conduct, an essential feature of every governmental-encouraged system for corporate self regulation, during the period 1960 to 1994. This data indicates a dramatic growth in the enactment of voluntary corporate codes of conduct by the Fortune 1000 companies in the period 1985–1994 that broadly parallels the growth in positive governmental incentives for such programs. In addition, several dramatic increases in code enactment and revision activity that occurred, coincide with specific governmental incentives for private compliance programs offered during that period.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Long-term Compensation: Evidence from Canada

This paper examines the association between long-term compensation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) for 90 publicly traded Canadian firms. Social responsibility is considered to include concerns for social factors and the environment (e.g. Johnson, R. and D. Greening: 1999, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 564-578; Kane, E. J. (2002, Journal of Banking and Finance 26:, 1919-1933; McGuire, J. et al. 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 45 (4), 341-359). Long-term compensation attempts to focus executives efforts on optimizing the longer term, which should direct their attention to factors traditionally associated with socially responsible executives (Mahapatra, S. 1984, Journal of Financial Economicsit 20, 347-376). As hypothesized, we found a significant relationship between the long-term compensation and total CSR weakness as well as the product/environmental weakness dimension of CSR. In addition, we found a marginally significant relationship between long-term compensation and total corporate responsibility. Our findings are that executives long-term compensation is associated with a firms environmental actions, and that firms that utilize long-term compensation are more likely to mitigate product/environment weaknesses than those that do not. Implications for practice and research are discussed.     

Ethical encounters of the second kind

When our society holds widely shared norms and values, we can agree on what constitutes unethical business practices. To the extent our social consensus is unraveling, agreement becomes increasingly problematic. Unfortunately, mainstream Western moral philosophy offers no guidance in this situation. We must therefore begin to focus on the types of social relationships that must exist for there to be agreement on what is right, good and just. This line of argument is, at best, merely suggested in discussions and articles on business ethics. Jonathan B. King is Associate Professor of Managment at the College of Business at Oregon State University. He received his B.A. in philosophy from Antioch College (1965); subsequently served for eight years as an officer in the United States Navy; received his M.B.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) in Business, Government and Society from the University of Washington. His primary research interests are in the areas of epistemology and moral philosophy — e.g., the contribution of the liberal arts to interpretive thought, the sociology of moral knowledge, and the organizational distortion of information. His most important publications are: Teaching Business Ethics, Exchange1984 and A Case for the Humanities Perspective, Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal1984