Individual Executive Characteristics: Explaining the Divergence Between Perceptual and Financial Measures in Nonprofit Organizations

Significant research has found that corporations have a social responsibility beyond maximizing shareholders' value. This study examines the effect of high-profile corporate bankruptcies on perception of corporate social responsibility. Undergraduate and graduate business students rated the importance of corporate social responsibility on profitability, long-term success and short-term success, before and after high-profile bankruptcies. The results indicated that students in general perceived corporate social responsibility to be more important to profitability and long-term success of the firm and less important to short-term success after media publicity of corporate scandals. Several demographic factors such as gender, age and college major played a role in this perception. These findings have important implications for business education, especially as it relates to corporate social responsibility.     

Risk Management,Real Options,Corporate Social Responsibility

The relationship of corporate social responsibility to risk management has been treated sporadically in the business society literature. Using real options theory, I develop the notion of corporate social responsibility as a real option its implications for risk management. Real options theory allows for a strategic view of corporate social responsibility. Specifically, real options theory suggests that corporate social responsibility should be negatively related to the firm’s ex ante downside business risk.     

In defense of social responsibility

Recent journalistic criticism of the concept of corporate social responsibility rests on the assertion that social responsibility adds nothing to corporate profits. Hence, inclusion of the motion in the business vocabulary amounts to nothing more than “double talk.”The author of an influential 1953 book on the topic took another look at social responsibility twenty-five years later and found “few gains in the quality of business stewardship over that time.” The idea “remains peripheral to the mainstream of economic thought.”Corporate social responsibility involves more than simply being a law-abiding corporate citizen. It reaches into these decision-making areas where perfectly legal choices may have harmful social consequences. As evidence of social harm amounts, society has to define and defend the ground on which it requires an appropriate response from the business corporation. Society will get the response it demands.     

Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test

Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer’s (Harv Bus Rev 89(January–February):64–77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the ‘separation thesis’ between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89–118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541–548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of ‘sympathy’, we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value.     

Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship

Exploring the concept of citizenship from the history of political philosophy provides suggestions about what corporate citizenship could mean. The metaphor of corporate citizenship suggests an institutional approach to corporate social responsibility. Citizenship is a social role, characterized by an orientation towards the social contract, collective and active responsibility, as well as a positive attitude towards the juridical state. By analogy, corporate citizenship is a social role, characterized by the social contract of business, a participatory ethics of business, the precautionary principle and the promotion of just international institutions. It is considered that corporate citizenship depends on a number of interacting institutional conditions that hold society partly responsible for the social performance of their companies. Finally, the problem of the dissolution of corporate social responsibility is reviewed in an institutional environment where everyone is considered responsible.     

Politics, Corporate Governance, and the Dynamics of German Managerial Innovation: Schering AG between the Wars

Conflicting interpretations of the evolution of German businessbetween the two world wars and of Germany's corporate governanceduring the Third Reich are examined in this article. AlfredChandler's view that major corporate changes emanated from managerialinitiatives is contrasted with Harold James's interpretationthat public and government pressures forced innovations on business.In support of James's analysis, I argue that state and politicalpressures, not management, initiated significant changes inGerman corporate governance and in the organization of Germanindustry during the interwar period, especially in the 1930s.Using Schering AG, one of Germany's largest companies beforeWorld War II, the article traces the influences of NationalSocialist pressure and changes in corporate law on companies'organizational adaptation to government social priorities duringthe Third Reich.     

The talmudic concept of “beyond the letter of the law”: Relevance to business social responsibilities

The idea of corporate social responsibility is neither new nor radical. The core belief is that business managers, even in their role as managers, have responsibilities to society beyond profit maximization. Managers, in pursuing their primary goal of increasing shareholder value, have social responsibilities in addition to meeting the minimal requirements of the law. Nevertheless, the call for increased social responsibility on the part of business managers remains controversial. At least two major perspectives on social responsibility can be isolated. The classical view, most closely identified with Milton Friedman, suggests that social responsibility is incompatible with a free enterprise economy. By contrast, advocates of increased social responsibility point out the desirability for voluntary (and at times costly) corporate activities which promote society's well being. The purpose of this essay is to briefly describe both the classical and pro-social responsibility perspectives. We suggest that while important differences in assumptions characterize the two distinct views, there is enough overlap and agreement to move the debate beyond the current stalemate. Specifically, we argue that the concept oflifnim mishurat hadin, an innovative and ancient Jewish legal doctrine which is usually translated as beyond the letter of the law, might serve as a model for modern legal and social thought. We examine talmudic and post-talmudic sources which apply this concept to the area of business ethics, and explore its applicability to the modern situation. Although the business ethics literature rarely refers to Talmudic and rabbinic sources, these texts reflect a sophisticated understanding of business practices and ethical problems. Moses L. Pava, associate professor of accounting is the occupant of the Philip H. Cohen Professorial Chair in Accounting. He has taught at the Sy Syms School of Business of Yeshiva University for the past 5 years. In addition he has taught at Hunter College and New York University. His research interests include financial accounting, business ethics, and the social responsibility of corporations. He has recently published articles in the Journal of Accountancy, Management Accounting, Torah U'Maddah Journal, Managerial Finance, Business Credit, U.S.A. Today.His book, The Shareholder's Use of Corporate Annual Reportsis being published by JAI Press.     

Human rights strategies for corporations

This paper presents BP's approach to ethical corporate governance. The author suggests that corporate social responsibility is in the interests of both business and the people at large. In this context co-operation between business, NGOs and activity is the best way to proceed, with each party focusing on their own field of engagement; doing business in a way that respects human rights for the companies, and campaigning and advocacy for the NGOs. Increasing transparency and risks to reputation require business to take social responsibility seriously. It is also crucial, however, to examine the boundaries of business responsibility. The challenge is to address these issues and to co-operate with other parties such as NGOs to provide clear guidelines within specific time frames. This requires bold leadership on all sides.     

Ethics,Power and Communities: Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited

Ally-building can be an ethical pursuit in developing sources of power for the business manager. The commitment to social responsibility is a source of power, as well as an ethical practice for corporate endeavors. Pfeffer promotes a business manager’s ability to develop effectiveness with ties to powerful others in an intra-organizational environment. This paper advances an analysis about how individuals in corporations may use an inter-organizational approach to developing sources of power through a notion of corporate social responsibility. As such, a more meaningful qualitative reciprocity between corporations and the communities in which they operate can be developed. And, this relationship develops a source of power for the individual involved in this effort. In other words, relationships with powerful others in the community could develop by revisiting CSR based on reciprocity and exchange of sustainability in a community, rather than on a notion of paternal responsibility to some particular construct in society. Denise Kleinrichert has published papers on the areas of business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and applied ethics, as well as a book and a forthcoming chapter in socio-economic history. She has a Master in Liberal Arts degree in Humanities with an emphasis in Social and Political Thought from the University of South Florida, as well as her Bachelors degree in Economics with minors in Political Science and Sociology from Indiana University. She also has extensive corporate experience in human resources and risk management. Currently, she teaches Ethics and Business and Honors Applied Ethics at University of South Florida and is finishing her Ph.D. in Philosophy at this University.     

扶贫的企业力量——来自中国上市公司扶贫效果的证据

随着扶贫攻坚进入新时期,以政府为主导的扶贫攻坚面临诸多约束与局限,亟须广泛动员社会力量,尤其是企业力量共同参与。为回答企业的扶贫参与是否有效,以及地区差异对其是否有影响,本文利用2010—2017年A股上市公司所发布的企业社会责任报告信息,对企业扶贫参与的效果进行了研究。研究发现:(1)西部地区的企业、与消费者直接接触的企业以及规模大、经营业绩好的企业更倾向于参与扶贫攻坚;(2)企业的扶贫参与有助于提高农村居民人均收入,且在欠发达地区,企业参与扶贫的效果更好。这表明以企业为代表的社会力量响应了国家精准扶贫的号召,履行了企业社会责任,确实有助于巩固脱贫成果,实现欠发达地区的脱贫。本文基于企业参与扶贫的视角,拓展了扶贫攻坚另一参与主体——社会力量的相关研究,同时也丰富了企业履行社会责任所带来的社会效益的相关文献。     

Strategic and Moral Dilemmas of Corporate Philanthropy in Developing Countries: Heineken in Sub-Saharan Africa

This case study illustrates the dilemmas facing multinational companies in meeting social challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa (especially health-related ones). It also discusses the purpose, responsibilities and limitations of business involvement in social development. From a business standpoint, social challenges in developing countries differ greatly from those in nations where governments or markets effectively provide for the population’s health needs. The case illustrates what led a multinational to set up a corporate foundation and focuses on three strategic and operational dilemmas it ran up against. The case discussion shows that the ethical issues intertwined with these dilemmas are best understood using a variety of ethical approaches. We also show that Ethics of Care are just as relevant to analysing corporate social responsibility and corporate philanthropy as the Deontological and Utilitarianism theories commonly used in business ethics.     

Can there be a social contract with business?

Professor Donaldson in his book Corporations and Morality has attempted to use a social contract theory to develop moral principles for regulating corporate conduct. I argue in this paper that his attempt fails in large measure because what he refers to as a social contract theory is, in fact, a weak functionalist theory which provides no independent basis for evaluating business corporations. I further argue that given the nature of a morality based on contract and the nature of the modern corporation, it is highly unlikely that any plausible contract theory of business ethics can be developed.Dr. Hodapp is an associate professor of philosophy at The University of Northern Colorado where he teaches courses in business ethics and legal philosophy. He earned a doctorate at Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Hodapp also has a law degree from The University of Denver and practices law with a Denver law firm specializing in management labor relations.     

Public relations and corporate social responsibility: Some issues arising

The paper questions current assumptions about the benefits of corporate social responsibility and the claims that corporations make on behalf of their corporate social responsibility programmes. In particular, the paper suggests that the use of corporate social responsibility for public relations ends raises moral problems over the motivation of corporations. The paper cautions that the justifications which corporations employ may either be immoral or inaccurate with regard to the empirical evidence gained from a small-scale qualitative study carried out in the UK at a time when the practice of corporate social responsibility was expanding quickly (1989). It is noticeable, in retrospect, that great emphasis is placed upon environmental rather than social responsibility. This implies that organisations are primarily reactive in their development of corporate social responsibility programmes and that they respond to external pressures rather than working out the nature of their corporate responsibilities. It might suggest that corporations only take such actions when they feel compelled to do so by consumerist and environmentalist lobbies. The paper argues that corporations do need to find moral justifications for their moral activities and to ensure that corporate social responsibility practice lives up to the claims made by public relations practitioners. The paper explores the nature of public relations and illustrates how its responsibility for corporate social responsibility extends beyond truthfulness in publicity.Jacquie L'Etang has postgraduate degrees in history, public relations, and social justice. She is a lecturer in public relations at the University of Stirling, Scotland, teaching on the M.Sc. in Public Relations full-time and distance learning courses. She teaches design and editorial management, communications, and business ethics. Her research interests are in corporate social responsibility and the history of public relations.     

Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review

The impact of smaller firm size on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is ambiguous. Some contend that small businesses are socially responsible by nature, while others argue that a smaller firm size imposes barriers on small firms that constrain their ability to take responsible action. This paper critically analyses recent theoretical and empirical contributions on the size–social responsibility relationship among small businesses. More specifically, it reviews the impact of firm size on four antecedents of business behaviour: issue characteristics, personal characteristics, organizational characteristics and context characteristics. It concludes that the small business context does impose barriers on social responsibility taking, but that the impact of the smaller firm size on social responsibility should be nuanced depending on a number of conditions. From a critical analysis of these conditions, opportunities for small businesses and their constituents to overcome the constraining barriers are suggested.Jan Lepoutre is a PhD candidate in Applied Economics at Ghent University, Belgium. His dissertation focuses on the competences associated with small business social responsibility.Aimé Heene is a professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at Ghent University, Belgium. He teaches strategic management for private and for public organizations and currently focuses his research on (competence-based) management in public and social profit organizations.     

Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)

Traditional moral theories help corporate decision-makers understand what position consumers, like Rose Cipollone, in Cipollone vs Liggett Group, will take against cigarette manufacturers who fail to warn of the dangers of smoking, conceal data about addiction and other dangers, from the public, as well as continue to neutralize the warnings on cigarettes by deceptive advertisements. John F. Quinn teaches philosophy and management at the University of Dayton. He did his doctoral studies at the University of Washington in philosophy and his legal doctorate at the University of Dayton. Recently new to business ethics, after years of teaching medieval philosophy and aesthetics, he brings a knowledge of business law and management to his work in business ethics. His book with J.M.B. Crawford on The Christian Foundations of Criminal Responsibility, an integration of medieval moral theology and the common law tradition of criminal responsibility, will soon be published by Mellon Press. He also practices law in Ohio in select corporate issues.     

Moral Markets and Moral Managers Revisited

In the wake of recent corporate scandals, this paper examines the claim made by John Boatright that business ethics, as it is currently conceived, “rests on a mistake.” Ethics in business should not be achieved through managerial vision, discretion or responsibility; rather, ethics should shape the design of institutions that regulate business from the outside. What ethicists should advocate for, according to Boatright, are moral markets not moral managers. I explore the empirical and normative dimensions of his claim with special attention paid to the extent to which Boatright’s development of the economic theory of the firm supports his position. I conclude by suggesting some reasons why moral markets and moral management are compatible frameworks for corporate reform.     

Corporate social responsibility: Another view

Numerous individuals, discussing the topic of corporate social responsibility, have exhorted the business community to demonstrate increased concern for social welfare. However, some observers [1,8,12] believe that executives have become less interested in social responsibilities and more disillusioned by the results of the social-responsibility era.The apparent change in executives' attitudes leads to several questions that need answering: Has corporate experimentation with social programs convinced managers that the pursuit of social responsibility is basically inimical to the quest for profits? Is the business community's commitment to the philosophy of corporate social responsibility moribund? Is the idea destined to die of benign neglect? Conclusions pertaining to these questions are developed in this article. The analysis includes the formulation of a theoretical basis for evaluating and resolving the central issues which confound executive decision making as it relates to corporate social responsibility.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Crony Capitalism in Taiwan

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly popular in advanced economies in the West. In contrast, CSR awareness in Asia is rather low, both on the corporate and state level. However, recent events have shown that the CSR is receiving more attention by corporations in Asia. Recent development in CSR in Taiwan is one example of such a trend. A 2005 survey on the 700 publicly listed companies in Taiwan on␣CSR has highlighted the current CSR situation. Concurrently, the numbers of corporate scandals and corruption have dramatically increased over the past 6 years. Corporate CSR activities co-existing with pervasive corporate scandals create a phenomenon of contradictions. This article aims to report via the survey findings the current development of business ethics in corporate Taiwan; and to interpret the findings in context of Taiwan’s business ethos, especially its Confucian familism and crony capitalism. Po-Keung Ip, Ph.D., Professor of the Graduate Institute of Philosophy, National Central University, Taiwan. He is concurrently the Institute’s Director of the Applied Ethics Center. His research interests include business ethics, bioethics, and well-being of nations. His recent publications include Constructing a Social Contract for Corporations (2002), Business Ethics – Multistakeholder Responsibilities of the Corporation (2005) (in Chinese). Currently he is working on a book The Challenge of Corporate Social Responsibilities in Chinese Cultural Communities.     

Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Governance and Public Management: What can the History of State-Run Enterprises Teach us in the Post-Enron era?

This paper raises a challenge for those who assume that corporate social responsibility and good corporate governance naturally go hand-in-hand. The recent spate of corporate scandals in the United States and elsewhere has dramatized, once again, the severity of the agency problems that may arise between managers and shareholders. These scandals remind us that even if we adopt an extremely narrow concept of managerial responsibility – such that we recognize no social responsibility beyond the obligation to maximize shareholder value – there may still be very serious difficulties associated with the effective institutionalization of this obligation. It also suggests that if we broaden managerial responsibility, in order to include extensive responsibilities to various other stakeholder groups, we may seriously exacerbate these agency problems, making it even more difficult to impose effective discipline upon managers. Hence, our central question: is a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility institutionally feasible? In searching for an answer, we revisit the history of public management, and in particular, the experience of social-democratic governments during the 1960s and 1970s, and their attempts to impose social responsibility upon the managers of nationalized industries. The results of this inquiry are less than encouraging for proponents of corporate social responsibility. In fact, the history of public-sector management presents a number of stark warnings, which we would do well to heed if we wish to reconcile robust social responsibility with effective corporate governance.     

Schefflerian ethics and corporate social responsibility

This paper examines some of the essential features of Samuel Scheffler's hybrid theory of ethics. Scheffler posits and defends a moral theory which is intended to be neither act-consequentialist nor fully agent-centered. Instead, it provides an agent-centered analysis of moral thinking: one that, unlike consequentialist theories, respects the personal integrity of the moral agent. In this paper I shall do the following: (1) Sketch some of the general points of Scheffler's proposal; (2) Apply Scheffler's ethical theory to the matter of corporate social responsibility; and (3) Raise some objections to this Schefflerian corporate social responsibility theory, along with some modifications of this hybrid theory of corporate social responsibility which are intended to evade such criticisms.The significance of this paper is that it shows that Scheffler's quite innovative ethical theory is problematic as a foundation for a theory of corporate social responsibility. J. Angelo Corlett is a research fellow in philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has published philosophy papers in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Public Affairs Quarterly, and the American Psychologist among other journals. His areas of interest include Social/Political Philosophy, Ethics and Value Theory. He is currently working on a book entitled Liberty and Equality: Analyzing Nozick and Rawls.