29 results
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Endnotes
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 425-462
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of Plates
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 507-512
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 10 - Corporate Responsibility Institutionalizes and Globalizes (1989–2001)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 337-375
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The story of corporate social responsibility in the 1990s takes place on two fronts, at home and abroad, as US-based multinational corporations extended their businesses internationally. On the domestic front, social responsibility became more deeply institutionalized as companies continued to integrate social considerations and requirements into their strategies, policies, and operations. During this period, responsibility became further normalized, systematized, standardized, and assimilated into the everyday functioning of business enterprises.
At the same time, corporate social responsibility was exported abroad as global capitalism expanded rapidly during the decade. The challenge for corporate managers was to identify and respond to social issues abroad by applying both accepted and novel practices and policies that would meet the needs of host countries, which were increasingly interested in some of the same social issues that businesses were facing in the United States. With the increasingly global nature of business competition in the 1990s, reputational risk increased dramatically. The new global visibility, and vulnerability of companies’ international images and brand reputations, gave them a strong incentive to carefully plan responsibility and ethics initiatives around the world. Multinational companies became responsible, not only for their behavior on the ground in foreign countries, but also for verifying and ensuring responsible practices (fair labor practices, health and safety issues, and more) all along their supply chains located abroad. The questions to whom, for what and how to be socially responsible required new answers and took on new dimensions.
Chapter 3 - The Progressive Era and a New Business–Government Relationship (1900–1918)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 90-123
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Theodore Roosevelt took the oath of office in a nation that was bitterly divided on the economy and big business. Although the Democratic-Populist challenge had failed, farm belt discontent was hardly over. Populists would run candidates for several more elections. Meanwhile, a growing socialist movement led by union organizer Eugene Debs was doing even better. Debs had run on a socialist ticket in 1900, receiving a scant 88,000 votes. His total grew in the next three presidential races, however, topping 900,000 votes in 1912, or 6 percent of the electorate. It wasn’t socialism or populism or any third-party challenge that changed the relationship of business to society. It was a new movement captained by mainstream figures such as Theodore Roosevelt. By the end of his first term in office, Roosevelt would define, at a national level, a new relationship between the state and private business. In this movement government would lead, and business would follow, though with numerous opportunities to cooperate across the public and private sectors.
In the decade after 1900, many of the existing ideas about the relationship between business and society were overturned. Defense of corporate autonomy through doctrines such as Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics fell or were seriously pushed back in the wake of a social reform critique of corporate power. Although labor was still at the center of the social problems associated with industrialization, unions played only one part in this counteraction against corporate autonomy. Middle-class social workers, professionals such as lawyers, and a new breed of professional managers within big firms all were major contributors to the “progressive” corporation. Key political figures included Republican and Democratic presidents and congressmen, as well as a large number of state and local politicians who had a close-up view of the social costs of urban and industrial society. A new, more tamed, corporation with explicitly social goals emerged out of this era by 1920. The once clear lines between the public sector and the private sector blurred as it became harder to separate private decisions made by large-scale corporations from the public issues that those decisions affected. Businessmen, and indeed most Americans, did not choose to abandon markets, but came to see that a healthy market that was open and competitive, yet also promoted a good society, often needed government intervention to protect the public interest from being overwhelmed by private interests.
Introduction - The Corporation in the Public Square
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 1-28
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
For two centuries, Americans have tried to reconcile two realities of modern capitalism. Corporations – capitalism's dominant organizational form – are very efficient mechanisms for producing wealth, meeting consumer needs, and building industries that employ millions. Yet corporations also often impose costly externalities on communities and the natural environment and cause unwanted transformational change. Government, citizens, and often business leaders themselves, have responded by insisting that corporations – individually and as a group – assume responsibility for more than their narrow economic results.
Corporate responsibility remains, however, a controversial concept. Should businesses have responsibility for providing society with health care, racial equality, support for education, arts and culture, while also minimizing climate change, promoting social optimism, participating in national politics, and effecting economic redistribution of wealth? Or should these “public goods” be the domain of government? Do corporations represent a progressive or regressive force in society? How has the debate over the appropriate degree of corporate responsibility evolved during different eras of American history, and how have corporations responded? The debate has grown broader and more complex as corporations have expanded their commercial influence, technological advances, and geographical reach. Where is it heading in the next few decades? When the revenues of our largest corporations exceed the gross domestic product of nations, and corporate profits set new records while vast segments of the population remain unemployed, people are prone to question the role, responsibility, and power of business.
About the Authors
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp xi-xiii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 8 - Managing Corporate Responsibility (1973–1981)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 264-300
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
By the mid-1970s, business executives began talking about “managing” corporate responsibility issues, not just “fighting fires.” Companies designed systems to address categories of significant issues (workplace discrimination, consumer protection, environmental protection) and developed methodologies for anticipating issues, formulating policy, and advocating corporate positions in the public square and the political arena. The idea that a corporation's responsibilities extended to various constituencies or stakeholders flourished, and many businesses and trade organizations embraced a multi-constituency model of business in society.
The social transformation of American business that began with the movements of the 1960s gained full force in the 1970s. New expectations meant new demands and the 1970s became a decade of deep change in American political and economic life. Advocacy groups felt empowered to press their claims. Business would be dramatically transformed. It became what one astute observer described as a “new reformation” that involved a “rewriting of the corporate social charter.”
Plate section
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp -
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
References
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 463-506
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part III - Taking Account of Corporate Responsibility
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 301-302
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part I - The Seeds of Corporate Responsibility
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 29-30
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Frontmatter
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp i-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 1 - Foundations of Capitalism and the Birth of the Corporation (1776–1880)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 31-61
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter sets the stage for the story of corporate responsibility by tracing some of the seminal ideas underpinning its development. At base are the recognition of the importance of human rights, the Industrial Revolution (the main engine for economic growth), the expansion of free enterprise, and the development and legitimacy of the modern corporation. These key ideas led to events that moved the nation from an agricultural and trade economy to a mature capitalistic enterprise in which corporate responsibility is an important element.
From the beginning of recorded history, human beings have been engaged in what the eighteenth-century political economist Adam Smith called the urge to “truck, barter and exchange.” Early on in various civilizations human beings owned, developed, and traded private property. But what distinguishes modern capitalism is not merely private ownership and trade. It is also the development of free markets for exchange, the capacity to organize labor efficiently for the production of goods and services, the ability to accumulate private capital, and the formation and legitimacy of corporations to do these things. Indeed, as Joyce Appleby writes, “capitalism has been described not merely as an economic system but more broadly as a cultural system rooted in economic practices that rotate around the imperative of private investors to turn a profit. Profit-seeking usually promotes production efficiencies [industrialization], like the division of labor, economies of scale, specialization, the expansion of the market for one's goods, and above all, innovation.”
Chapter 9 - Stakeholders and Stockholders (1981–1989)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 303-336
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The concept of corporate social responsibilty that had emerged from the turmoil of the 1960s, and became accepted as a cost of doing business in the 1970s – even as corporations faced serious economic challenges and greater public distrust – took on a new shape in the 1980s. During the decade, two paradigms of corporate responsibility – the stakeholder model and the classic ownership, or shareholder, model – clashed. Each provided very different answers to the questions of to whom, for what, and how to meet corporate reponsibility mandates. A strong backlash against government regulation and the election of Republican Ronald Reagan to the White House brought a political liberation of business from the regulatory and cost pressures of the social movements (civil rights, women's rights, environmentalism). By the end of the decade, the pressure to prioritize responsibilty to shareholders, over a broader set of stakeholders, had gained ground. Economic pressures, posed in part by global competitors and the threat of takeovers, had forced a new discipline on corporate social responsibility programs.
Business led the way in turning the conversation around to a different set of expectations of corporate behavior. Business leaders had come to understand that just as business activities must make social sense, social activities must make business sense. Corporate managers spoke of “strategic” philanthropy and social responsiveness. Companies offered a new rationale for public involvement: Charitable purposes could be advanced, alongside economic purposes, as with cause-related marketing. As one executive noted, “the key is to run corporate reponsibility like the rest of your business. The corporate responsibility plan must relate to the business plan.”
Index
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 513-543
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Conclusion - Patterns and Prospects
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 414-424
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This book has traced the US history of corporate responsibility from its roots in the eighteenth century through the Industrial Revolution, the advent of capitalism, and the growth of the modern corporation. During the decades since World War II, there has been conditional acceptance and conditional rejection of both the idea and the practice of corporate responsibility. At the same time, we have witnessed the decline of the communist alternative, elevated concern for human rights, the systematic globalization of manufacturing, consumer, and financial markets, and a new worldwide environmental awareness – factors that will no doubt influence the future of corporate responsibility. The “social contract” between business and society – a quaint concept to twenty-first century cynics – has evolved and will continue to do so going forward.
In closing this historical narrative, it is useful to reflect briefly on the patterns of corporate responsibility and its prospects for the future. The patterns will remind us of key elements of the history, and occasionally suggest lessons to be learned from it. The prospects involve not prophecy but realistic forethought. What might corporate responsibility become during the next twenty-five to fifty years? As these chapters have shown, much can change in a decade or two, but many patterns will endure.
Part II - Corporate Responsibility Comes of Age
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 193-194
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 5 - The Corporation and National Crisis (1929–1945)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 152-192
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The devastating slide into the Great Depression in 1929 not only caused personal financial losses to citizens across America, it fractured the social contract between business, government, and the public. That compact, in which government regulation coupled with voluntary social welfare programs from business would protect citizens from business misdeeds and assure their overall wellbeing, had been formed by the previous fifty years of experience. By the time the Depression ended in the 1940s, the old social compact was in tatters. But business, as the representative of private sector capitalism, had the most to lose from the calamity of the 1930s. While the failure of government to deal adequately with the crisis in its early years resulted in a political realignment, the private sector came close to losing legitimacy entirely. Democratic leadership under Franklin Roosevelt restored public faith in government, and indeed built up a substantial account of trust that would greatly increase the place of government in the economy. Private firms, on the other hand, lost substantial public faith, and they had to work hard to recover it in the face of serious challenges from those offering alternatives to capitalism. Although they eventually would do so, businesses emerged into a new political economy, with government taking substantial responsibility for assuring the public's economic security and ordering the private market. The widespread dire straights created by the economic collapse invited government intervention on an unprecedented scale.
Chapter 4 - The Corporation's Case for Social Responsibility (1918–1929)
- Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia, Kenneth J. Lipartito, Florida International University, James E. Post, Boston University, Patricia H. Werhane, DePaul University, Chicago
- General editor Kenneth E. Goodpaster, University of St Thomas, Minnesota
-
- Book:
- Corporate Responsibility
- Published online:
- 05 November 2012
- Print publication:
- 30 August 2012, pp 124-151
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Ideas about business responsibility before the 1920s, as shown in the previous chapter, had primarily revolved around labor issues, and business–government relations, for the responsibility of industry was defined largely by its impact on the economy and by its treatment of employees (and by extension, their families). Progressive reformers had succeeded in bringing social issues created by or impacted by industry to public attention. But it was not until the 1920s that the idea of business's broader social responsibility began to take hold – in the public sphere, in industry, and in newly established professional business schools. This new understanding was driven, in part, by a growing wave of discontent with capitalism and the world tumult described in the previous chapter as communism advanced in Russia and labor unrest broke out across the United States. Throughout the 1920s, labor was increasingly considered more seriously as a corporate stakeholder, and the idea of social responsibility grew beyond labor questions, to include a broader concept of business responsibility that would include, for example, considerations of public health, education, and the environment. New levels of organization, efficiency, and professionalism were brought to bear to improve productivity and profits, but also to bring wider social benefits. Leading these efforts were the nation's largest corporations, which in the 1920s became the main force behind this new agenda of business responsibility.
Bringing in labor
In 1918, the labor question still loomed the largest on the new corporate responsibility agenda. Capitalists began to recognize that they had to take positive action on the labor front if they wanted to turn back the growing sentiment toward socialism. Laissez-faire would no longer do, and the early, paternalistic welfare policies of the previous decades were too weak. Following the violence in Ludlow, Colorado, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. had penned an article that appeared in Atlantic Monthly, setting down new principles enlightened firms should follow. It began to outline a position much different from his father's when it came to the rights and responsibilities of corporations. Three years later, in 1919, at President Wilson's National Industrial Conference, the younger Rockefeller declared “Representation is a principle which is fundamentally just and vital to the successful conduct of industry . . . Surely it is not consistent for us as Americans to demand democracy in government and practice autocracy in industry.”