On the Frontier of Capitalism: Implementation of Humanomics by Modern Publicly Held Corporations — A Critical Assessment 1

L. D. Solomon
{"title":"On the Frontier of Capitalism: Implementation of Humanomics by Modern Publicly Held Corporations — A Critical Assessment 1","authors":"L. D. Solomon","doi":"10.4324/9780429303180-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"LEWIS D. SOLOMON*Corporations which exist solely to maximize profit become disconnected from their soul--the spiritual interconnectedness of humanity. Like individuals, businesses can conduct themselves with the knowledge that the hearts, souls, and spirits of all people are interconnected; so that as we help others, we cannot help helping ourselves.... It makes no sense to compartmentalize our lives--to be cutthroat in business, and then volunteer some time or donate some money to charity. For it is business that is the most powerful force in our society....... So, if business is the most powerful force in the world, it stands to reason that business sets the tone for our society.BEN COHEN, BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC. 1990 ANNUAL REPORT 2 (1991)I see business as a Renaissance concept, where the human spirit comes into play. ... It can be something that people genuinely feel good about, but only if it remains a human enterprise.... I still believe that enlightened capitalism is the best way of changing society for the better.ANITA RODDICK, BODY AND SOUL 22, 27 (1991)I. INTRODUCTIONCritics maintain that for-profit, business corporations should be more \"responsible,\" that they should take account of all constituencies affected by their operations and should even assume responsibility for broader societal problems that they may impact only tangentially. Defenders of a narrower set of corporate goals and constituent interests argue that corporations should be concerned exclusively with maximizing the profits they can earn for shareholders within the law. This controversy regarding corporate goals and stakeholder interests has spanned most of the twentieth century.In the early 1930s, two leading corporate law scholars, Adolf A. Berle and E. Merrick Dodd, debated the role of the corporation. Berle's view was that corporate powers were held in trust and were \"at all times exercisable only for the ratable benefit of all the shareholders. ...\"(1) Dodd's thesis was that the business corporation was properly seen \"as an economic institution which has a social service as well as a profit-making function. ...\"(2)Twenty years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court seemed to vindicate both points of view. In a leading case,(3) the court upheld as valid a corporate charitable contribution to Princeton University, on the grounds that the gift at least arguably advanced the donor corporation's long-run business interests. But as Berle later astutely observed, the effect of the discussion was to recognize that \"modern directors are not limited to running business enterprise for maximum profit, but are in fact and recognized in law as administrators of a community system.\"(4)However, Professor Dodd's \"managerialism\" view, because it treats corporate managers as professionals whose duties require the exercise of almost statesmanlike responsibility, has come under attack, most notably by Milton Friedman. In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman asserts that corporate officers' sole obligation is to maximize long-run profits \"so long as [they] stay within the rules of the game.\"(5) It remains unclear whether Friedman merely wants corporate managers to stay within the law, or whether his use of the phrase \"rules of the game\" refers to some broader obligations. Beyond this linguistic quagmire, Friedman has come to represent the view that the social responsibility of corporations is to make increasing profits for their shareholders and that business-funded programs designed to redress social ills represent theft from corporate shareholders.Today in the Anglo-American legal system, corporations have considerable flexibility in undertaking socially responsible activities. While retaining the profit maximization goal of free market economists, the more moderate and flexible model considers the time frame for assessing profitability to encompass long-term corporate profit and shareholder gain, and also enlarges the scope of corporate conduct. …","PeriodicalId":104007,"journal":{"name":"Progressive Corporate Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progressive Corporate Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429303180-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

LEWIS D. SOLOMON*Corporations which exist solely to maximize profit become disconnected from their soul--the spiritual interconnectedness of humanity. Like individuals, businesses can conduct themselves with the knowledge that the hearts, souls, and spirits of all people are interconnected; so that as we help others, we cannot help helping ourselves.... It makes no sense to compartmentalize our lives--to be cutthroat in business, and then volunteer some time or donate some money to charity. For it is business that is the most powerful force in our society....... So, if business is the most powerful force in the world, it stands to reason that business sets the tone for our society.BEN COHEN, BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC. 1990 ANNUAL REPORT 2 (1991)I see business as a Renaissance concept, where the human spirit comes into play. ... It can be something that people genuinely feel good about, but only if it remains a human enterprise.... I still believe that enlightened capitalism is the best way of changing society for the better.ANITA RODDICK, BODY AND SOUL 22, 27 (1991)I. INTRODUCTIONCritics maintain that for-profit, business corporations should be more "responsible," that they should take account of all constituencies affected by their operations and should even assume responsibility for broader societal problems that they may impact only tangentially. Defenders of a narrower set of corporate goals and constituent interests argue that corporations should be concerned exclusively with maximizing the profits they can earn for shareholders within the law. This controversy regarding corporate goals and stakeholder interests has spanned most of the twentieth century.In the early 1930s, two leading corporate law scholars, Adolf A. Berle and E. Merrick Dodd, debated the role of the corporation. Berle's view was that corporate powers were held in trust and were "at all times exercisable only for the ratable benefit of all the shareholders. ..."(1) Dodd's thesis was that the business corporation was properly seen "as an economic institution which has a social service as well as a profit-making function. ..."(2)Twenty years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court seemed to vindicate both points of view. In a leading case,(3) the court upheld as valid a corporate charitable contribution to Princeton University, on the grounds that the gift at least arguably advanced the donor corporation's long-run business interests. But as Berle later astutely observed, the effect of the discussion was to recognize that "modern directors are not limited to running business enterprise for maximum profit, but are in fact and recognized in law as administrators of a community system."(4)However, Professor Dodd's "managerialism" view, because it treats corporate managers as professionals whose duties require the exercise of almost statesmanlike responsibility, has come under attack, most notably by Milton Friedman. In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman asserts that corporate officers' sole obligation is to maximize long-run profits "so long as [they] stay within the rules of the game."(5) It remains unclear whether Friedman merely wants corporate managers to stay within the law, or whether his use of the phrase "rules of the game" refers to some broader obligations. Beyond this linguistic quagmire, Friedman has come to represent the view that the social responsibility of corporations is to make increasing profits for their shareholders and that business-funded programs designed to redress social ills represent theft from corporate shareholders.Today in the Anglo-American legal system, corporations have considerable flexibility in undertaking socially responsible activities. While retaining the profit maximization goal of free market economists, the more moderate and flexible model considers the time frame for assessing profitability to encompass long-term corporate profit and shareholder gain, and also enlarges the scope of corporate conduct. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在资本主义的前沿:现代上市公司对人文经济学的实施——一个批判性的评估
刘易斯·d·所罗门*仅仅为了利润最大化而存在的公司与他们的灵魂——人类精神上的相互联系——脱节了。就像个人一样,企业可以认识到所有人的心灵、灵魂和精神是相互联系的;因此,当我们帮助别人,我们不能帮助自己....把我们的生活分隔开来是没有意义的——在商业上残酷无情,然后志愿工作一些时间或向慈善机构捐款。因为商业是我们社会中最强大的力量.......因此,如果商业是世界上最强大的力量,那么商业为我们的社会定下基调是理所当然的。BEN COHEN, BEN & JERRY'S自制公司1990年度报告2(1991)我把商业看作是文艺复兴时期的概念,在那里人类精神发挥作用. ...它可以是人们真正感觉良好的东西,但前提是它仍然是人类的事业....我仍然相信,开明的资本主义是改善社会的最佳途径。安妮塔·罗迪克,《肉体与灵魂》22,27(1991)1。批评者认为,以营利为目的的商业公司应该更“负责”,他们应该考虑到受其运营影响的所有选民,甚至应该为他们可能只产生轻微影响的更广泛的社会问题承担责任。公司目标和利益的捍卫者认为,公司应该只关心在法律范围内为股东赚取的利润最大化。这场关于公司目标和利益相关者利益的争论跨越了20世纪的大部分时间。在20世纪30年代早期,两位著名的公司法学者,阿道夫·a·伯利和e·梅里克·多德,就公司的角色进行了辩论。伯利的观点是,公司的权力是信托的,并且“在任何时候都只能为了所有股东的应纳税利益而行使. ...”(1)多德的论点是,商业公司被恰当地视为“一个既具有社会服务功能又具有盈利功能的经济机构. ...”(2)二十年后,新泽西州最高法院似乎证明了这两种观点的正确性。在一个重要的案例中,(3)法院支持公司对普林斯顿大学的慈善捐赠为有效,理由是该捐赠至少可以说促进了捐赠公司的长期商业利益。但是,正如伯利后来敏锐地观察到的那样,这次讨论的效果是认识到“现代董事并不局限于为了最大利润而经营企业,而是实际上和在法律上被认为是一个社区系统的管理者。”(4)然而,多德教授的“管理主义”观点,因为它将公司经理视为专业人士,其职责要求行使几乎政治家般的责任,受到了米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)的攻击。在《资本主义与自由》一书中,弗里德曼断言,公司高管的唯一义务是“只要(他们)遵守游戏规则”,就能实现长期利润最大化。(5)目前尚不清楚,弗里德曼是否只是希望公司管理者遵守法律,还是他使用的“游戏规则”一词指的是更广泛的义务。在这种语言困境之外,弗里德曼已经开始代表这样一种观点:企业的社会责任是为股东创造更多的利润,而由企业资助的旨在纠正社会弊病的项目是对企业股东的盗窃。在今天的英美法律体系中,公司在从事社会责任活动方面具有相当大的灵活性。在保留自由市场经济学家的利润最大化目标的同时,更为温和和灵活的模型考虑了评估盈利能力的时间框架,以包括长期公司利润和股东收益,并扩大了公司行为的范围。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Legitimacy of Multinational Corporations Promoting Economic Justice in Plant Closings: Exploring the Fiduciary/Contract Law Distinction to Enforce Implicit Employment Agreements Some Observations on Writing the Legal History of the Corporation in the Age of Theory Game Theory and the Restoration of Honor to Corporate Law’s Duty of Loyalty The Death of Contractarianism and the Vindication of Structure and Authority in Corporate Governance and Corporate Law 1
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1