EpsteinE. M., for example, finds the social record of nationalized firms in the U.K. not much better than the private ones, a conclusion reinforced by C. Jenkins, who advocates nationalization. EpsteinE. M., “The Social Role of Business Enterprise in Britain: An American Perspective; Part II,”The Journal of Management Studies (1977), pp. 281–316; and JenkinsC., Power at the Top (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976).
2.
See StraussG.RosensteinE., “Workers Participation: A Critical View,”Industrial Relations (1970), pp. 197–214; and BergmannA. E., “Industrial Democracy in Germany—The Battle for Power,”Journal of General Management (Summer 1975), pp. 20–29. For reviews of some of these effects, see also HooverJ. D.TroubR. M.WhiteheadC. J.FloresL. G., “Social Performance Goals in the Peruvian and the Yugoslav Worker Participation System,”Proceedings of the National Meeting of the Academy of Management (1978), pp. 241–245, on the issue of the social responsibility of worker-owned firms.
3.
Quoted in GarsonG. D., “The Codetermination Model of Worker's Participation: Where Is It Leading?”Sloan Management Review (1977), p. 63. The comment was reported to have been made to a visiting British Commission charged with recommending proposals on industrial democracy.
4.
A poll of Harvard Business Review readers in the early 1970s found overall opposition to formalized means of worker participation. A follow-up study with a different sample of managers in 1974 confirmed these findings. See, EwingDavid W., “Who Wants Corporate Democracy,”Harvard Business Review (September/October, 1971), pp. 12–28, 146–149; and KrishnanR., “Democratic Participation in Decision Making by Employees in American Corporations,”Academy of Management Journal (1974), pp. 339–347.
5.
From DahlRobert, “Citizens of the Corporation,” printed in The Montreal Star, May 3, 1971.
6.
From BaconJ.BrownJ. K., Corporate Directorship Practices: Role, Selection and Legal Status of the Board (The Conference Board and the American Society of Corporate Secretaries, Inc., 1975), p. 48.
7.
See, MulderM., “Power Equilization through Participation?”Administrative Science Quarterly (1971), pp. 31–38.
8.
See, MintzbergHenry, Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983).
9.
BrennerS. N.MolanderE. A., “Is the Ethics of Business Changing?”Harvard Business Review (January/February 1977), pp. 70–71.
10.
WeaverP. H., “Corporations are Defending Themselves with the Wrong Weapon,”Fortune (June 1977), pp. 189–190.
11.
LevittT., “Why Business Always Loses,”Harvard Business Review (March/April 1968), p. 83.
12.
Quoted in AckermanR. W., “Public Responsibility and the Businessman: A Review of the Literature,” in TaylorB.MacmillanK., Top Management (New York, NY: Longman, 1973), p. 411.
13.
BrennerMolander, op. cit.
14.
“Campaign GM goes down to defeat,”The Montreal Star, May 23, 1970, from The New York Times Service.
15.
CheitEarl F., “The New Place of Business: Why Managers Cultivate Social Responsibility,” in CheitEarl F., ed., The Business Establishment (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1964), pp. 172, 165.
16.
ChamberlainN. W., The Limits of Corporate Responsibility (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973), p. 9.
17.
Levitt, op. cit.
18.
BraybrookeD., “Skepticism of Wants, and Certain Subversive Effects of Corporations on American Values,” in HookS., ed., Human Values and Economic Policy (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1967), p. 224.
19.
FriedmanMilton, “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,”The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, pp. 126, 33, 126.
20.
BrennerMolander, op. cit.
21.
See, CollinsJ. W.GanotisC. G., “Managerial Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility,” in SethiS. Prakash, ed., The Unstable Ground: Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society (Melville, 1974); MaddenC., “Forces which Influence Ethical Behavior,” in WaltonC., ed., The Ethics of Corporate Conduct (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977), pp. 31–78; and BowmanJ. S., “Managerial Ethics in Business and Government,”Business Horizons (October 1976), pp. 48–54.
22.
AckermanRobert W., The Social Challenge to Business (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 56.
23.
RossI., “How Lawless are the Big Companies?”Fortune, December 1, 1980, p. 57.
24.
SolzhenitsynAleksander, from “Why The West Has Succumbed to Cowardice,”The Montreal Star: News and Review, June 10, 1978, p. B1.
25.
BowmanEdward H., “Corporate Social Responsibility and the Investor,”Journal of Contemporary Business (Winter 1973), pp. 21–43; BowmanEdward H.HaireM., “A Strategic Posture Toward Corporate Social Responsibility,”California Management Review (Winter 1975), pp. 49–58; and BowmanEdward H.HaireM., “Social Impact Disclosure and Corporate Annual Reports,”Accounting, Organizations and Society (1976), pp. 11–21.
26.
Friedman, op. cit., p. 33.
27.
FriedmanMilton, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 20.
28.
SmithL., “The Boardroom Is Becoming a Different Scene,”Fortune, May 8, 1978, pp. 150–154, 158, 162, 166, 168.
29.
A number of these proposals would be worthwhile to pursue in the public and parapublic sectors as well, to divide up overgrown hospitals, school systems, social service agencies, and all kinds of government departments.