Deciding Corporate Behavior
It is my view that market forces, broadly defined, can and should decide corporate behavior. These market forces could and should be reflected in new legislation, to the extent that the new legislation buffers the extremes of market forces. This is my personal political, macro economic, and ethical viewpoint. I believe there is support for such an opinion both in the theoretical and the practical world. This position is best explained by first establishing a definition of to whom corporations are legitimately responsible to. Toward this end I first define my view of corporate responsibility and then explain why, under the parameters I set, it is reasonable to believe the market can control corporate behavior with the aid of limited legislation in a fashion consistent with social responsibility. This is very close to the view Kenneth E. Goodpaster might espouse, as evidenced from his article in Business Ethics Quarterly when he said that "The basic normative principle is fiduciary responsibility (organizational prudence), supplemented by legal compliance." (Goodpaster, January 1991) I will later explain the subtle differences between Goodpaster's view and that of my own. Much like Milton Friedman and Elaine Sternberg,
I also believe Soros uses such weak arguments that he in fact offers support to my view. This view, as will be explained, could be acceptable to many, especially Adam Smith. Corporations are best at business and governments and charities are best at managing social issues. The point is that market forces, whether through their effect on legislation or simply through the interaction of supply and demand, act to reflect the society within which they operate. In his article there was a second example he gave that I feel speaks to a position quite opposite his. It argues against itself in that distributive justice and ordinary justice should perhaps be minimums, not limiting factors. George Soros says the markets are busted. In general I feel the social safety net has increased over the last twenty years. It is a responsibility only if the shareholders wish it to be. Fraud and deception are uniquely defined, and punished, by society.
Common topics in this essay:
Washington DC,
Adam Smith,
Elaine Sternberg's,
Level National,
George Soros,
Friedman Sternberg,
,
Brazil Soros,
Arthur Anderson,
Fund IMF,
market forces,
soros 2002,
financial markets,
social safety,
corporate behavior,
social responsibility,
safety net,
distributive justice,
business ethics,
social safety net,
relationship financial markets,
distributive justice ordinary,
socially responsible,
maintenance social safety,
government's ability collect,
|
Acceptance Essays
