The authors argue that corporate philanthropy is far too important as a social instrument for good to depend on ethical egoism for its support. They claim that rule utilitarianism provides a more compelling, though not exclusive, moral foundation. The authors cite empirical and legal evidence as additional support for their claim.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Berle, A. and G. Means: 1932, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (MacMillan, New York).Google Scholar
- Friedman, M.: 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits. New York Times Magazine 32, 13 Sept., 122–126.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M.: 1962, Capitalism and Freedom (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
- Green, S.: 1990, ‘Corporate Philanthropy and the Business Benefit: The Need for Clarity’,Golden Gate University Law Review 20, 239–260.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S.: 1989, On Liberty; With the Subjection of Women; and Chapters on Socialism (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
- Morrissey, D.: 1989, ‘Toward A New/Old Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility’,Syracuse Law Review 40, 1005–1039.Google Scholar
- Nesteruk, J.: 1990, ‘Persons, Property, and the Corporation: A Proposal for a New Paradigm’,DePaul Law Review 39, 543–565.Google Scholar
- Nesteruk, J.: 1989, ‘Corporations, Shareholders, and Moral Choice: A New Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility’,Cincinnati Law Review 58, 451–475.Google Scholar
- Simon, J., C. Powers and J. Gunnemann: 1972, The Ethical Investor: Universities and Corporate Responsibility (Yale University Press, New Haven).Google Scholar
- Solomon, R.: 1992, ‘Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelean Approach to Business Ethics’,Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 317–340.Google Scholar
- Sommer, Jr., A.: 1991, ‘Whom Should the Corporation Serve? The Berle-Dodd Debate Revised Sixty Years Later’,Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 16, 33–56.Google Scholar
- Vartorella, W.: 1992, ‘Playing the Corporate Game: An Insider's Guide to Getting Equipment Grants’,Fund Raising Institute Monthly Portfolio 31(7), 1–2.Google Scholar