Frequent criticism of multinational corporation social responsibility is
contrasted with the “Friedman Doctrine,” which maintains that the social
responsibility of business is to increase profits. A general framework
recognizing that the long-range purpose of exchange is the mutual satisfaction
of the interests of all parties leads to a discussion of concepts from Blau's
exchange structuralism. A structural model for enhancing multinational
corporation strategy for socially responsible exchange behavior with developing
nations is introduced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amba-RaoSita C. “Multinational
Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, Interactions and Third World
Governments: An Agenda for the 1990s.” Journal of
Business Ethics12 (July 1993):
553–72.
2.
BassiryG.R. “Business Ethics and
the United Nations: A Code of Conduct.” Advanced
Management Journal55, no. 4 (1990):
38–41.
3.
BullerPaul P., KohlsJ.J., and
AndersonK.S. “The Challenge of
Global Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics10 (October 1991):
767–75.
4.
CooneyBarry D. “Japan and
America: Culture Counts.” Training and Development
Journal43 (August 1989):
58–61.
5.
DobsonJohn. “The Role of Ethics
in Global Corporate Culture.” Journal of Business
Ethics9 (June 1990):
481–88.
6.
DonaldsonThomas. “Can Multinationals
Stage a Universal Morality Play?” Business and
Society Review81 (Spring1992): 51–55.
7.
FrederickWilliam C. “The Moral
Authority of Transnational Corporate Codes.” Journal
of Business Ethics10 (March 1991):
165–77.
8.
FriedmanMilton. “A Friedman
Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its
Profits.” The New York Times Magazine (13
September 1970),
32–33.
9.
GetzKathleen A. “International
Codes of Conduct: An Analysis of Ethical Reasoning.”
Journal of Business Ethics9 (July 1990):
567–77.
10.
GillyMary C., and
GrahamJ.L. “A Macroeconomic Study
of the Effects of Promotion on the Consumption of Infant Formula in
Developing Countries.” Journal of
Macromarketing8 (Spring1988): 21–31.
11.
HayR., and GrayE. “Social Responsibilities
of Business Managers.” Academy of Management
Journal17 (March 1974):
135–43.
12.
HuntShelby D., and
VitellS. “A General Theory of
Marketing Ethics.” Journal of
Macromarketing6 (Spring1986): 5–16.
KumarSehedev. “The Third World
Toils for the First.” World Press Review35 (July 1988):
48.
15.
LaughlinJay L., NorvellN.W., and AndrusD.M. “Marketing
Presbyopia.” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice2 (Fall091993 forthcoming).
16.
LevittTheodore. “Marketing
Myopia.” Harvard Business Review64 (July–August 1960):
45–56.
17.
MaitalShlomo. “When In
Rome.” Across the Board30 (April 1993):
53–54.
18.
MarcuseHerbert. One Dimensional Man:
Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society.
Boston: Beacon
Press, 1964.
19.
MangalisoMzamo P. “The Corporate
Social Responsibility Challenge for the Multinational
Corporation.” Journal of Business Ethics11 (July 1992):
491–500.
20.
MicouAnn McKinstry. “The
Invisible Hand at Work In Developing Countries.”
Across the Board22 (March 1985):
8–10.
21.
OhmaeKenichi. “Planting For A
Global Harvest.” Harvard Business Review67(July–August 1989):
136–45.
22.
RobinDonald P., and
ReidenbachR.E. “Social
Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between
Concept and Application.” Journal of
Marketing51 (January 1987):
44–58.
23.
SethiS. Prakash, and
PostJ.E. “The Marketing of
Infant Formula in Less Developed Countries.” In
Marketing Ethics, edited by
LaczniakG.R. and MurphyP.E.,
165–77. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books,
1985.
24.
ShethJagdish N., and
GarrettDennis E.Marketing Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Publishing Company, 1986.
25.
StarkAndrew. “What's the Matter
with Business Ethics?” Harvard Business
Review71(May–June 1993):
38–48.
26.
TurnerJonathan H. “The Structural
Exchange Theory of Peter M. Blau.” In The Structure
of Sociological Theory. 4th ed.
Chicago: The Dorsey
Press, 1986.
27.
ZenisekT. J. “Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Conceptualization Based on Organizational
Literature.” Academy of Management Review4 (July 1979):
359–68.
