ManneHenry G., “The Myth of Corporate Responsibility,”The Business Lawyer (November 1970), pp. 533–539.
2.
McClellandDavid C., “Business Drive and National Achievement,” in Organization and Human Behavior, BellGerald D., ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967).
3.
ChamberlainNeil W., in a paper on managerial innovation.
4.
DruckerPeter F., The Age of Discontinuity (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 204.
5.
HackerAndrew, The End of the American Era (New York: Atheneum, 1970), p. 65; and HamiltonWalter, The Politics of Industry (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1957).
McClellandDavid C., The Achieving Society (New York: The Free Press, 1967), Ch. 1.
9.
BrooksJohn, “The Marts of Trade: The Anti-corporation,”The New Yorker (October 9, 1971), p. 138.
10.
The New York Times (January 15, 1972), p. 43; (January 27, 1972), p. 32; and (March 21, 1972), p. 16.
11.
KieferDavid M., “Assessing Technology Assessment,”Wall Street Journal (January 7, 1972), editorial page.
12.
ConardAlfred F., “The Corporate Machinery for Hearing and Heeding New Voices,”The Business Lawyer (November 1971), pp. 197–208.
13.
StarrRoger, “Power and the People—The Case of Con Edison,”The Public Interest (Winter 1972), pp. 75 and 86.
14.
For a discussion of the two-board system, see: VagtsDetlev F., “Reforming the Modern Corporation: Perspectives from the German,”Harvard Law Review (November 1966), p. 23; for a general approach to the representation issue, see: ChayesAbram, “The Modern Corporation and the Rule of Law,” in The Corporation in Modern Society, MasonEdward S., Ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), Ch. 2. (His point is that a decision is more likely to be responsible when those making it have to answer to those directly or indirectly affected by it.)
15.
BowenHoward R., Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (New York: Harper & Row, 1953).
16.
HaireMason, “The Concept of Power and the Concept of Man,” in Social Science Approaches to Business Behavior, StrotherGeorge B., Ed. (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.1962); LikertRensis, The Human Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967); TofflerAlvin, Future Shock (New York: Random House, 1970).
17.
BlumbergPhillip I., “Corporate Responsibility and the Employee's Duty of Loyalty and Obedience: A Preliminary Inquiry,”Oklahoma Law Review (August, 1971), p. 279.
18.
DubosRene, So Human an Animal (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968), p. 192.
19.
BronfenbrennerMartin, “Japan's Galbraithian Economy,”The Public Interest (Fall, 1970), p. 149, pp. 156–157.
20.
WaysMax, “How to Think About the Environment,”Fortune (February, 1970), pp. 98 and 100.
21.
TribusMyron, “Technology and Society—The Real Issues,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (December, 1971), p. 27.
22.
Kiefer, op. cit. supra.
23.
GalbraithJohn Kenneth, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1958); and McClellandDavid C., The Achieving Society (New York: The Free Press, 1967), esp. Ch. 6.
24.
McClellandDavid C., “Business Drive and National Achievement,” in Organizations and Human Behavior, BellGerald D., Ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), pp. 185–186.
25.
ForresterJay W., World Dynamics (Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press, 1971); HeilbronerRobert L., The Future as History (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1960); PecceiAurelio, The Chasm Ahead (London: The Macmillan Company, 1969).
26.
Quoted in MullerHerbert J., The Children of Frankenstein (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970), p. 386.