This collection of Foundation publications demonstrates the contribution of the Foundation since its inception in 1966 to debates on the responsibility of business. John Treasure's introduction summarises the six contributions and concludes that businesses do have responsibilities beyond the bottom-line which they discharge, for the most part, with 'humility and good grace'.

(i) John Vaizey (1970) Industry and the Intellectuals

Vaizey contrasts the traditional role of the industrialist, as portrayed for example in Dickens' Hard Times, with that of the intellectual. Vaizey charts the changes in the industrial and intellectual worlds in the 20th Century, emphasising the power of ideas 'especially when they are foolish and impractical.' In a post-industrial world Vaizey raises a number of key issues: ·

• Despite growing affluence why do we still maintain the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'?
• If society continues to be conflictual how can the social sciences have relevance?

Given the above, Vaizey argues that the intellectual will be at the forefront of protest and will seek to further freedom and fulfilment. He argues that in a society dominated by technology, prioritising values is crucial.

(ii) Simon Webley (1971) An enquiry into some aspects of British Businessmen's Behaviour

Drawing upon an extensive survey carried out in 1969/70 with members of the Institute of Directors, Webley examines the standards of behaviour of British businessmen and how they perceive themselves and the conduct of others. The survey asked general questions concerning business integrity and a range of more specific questions including confidentiality, false claims of product performance, gifts, discrimination, and tax avoidance schemes. The findings include:

• No major problem concerning business ethics was identified ·
• Respondents generally thought themselves to be more honest that their fellow Directors. It is not unusual in surveys of this kind that respondents consider themselves more ethical than their counterparts in whatever business or profession!
• Businesses engage in a range of different relationships with suppliers, customers, shareholders, competitors, government and so on. The relationship that generated most cause for concern was with customers (bribery), and the least cause for concern with suppliers.
• The most important influence on a Director's behaviour was a personal code of behaviour
• Ethical standards of a company are most likely to be advanced by higher ethical standards in society as a whole. Interestingly a social audit of the company was given a very low priority. Today we might expect it to be much higher.

The survey provides a rich source of information of the ethical perceptions of senior businessmen (it is not clear how many women were surveyed) in 1970. It would be fascinating to carry out a similar survey today and compare the results.
* The survey is replicated in the Questionnaire section on the web-site.

(iii) Henry Manne (1971) Truth and Myth in Modern Corporate Theory

Manne critiques the work of Berle and Means on the ownership and control of large corporations, first published in 1932, and explores the relevance of this work today. Berle and Means argued that corporate ownership of large publicly quoted corporations has become separated from corporate control, which is now held by managers. These managers are controlled neither by shareholders nor competition. Thus, Berle and Means argue, large corporations should be subject to tighter government regulation.

Manne rejects their arguments pointing to the power of shareholders to have some impact by affecting the share price. Manne explores the impact of buying and selling shares and argues that market forces are the best guarantor of corporate democracy.

(iv) John Wood and Michael Ivens (1973) Is a Pre-occupation with Business Responsibility a Betrayal of Capitalism?

Wood and Ivens debate the view that business has a social responsibility. Wood takes the viewpoint often associated with Milton Friedman viz social problems are best desalt with through legislation and are not the responsibility of business. Wood rests his case on the hidden costs of not pursuing profit maximisation, the vagueness of the concept of social responsibility, the fact that social responsibilities are political responsibilities and that individual ethics cannot be applied to group decisions. Ivens response is to support the notion of business responsibility. He deliberately forsakes the use of social responsibility with its collectivist undertones. Ivens argues that business has responsibility to different stakeholders including employees and suppliers.

(v) Peter Runge (1967) The Role of Profit

Runge argues that profit performs four main roles:

• To act as an incentive to create capital
• To act as a motivator
• To act as a measure of efficiency
• To provide a test of worthwhileness

Runge suggests that there exists a mistrust of the profit motive (this at a time of nationalised industries) and this mistrust arises because profit is not understood. He suggests that:

'Any increase in public spending, however desirable it may be, can only be made possible if competitive and profit making enterprise first expands. To expand the public sector at the expense of private investment is to court disaster.' (p126-7)

(vi) G.R. Dunstan (1974) A Moralist in the City

The theme of this contribution is captured by the following quotation:

'To create wealth, in a world of need, is a moral duty. To create wealth is the primary function of industry. To deploy and distribute that wealth equitably is a basic human obligation. It is the function of government to secure conditions which best enable men to meet their basic human obligations.' (p. 130)

Dunstan sees no conflict between the role of industry and the role of government - they perform complementary functions. Dunstan argued against absolutes; companies have a wide number of related responsibilities not an absolute responsibility to maximise profits. Not least because companies are human organisations where employees are to be treated as ends in themselves.

>> back to book review index

Publication is by NTC Publications Ltd. Farm Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 1EJ (Tel.: 01491 411000)