sole responsibility is to maximize the wealth of its shareholders" (Malone & Roberts, 1994, p. 72). Many who share this view argue that corporate managers do not have the right to use corporate funds as resources to fulfill their own social agenda:
Corporate involvement in social responsibility endeavors would, in effect, result in a redistribution of wealth from shareholders to parties with no ownership claim (i.e., a management induced tax and spend plan) (Malone & Roberts, 1994, p. 72).
Advocates of socially proactive positions, on the other hand, argue that business' right to pursue profits is one that is granted by society:
Therefore, society has the prerogative to expect business to take actions which are consistent with socially determined societal goals. Furthermore, separation of ownership and control does not relieve share owners from their obligation to address society's concerns (Malone & Roberts, 1994, p. 72).
The ethical picture becomes far more complicated when the playing field extends across international boundaries. As the South African situation exemplifies, no matter how good their intentions, multi-nationals may find it nearly impossible to balance divergent community standards in two or more countries. Some theorists advise corporations to steer clear of doing business in countries whose civil rights or environmental standards differ too sharply from Western norms. But clearly firms in certain international industries have limited choices. They must enter the multi-national arena if they are to compete at all.
A strict "Friedmanesque" position is fairly easy to explode, one ethicist believes. After all, if corporations may do business under "morally reprehensible" conditions that do not violate the law or custom of the country, in addition to practicing apartheid in South Africa, corporations would have been allowed to "discriminate against women in the workplace in Saudi Arabia, not to...