Content area
Full Text
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = Const Polit Econ (2016) 27:93110
DOI 10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Shigeki Kusunoki1
Published online: 7 May 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Hayek published a piece in 1960 that criticized corporate social responsibility as a norm for economic organizations, although he regarded corporate actions to be subject to essentially the same moral rules as individual action. This article identies and reorganizes Hayeks criticisms of social justice, the rule of law and morality, his comparison of the open society and the closed society, and his treatment of charity and altruism. The aim is to clarify the Hayekian perspective on CSR. These considerations explain why the social perspective on responsibility is considered dangerous in a free society, how to separate legal compliance and morality from concerns about social justice.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility Business ethics Friedrich Hayek
Rule of law Social justice Spontaneous order
JEL Classications D21 K20 L21 M14
1 Introduction
During the past century, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been repeatedly discussed as a central issue in business. In the eld of jurisprudence, since the famous Ford case in the 1910s,1 the proper treatment of stockholders prots by
1 This is the classic case involving managers duciary duties. Stating that corporations exist for stockholders prots, the ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court required Ford Motor Company to pay an increased dividend to Dodge, a minority stockholder who demanded a dividend increase on the basis that Ford had retained earnings despite being in a position to pay dividends. See Werther and Chandler (2013:
& Shigeki Kusunoki
1 Sophia University Law School, 7-1 Kioicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10602-015-9192-4&domain=pdf
Web End = Hayek on corporate social responsibility
123
94 S. Kusunoki
managers of corporations has been a matter of open discussion. The 1930s and 1940s saw famous debates over this issue. For example, Adolph A. Berle, one of the authors of the well-known book Modern Corporation and Private Property (Berle and Means 1932), discussed the question in For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees? (Berle 1931; Dodd 1932; Berle 1932; Dodd 1941). Since then,...