미국에서의 기업의 사회적 책임
The Corporate Social Responsibility in the U.S.
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The financial crisis reminds us how entwined some corporations-notably large financial corporations-are with the economy and society. Although a number of factors contributed to the downturns of the past century, corporate disregard for the greater public interest played a role. The problem with the dominant conception-shareholder primacy and wealth maximization--is that the directors are encouraged to demonstrate their allegiance to shareholder interests. This behavior leads to an unremitting focus on the short term. Legal debates over corporate social responsibility in the U.S. stretch from the 1930s to the twenty-first century. They have engaged some of the leading legal minds of the century, and advocates and enemies of corporate social responsibility still win publication in the country’s most prestigious legal journals. Contemporary works on corporate social responsibility touch on deep and important questions: what does the corporation owe to its shareholders? to its workers? to the larger community? But there is a problem with these debates: they rarely seem to go anywhere. The starting place for any proposed reform is simple acknowledgment that corporations should be restrained by public responsibility. This is barely hurdle, since most scholars and commentators acknowledge that corporations have ethical duties, and a public purpose has historically guided corporate activity. Unfortunately, corporations are not required to perform acts that are beneficial to society; rather, they merely need to refrain from acts that harm society. Some scholars insist that the public duty must be defined and codified. The United Kingdom enacted the Companies Act of 2006, which could offer guidance for what might the legislation of public purpose look like.
Abstract
The financial crisis reminds us how entwined some corporations-notably large financial corporations-are with the economy and society. Although a number of factors contributed to the downturns of the past century, corporate disregard for the greater public interest played a role. The problem with the dominant conception-shareholder primacy and wealth maximization--is that the directors are encouraged to demonstrate their allegiance to shareholder interests. This behavior leads to an unremitting focus on the short term. Legal debates over corporate social responsibility in the U.S. stretch from the 1930s to the twenty-first century. They have engaged some of the leading legal minds of the century, and advocates and enemies of corporate social responsibility still win publication in the country’s most prestigious legal journals. Contemporary works on corporate social responsibility touch on deep and important questions: what does the corporation owe to its shareholders? to its workers? to the larger community? But there is a problem with these debates: they rarely seem to go anywhere. The starting place for any proposed reform is simple acknowledgment that corporations should be restrained by public responsibility. This is barely hurdle, since most scholars and commentators acknowledge that corporations have ethical duties, and a public purpose has historically guided corporate activity. Unfortunately, corporations are not required to perform acts that are beneficial to society; rather, they merely need to refrain from acts that harm society. Some scholars insist that the public duty must be defined and codified. The United Kingdom enacted the Companies Act of 2006, which could offer guidance for what might the legislation of public purpose look like.
참고문헌 (26)
- 김화진, "상법강의" (2013), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제16판)" (2013), 박영사
- 김갑래, "기업의 사회적 책임에 관한 미국 판례 분석: 한국에 대한 정책적 시사점", 증권법연구, 13(1), pp.139~181 (2012), 한국증권법학회[DOI]
- 금산분리제도의 발전 방향, "김효연", 국회입법조사처, ~, pp.NARS 정책보고서 제25호 (2013)
- 원동욱, "금융기관의 공공성과 CSR", 금융법연구, 10(1), pp.115~160 (2013), 한국금융법학회
- 장덕조, "企業의 社會的 責任 -會社本質論을 中心으로-", 상사법연구, 29(2), pp.83~132 (2010), 한국상사법학회
- Adolf A. Berle, Jr., "Corporate Power as Powers in Trust", Harv. L. Rev, 44, pp.1049~ (1931)
- Adolf A. Berle, Jr., "For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note", Harv. L. Rev, 45, pp.1365~ (1932)
- Adolf A. Berle, Jr., "The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution", 5~ (1954)
- C. A. Harwell Wells, "The Cycles of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Historical Retrospective for the Twenty-First Century", U. Kan. L. Rev, 51, pp.77~ (2002)
- Christopher D. Stone, "Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior" (1976)
- Cynthia A. Williams, "The Securities and Exchange Commission and Corporate Social Responsibility", Harv. L. Rev, 112, pp.1197~ (1999)
- David L. Engel, "An Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility", Stan. L. Rev, 32, pp.1~ (1979)
- E. Merrick Dodd Jr., "Dogma and Practice in the Law of Associations", Harv. L. Rev, 42, pp.977~ (1929)
- E. Merrick Dodd Jr., "For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?", Harv. L. Rev, 45, pp.1145~ (1932)
- Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Economic Structure of Corporate Law" (1991)
- Joseph Lanzkron, "The Hedge Fund Holdup: The SEC’s Repeated Unnecessary Attacks on the Hedge Fund Industry", Brook. L. Rev, 73, pp.1509~ (2008)
- Katharine V. Jackson, "Towards a stakeholder-shareholder Theary of Corporate Governance : A Comparative Analysis", Hastings Bus. L.J, 7, pp.309~ (2011)
- Lynn A. Stout, "Bad and Not-So-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy", S. Cal L. Rev, 75, pp.1189~ (2002)
- Lynn A. Stout, "Why We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford", Va. L. & Bus. Rev, 3, pp.163~ (2008)
- Peter F. Drucker, "The Concept of the Corporation" (1946)
- Peter F. Drucker, "The New Society", ~ (1950)
- Ralph Nader, "The Case for Federal Chartering in Corporate Power in America" (1976)
- Thomas P. Byrne, "False Profits: Reviving the Corporation’s Public Purpose", UCLA L. Rev. Discoure, 57, pp.25~ (2010)
- Tom L. Beauchamp, "Ethical Theory and Business 8th Edition" (2009), Pearson Prentice Hall
- Milton Friedman, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits", New York Times Magazine (1970)