Corporate Social Responsibility Across the Business ...

Corporate Social Responsibility Across the Business Curriculum?

by

Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Business Department of Finance and Business Management Brooklyn College of the City University of New York E-mail: [email protected]

Linda W. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Information Systems Department of Statistics and CIS Baruch College of the City University of New York E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The authors posit that teaching corporate social responsibility across the curriculum rather than ethics may be more effective with students, especially those in business. Ethics, especially when taught by philosophy professors, often stresses the different theories as to how to be ethical and pays much less attention to the why an organization should be ethical. Students are presented with many theories about ethics. Unfortunately, the theory that may have the biggest impact on them after graduation is the one that stresses maximization of profit and/or maximization of shareholder value. The authors review the literature in the area and present three approaches for classroom discussions about corporate social responsibility. Keywords: business ethics, corporate social responsibility, reasons for being ethical, corporate social responsibility across the curriculum.

1

Only 2% of Americans feel that Fortune 500 CEOs are “very trustworthy” (Deutsch, 2005); the overwhelming majority (72%) believe that “wrongdoing” is widespread in the business world. Indeed, Robert S. Miller, CEO of Delphi, declares: “Society has come to believe that the term ‘crooked CEO’ is redundant” (Deutsch, 2005). Investors’ funds and pensions have disappeared because of unscrupulous CEOs, corporate officers, accountants, investment bankers, regulators, politicians, analysts, auditors, and attorneys (Mills, 2003). Politicians, CEOs, bankers, and auditors are seen as part of the problem, not the solution. It is not surprising that Americans have lost their faith in the business world and the people who run it.

For a number of years, business schools have been engaged in making business ethics an integral part of the curriculum. In fact, a course in business ethics is already required in most business programs, and there is talk about “ethics across the curriculum.” Nowadays, programs in information systems and computer science also require a course in ethics, as do many other disciplines. One big question is whether these ethics courses should be taught by philosophy professors or professors of business or computers (Friedman and Friedman 2006).

Another important question is whether ethics, as it is currently taught, is too separate from and irrelevant to the rest of the business curriculum. For instance, one issue often addressed is

2

whether ethics should be based on consequences, moral duties, rights of individuals, and/or virtues. There are so many approaches that a student may reasonably conclude a course more confused than at the beginning. This is a shame since a large number of young people start out idealistic and want to make the world a better place.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH HOW BUSINESS ETHICS IS CURRENTLY BEING TAUGHT?

The lesson that the goal of a firm is to maximize shareholder wealth or that rational man is motivated solely by self-interest is something that most business schools teach well. Homo Economicus is “Rational Man,” but is also an individual without a soul, one who has no compassion for others and little concern for truth, justice or the environment. Etzioni (2002) feels that these views, with roots in economic theory, have resulted in the failure of business schools to properly teach ethical behavior. Etzioni cites an Aspen Institute study of 2,000 graduates of the top 13 business schools, which found that business school education not only fails to improve the ethics of students, but weakens it. The proportion of those who believed that maximizing shareholder wealth was the prime responsibility of a corporation increased from 68% when they started an MBA program to 82% one year later. In another study, students were asked if, given a 1% chance of being caught and sent to prison for one year, they would attempt an illegal act that would net them or their company a profit of $100,000. Approximately onethird said yes. The scandals involving backdating of options has made it obvious that the

3

maximizing shareholder wealth philosophy is a sham in many corporations. Backdating of options is not an aberration; there is evidence that 29% of public corporations have engaged in this practice (Burrows, 2007).

Mangan (2006) notes that a number of scholars feel that “today’s business schools, by elevating shareholder profit above social benefits and other concerns, may have unintentionally become breeding grounds for a generation of Gordon Gekkos.” Gordon Gekko was the character who said “greed is good” in the film Wall Street. John J. Fernandes, president of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), also believes that schools of business have overemphasized the importance of profit maximization (Mangan, 2006).

The one lesson that may be getting through to students is that the CEO’s job is to maximize shareholder wealth. Greed may not be good but there is nothing wrong with doing everything to make the stock price go up. After all, this is what the stockholders want. Kolp and Rea (2006: 25) also feel that the belief that the primary job of a CEO is to maximize shareholder wealth (or the wealth of the CEO) leads to a corporation that has lost its soul, a good example of which is Enron. Fortunately, many schools are moving away from what is sometimes referred to as the stockholder model to the stakeholder model.

Unfortunately, Milton Friedman’s view (1962, 133) may still make a great deal of sense to many students. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and 4

engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” In fact, it may appear more valid than the absolutist view of many philosophers such as Kant. For instance, the belief that the ends never justify the means and that since, for example, lying is wrong, it is therefore wrong even to save the lives of your entire family.

Courses in ethics – even courses in business ethics – tend to focus on different philosophical theories of ethics. Moreover, as Nash (2003) notes, philosophers and executives speak different languages and have difficulty relating to each other. The language of philosophy, which uses terms such as deontological and categorical imperative in dealing with business ethics, confirms to the businessperson why philosophers should not and cannot run a company. In fact, the businessperson may conclude that philosophers have no understanding of what it takes to compete successfully in the globalized world. Learning about different theories of ethics begs the question as to which approach should an executive follow. In that context, all approaches studied appear to be valued equally. Students might easily make the case for Milton Friedman’s view or, worse yet, Nietzsche’s ethical philosophy.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

If an objective is to help our students learn how to make well-reasoned, ethical decisions as stakeholders in our highly interdependent global business environment and, by extension, in

5

society at large, then teaching about corporate social responsibility rather than business ethics may be the way to go. For one thing, it is considerably easier to teach corporate social responsibility than ethics. The benefits of corporate social responsibility are easy to explain. Our definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) will be the one cited in Hollender and Fenichell (2004, p. 29): … an ongoing commitment by business to behave ethically and to contribute to economic development when demonstrating respect for people, communities, society at large, and the environment. In short, CSR marries the concepts of global citizenship with environmental stewardship and sustainable development.

Scholars have come up with a number of arguments that can be used in discussions regarding why corporations should behave in a socially responsible manner.

Note that behaving ethically

is part of being socially responsible. Course material and classroom discussions may be focused on such issues as the following:

DISCUSSION: CAPITALISM HAS BECOME DYSFUNCTIONAL AND MAY NOT SURVIVE IF COMPANIES CONTINUE TO ACT IN SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WAYS.

6

This argument has been used by many authors. Greider (2003), for example, contends that because greed is the foundation of capitalism, it has caused capitalism to become dysfunctional. The corporation has lost its soul and destroys the environment in the name of profit. Moreover, there is virtually no democracy in the corporate world and executives act like lords of the manor with employees as their serfs.

Bogle (2005: 5) claims that capitalism needs a soul if it is to thrive: “…capitalism requires a structure and a value system that people believe in and can depend on. We do not need a Pollyannaish faith in the goodwill of mankind, but we do need the confidence that promises and commitments, once made, will be kept. We also need assurances that the system as a whole does not unduly benefit some at the expense of others.” Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, notes that “…if the rewards for CEOs and their teams become extraordinarily high with no link to performance —and shareholders are left holding the bag— then it undermines people’s confidence in capitalism itself”(Kirkland, 2006).

Wilson (1997) asserts that “Capitalism has won the economic battle around the world, but it is everywhere on the defensive with respect to the moral struggle for men’s souls…The lasting challenge to capitalism is moral.” Laura L. Nash, author of several books dealing with business and religion, notes: “Capitalism looks like it has won the day, but if it suffers some kind of moral bankruptcy, it isn’t going to last” (Lagace, 2001).

7

Fogel (2000), a 1993 Nobel laureate in economics, stresses the importance of spirituality in the new economy. He identifies 15 vital spiritual resources that include such concepts as “a sense of purpose, a sense of opportunity, a sense of community, a strong family ethic, a strong work ethic, and high self esteem.” The implication of his view is that capitalism should take spiritual values into account in order to survive in the new economy. It should be noted that Fogel uses the term “spirituality” in a way that is not connected to any particular religion or group. Similarly, Rhodes (2006) maintains: “A spiritual workplace provides resources to help people uncover their creative potential and to practice creativity within the organization.” Spirituality is about values and making life, including work, meaningful. Other terms used in the literature to describe organizations that behave in a socially responsible manner include “virtuous firm,” “organizations with values,” “capitalism with a soul,” and “spiritual workplace.”

John P. Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods Market, asserts that customer satisfaction is more important than profit maximization. He is an advocate for what is referred to as valuesdriven capitalism. The firm has to consciously work to improve society and not rely solely on the “invisible hand” of the marketplace to achieve this result. In fact, the company stopped selling lobsters because it did not like the way the animals were treated. The company is also increasing its spending on its purchases of produce from local farmers (Nocera, 2006).

DISCUSSION: IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO WELL BY DOING GOOD

8

A significant number of authors have been making the case that a company can do well by doing good. A recent cover story in Business Week (Engardio, 2007) offered that socially responsible and environmentally friendly practices may actually be able to boost a firm’s bottom line.

One survey conducted in 23 countries found that 90% of respondents want companies to “focus on more than profitability.” Moreover, 17% claimed that they avoided products made by firms that they felt were not socially responsible (Kotler and Lee, 2005: 12-13). One part of CSR deals with concern for the environment. The public is very concerned about the environment and wants to do business with companies that care. One study found that 75% of consumers claim that their purchasing decisions are affected by a firm’s reputation with respect to taking care of the environment (Kotler and Lee, 2005:12). There is a competitive advantage to going green. Companies recognize that environmental stewardship is a way of differentiating a product or service and attracting customers; ecological sensitivity may not be an option in the future. Companies such as Wal-Mart are promising that in the future they will be completely green, i.e., produce no waste and only use renewable sources of energy (Wald, 2006). Firms that see environmental issues as opportunities rather than threats are more likely to succeed by establishing a competitive advantage over the competition. Clearly, the public is hungry for products that are competitively priced yet do not harm the environment. A recent marketing research study found that about 57% of the purchasers of the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car, stated that the main reason they bought that model was because “it makes a statement about me”

9

(Maynard, 2007). People have a need to demonstrate to the world that they care about the environment.

Kotler and Lee (2005: 10-11) report that there are many benefits to being a socially responsible firm. These include: increased sales and market share, strengthened brand positioning, enhanced corporate image and clout, increased ability to attract, motivate, and retain employees, decreased operating costs, and increased appeal to investors and financial analysts.

Pava (2003: 62) provides a reason that many firms do not act in a socially responsible manner. Many executives believe that “there must be a trade-off between profits and social responsibility: An activity is either socially responsible or profitable, but it cannot be both.” Pava, an accountant, whose research compared socially responsible firms with those that were not, came to the following conclusion (Pava, 2003: 62): “Much to my surprise, we were unable to uncover any cost of social responsibility. In fact, the evidence suggested that there might even be a financial advantage for the companies carrying out these projects.”

A virtuous firm with values may actually have a competitive edge over firms that do not have values. Studies of numerous industries show that virtuous organizations, i.e., those that possess institutionalized compassion, forgiveness, and integrity, “enjoy higher levels of productivity, quality, profitability, customer satisfaction, and employee engagement” (Brady 2006; Paine, 2003:53). Vogel (2005: 45) disagrees and claims that there is little evidence that there is a

10

positive relationship between being socially responsible and profitability. But even Vogel agrees that “this does not mean there is no business case for virtue. It is rather to suggest that any such claim must be more nuanced.”

Batstone (2003, p. 3) makes the point that employees working for ethical firms are six times more likely to remain in their companies as compared to those employed at unethical firms. Can spiritual values be employed in the workplace and make an organization more profitable and improve employee satisfaction? The answer is a resounding yes! Mitroff and Denton (1999) provide strong empirical evidence that firms with spiritual values will perform better than those without. Those firms have employees that are more loyal, productive, and innovative than other companies.

Hollender and Fenichell (2004: 44-45) feel that the reputation of a company (“goodwill”) and its brands (“brand equity”) are more valuable than the firm’s buildings and machines. They are a firm’s most valuable asset and determine market capitalization. The second most valuable asset is the “human capital of the employees.” Thus, firms that harm their reputations will seriously damage their market capitalizations. Acting in a socially responsible manner, on the other hand, increases the market capitalization of a firm. Hollender and Fenichell (2004: 26-27) assert that there is strong positive correlation between being a value-driven firm and financial performance. Firms that make virtue part of their culture have done much better in terms of long-term financial performance than those only concerned with profit maximization. There are several firms that

11

track corporate governance: GovernanceMetrics International, Audit Integrity, and Ethisphere. GovernanceMetrics claims that firms that it ranks highly on governance outperform other firms (Dvorak, 2007). Ethisphere also found that the firms that were rated very high on good governance outperformed the S&P 500 (Dvorak, 2007).

Major business leaders who attended the World Economic Forum were asked for their primary measure of success. Only 20% mentioned profitability. The majority mentioned the reputation of the corporation, integrity, and high quality products (Hindery, 2005: 10). Back in the 1950s, Peter Drucker saw the corporation as an organization “built on trust and respect for the worker and not just a profit-making machine” (Byrne, 2005).

Porter and Kramer (2003) aver that corporate philanthropy does not have to be seen as pure charity. It can be used in a strategic way to help a firm and ultimately increase a firm’s long-term profits. For example, a firm could use its resources to improve education and the welfare of the community in which it operates. Done correctly, this can also benefit the firm. Kanter (2003) describes how a partnership between the corporate world and the public sector can benefit both.

There is currently a trend among CEOs — it does not appear to be a fad— towards being likable. Executives are becoming warm, responsive, caring, and humble (Brady, 2006). According to Brady (2006), “positive energy” is popular with CEOs today and they are learning to reach out to stakeholders and the media. Engardio (2006) asserts that we are seeing what is called “karma

12

capitalism” or “inclusive capitalism.” Indeed, many firms are interested in pursuing the goals of value creation, virtue, and social justice. Leaders are supposed to be fair, show compassion, and be sensitive to all stakeholders.

Chappell (1999), CEO of Tom’s of Maine, describes how his firm has thrived by managing “upside down.” This means allowing values as well as profit drive a company. In fact, Chappel feels that “social and moral responsibilities” have to be the core of the business. Kenneth Iverson, the legendary CEO of Nucor — one of the very successful American steel companies— felt that “employees, even hourly clock-punchers, will make an extraordinary effort if you reward them richly, treat them with respect, and give them real power” (Byrnes, 2006). Milliman et al. (1999), in a case study approach, demonstrate how Southwest Airlines uses a “spiritual values-based model” to make its firm successful.

Wal-MartWatch (www.WalmartWatch.com) has run advertisements which they call “A Handshake with Sam” urging Wal-Mart to abide by the philosophy of its founder, Sam Walton, as expressed in his autobiography, Made in America: My Story: “I am absolutely convinced that the only way we can improve one another’s quality of life, which is something very real to those of us who grew up in the Depression, is through what we call free enterprise — practiced correctly and morally.”

13

Ben Cohen, cofounder of Ben & Jerry’s, says: “At Ben and Jerry’s, we learned that there’s a spiritual life to businesses as there is in the lives of individuals.” He also asserts: “As you give, you receive. As you help others, you are helped in return. For people, for businesses, for nations – it’s all the same… We’re all interconnected, and as we help others, we cannot help but help ourselves” (Saylor, 2005).

There are many other examples of CEOs that believe very strongly that firms need to be more socially responsible in order to survive. However, Paine (2003: 133-136) makes the point that the argument that ethics pays presents numerous problems. In fact, it actually could hurt the argument for ethical behavior since it makes profits the overarching goal of the firm. What happens when it is clear that being ethical will cost the firm a great deal of money? Paine (2003: 134) feels that the slogan “ethics counts” is more appropriate.

DISCUSSION: HAPPINESS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

There is a movement in economics that is studying happiness and moving away from the traditional view that rational man tries to maximize his wealth. Thus, more money is always better than less money. Some economists are studying happiness (also referred to as subjective well being) and using the construct as part of a cost-benefit analysis (Frey and Stutzer, 2005). One Buddhist country, Bhutan, plans on using “gross national happiness” (GNH) as a key economic indicator rather than the traditional gross domestic product (GDP). Diener (2000) also

14

advocates the use of a national indicator of happiness. There are several interesting findings regarding happiness. For instance, increases in income do not help increase happiness much once a person’s basic needs are satisfied; what matters more than absolute wealth is relative wealth (Johnson and Krueger, 2006; Kahneman, et. al., 2006; McConvill, 2005; Wallis, 2005). Factors that do increase happiness include control over one’s life, performing deeds of kindness and altruism, finding meaning in one’s life, and having friends (Johnson and Krueger, 2006; Wallis, 2005). Loss of job can have a devastating effect on happiness (Wallis, 2005). Thus, a company is in a unique position to make people happy with their lives or miserable. A company that provides meaningful work, a pleasant social environment, and attempts to provide strong job security can help increase the subjective well being of its employees. Diener (2000) claims that people that are happy are more productive. Certainly, if a company’s survival is at stake, the right decision may be to close down factories or outsource despite the loss of many jobs. On the other hand, does it make sense to downsize when the resulting increase in profits is relatively small, perhaps smaller than the salary increase given to the CEO?

McConvill (2005) promotes the view that rather than focusing on the executives who have behaved in an unethical manner, government should embrace what he calls “positive corporate governance” which is based on the belief that most people are basically good and want to be happy and do what is right. McConvill claims that if corporate governance changed its focus away from “control and compliance” to be concerned with the positive objectives, there would be little need for government to pass numerous laws and rules (e.g., Sarbanes Oxley) that increases

15

the burdens and costs of running a business. McConvill notes that positive corporate governance is rooted in the field of positive psychology. Positive psychology is concerned with positive emotions such as happiness and well-being; clinical psychology is concerned mainly with negative emotions such as hostility and depression. McConvill uses the positive corporate governance model to demonstrate that executive compensation based on money – even so called “pay for performance” – does not work. In fact the correlation between the two is probably nonexistent. This should not be surprising given that, as noted above, increases in wealth, especially when one is already quite affluent, have virtually no impact on happiness. The stress should not be placed on making executives super wealthy but on happiness. Happiness, as noted above comes from doing good and altruism.

CONCLUSION

Teaching about corporate social responsibility is one way to incorporate “how” and “why” a firm should do the right thing into the business curriculum. Students can easily relate to the argument that savage capitalism without a soul will not survive. If capitalism is going to have a future, it has to be concerned about truth, justice, compassion, and the environment. In the end, it is not only about money or growth – although a firm can do well by doing good – it is about happiness for all.

16

References

Batstone, David (2003). Saving the corporate soul. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bogle, John C. (2005). The battle for the soul of capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brady, Diane (2006, June 26). Charm offensive: Why America’s CEOs are suddenly so eager to be loved. Business Week, 76-80. Burrows, Peter (2007, January 15). He’s making hay as CEOs squirm. Business Week, 64-65. Byrne, John A. (2005, November 28). The man who invented management: Why Peter Drucker’s ideas still matter. Business Week, 97-106. Byrnes, Nanette. (2005, November 28). Smarter corporate giving. Business Week, 68-76. Chappell, Tom (1999). Managing upside down. New York: William Morrow and Company. Deutsch, Claudia H. (2005, December 9). Take your best shot: New surveys show that big business has a P.R. problem. New York Times, C1. Diener, Ed (2000). Subjective well being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34 -43. Dvorak, Phred (2007, July 2). Finding the best measure of ‘corporate citizenship.’ Wall Street Journal, B3. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118332860213454548.html Engardio, Pete (2006, October 30). Karma capitalism. Business Week, 84-91. Engardio, Pete (2007, January 29). Beyond the green corporation. Business Week, 50-58. Etzioni, Amitai (2002, August 4). When it comes to ethics, b-schools get an ‘F.’ Washington Post. B4. Retrieved on March 7, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn/A38323-2002Aug2. Fogel, Robert W. (2000). The fourth great awakening. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

17

Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, A. (2005). Happiness research: state and prospects. Review of Social Economy, 62 (2), 207-228. L.W. Friedman and H.H. Friedman, “Computer and IT Ethics: Perception of Computer Science Majors,” Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, San Antonio, TX, November 18-21, 2006, pp. 25231-25236. Friedman, Milton (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Greider, William (2003). The soul of capitalism: Opening a path to a moral economy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Hindery, Leo (2005). It takes a CEO: It’s time to lead with integrity. New York: Free Press. Hollender, Jeffrey and Fenichell, S. (2004). What matters most. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, Wendy & Krueger, R. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 680-691. Kahneman, Daniel, Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312 (5782), 1908-1910. Kanter, Rosabeth M. (2003). From spare change to real change: The social sector as beta site for business innovation. In Harvard Business School Press (Eds.), Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility (pp. 189-213). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corp. Kirkland, Rik (2006, June 30). The real CEO pay problem. Fortune. Retrieved September 17, 2006 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380799/index.htm Kolp, Alan and Rea, P. (2006). Leading with integrity: Character-based leadership. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. Kotler, Philip and Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and cause. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lagace, Martha (2001, November 12). Can religion and business learn from each other? HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved February 15, 2006 from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3511&t=leadership 18

Mangan, Katherine (2006, June 23). Agents of fortune. Chronicle of Higher Education, A14 A16. Maynard, Micheline (2007, July 4). Say ‘hybrid’ and many people will hear ‘Prius.’ New York Times, A1. McConvill, James (2005). Positive corporate governance and its implications for executive compensation. German Law Journal,6(12). Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=677 Milliman, John, Ferguson, J., Trickett, D. and Condemi, B. (1999). Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines. Journal of Organizational Change, 12(3), 221-233. Mills, D. Quinn (2003). Wheel, deal and steal: Deceptive accounting, deceitful CEOs, and ineffective reforms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Prentice Hall. Mitroff, Ian I. And Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nash, Laura (2003). Ethics without the sermon. In Harvard Business School Press (Eds.), Harvard Business Review on Corporate Ethics (pp. 19-48). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corp. Nocera, Joe (2006, July 15). A tussle of sorts, over organics. New York Times, C1, C8. Paine, Lynn S. (2003). Value shift. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pava, Moses L. (2003). Leading with meaning: Using covenantal leadership to build a better organization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Porter, Michael and Kramer, M. R. (2003). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. In Harvard Business School Press (Eds.), Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility (pp. 27-64). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corp. Rhodes, Kent (2006). Six components of a model for workplace spirituality. Graziadio Business Report, 9(2), Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/062/workplace.html. Saylor, Frederica (2005, May 12). Businesses benefit from a low-key spirituality. Science and Technology News. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.stnews.org/rlr-494.htm. Vogel, David (2005). The market for virtue. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 19

Wald, Matthew L. (2006, May 17). What’s kind to nature can be kind to profits. New York Times, G1, G5. Wallis, Claudia (2005, January 17). The new science of happiness. Time Magazine, 165(3), A2A9. Wal-Mart Watch (2005). The moral responsibilities of Wal-Mart. Retrieved September 17, 2006 from: http://walmartwatch.com/handshake Wilson, James Q. (1997). The morality of capitalism. Fourteenth annual John Bonython lecture. Sydney, October 15. Retrieved May 7, 2006 from http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL97.htm

20