Search results

Frederick R. Post’s response (2003) to our paper (“The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique,” 2003) is factually mistaken, inconsistent, and confused over: 1) the contents of our paper, 2) how corporate capitalism works, and 3) the consequences of what he advocates. This reply discusses these points, and revisits both our critique of the stakeholder paradigm and defense of shareholder primacy.

Calls for corporate social responsibility are widespread, yet there is no consensus about what it means; this may be its charm. However, it is possible to distinguish the fi duciary obligations owed to shareholders, as expressed by Milton Friedman, from all other paradigms of corporate responsibility. Friedman maintains that: “ ...there is one and only one social responsibility of business‐to‐use its resources and 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.” All other paradigms argue that corporations have social responsibilities that extend beyond the pursuit of shareholder benefits to stakeholders. The list of cited stakeholders is ill‐defined and expanding, including non‐human animals and non‐sentient things. This paper defends the intellectual and ethical merits of fiduciary duties, and compares and contrasts it to the stakeholder paradigm. The fiduciary duty to firms’ owners is the bedrock of capitalism, and capitalism will wither without it.

Failures may lead to ultimate success in both nature and business. Just as dynamic ecosystems depend on death to replace senescent organisms with vigorous growth, the termination of uneconomic activities is essential to wealth creation. This paper explores the benefits of failures, and uses aspects of the analogy between death and business failure to analyze how failures in business economize upon resources and lead to better firms and greater efficiencies. A distinguishing feature of our work is the analytic use of competitive markets to provide insights into the processes of success and failure. Recognizable patterns of business failures are discussed in an effort to provide entrepreneurs and managers with a basis for understanding and acting upon changing circumstances.

Shareholder Theory allows management to ignore the interests of the other constituencies while pursuing its own narrow self‐interest under the guise (the ethical facade) of promoting the interests of the shareholder owners. The Shareholder Theory does not provide any relistic counterweight against management abuse. The Enron example strengthens the arguments for the use of Stakeholder theory and exposes the utter failure of the Shareholder Theory.

The preceding article, “The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique,” argues that the Shareholder Theory, which the authors refer to as the “Friedman Paradigm” represents the only intellectually and ethically meritorious model for assessing corporate social responsibility. This response argues that the 19th Century Shareholder Theory is based upon numerous factual and legal inaccuracies and fictions when evaluated in the context of the modern era. Requiring that management serve only the interests of the shareholders is morally untenable. The authors’ assertion that the competing theory, The Stakeholder Theory, is unworkable is based upon both a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theory. Refinements and clarifications about who qualifies as a stakeholder make the Stakeholder Theory both workable and a very useful way to improve corporate governance. Now is the time to apply the Stakeholder Theory as part of the ongoing process of improving the moral and social responsibility of corporation management.

To provide an integrated architecture framework for e‐government that represents the alignment of IT infrastructure with business process management in public sector organisations and classify the barriers that might complicate the implementation of the proposed architecture framework. The study will help IT practitioners in the public sector learn how to use and manage information technologies to revitalise business processes, improve decision‐making, and gain a competitive advantage from the adoption of e‐government. The proposed architecture framework for e‐government adoption will reduce confusion surrounding e‐government infrastructure in the public sector through understanding the implementation processes, identifying requirements of information and communications technology tools, highlighting the importance of the organisational management resources and the impact of barriers.

A range of earlier studies have been critically examined and analysed to provide an integrated architecture framework for e‐government adoption that can address and identify the standards, infrastructure components, applications, and technologies for e‐government. The authors have divided the architecture framework into four layers; access layer, e‐government layer, e‐business layer, and infrastructure layer; each layer addresses a particular aspect of e‐government architecture. This paper then presents a critical analysis of barriers experienced in public sector organisations, which prevent the successful adoption of e‐government; such barriers being presented in a taxonomy.

Defined organisational and technological requirements that will be necessary for the adoption of e‐government in public sector organisations through construct an integrated architecture framework for e‐government. The difficulties and barriers that have been experienced in public sector organisations which complicate the implementation process of e‐government have been analysed and then identified and presented in a taxonomy.

The paper provides architecture framework for e‐government adoption that can help to guide IT managers recognise the technological and organisational requirements for e‐government adoption in public sector organisations. The framework can also help the decision makers to set a vision statement and strategic action plan for future direction in the information technology age through identifying key elements and stages for action. The authors also identify and classify the perceived barriers that might complicate the implementation process of e‐government projects. The awareness of these barriers is important for any e‐government project since they will alert the e‐government project team with any problems or challenges might be existed during the implementation process so they will be ready to overcome them.

Defines and categorizes the types of intrusions that can be made on information systems. Characterizes a good intrusion detection system and examines and compares commercial intrusion detection products. Reports on continuing intrusion detection.

The following definitions and standards for food products have been adopted as a guide for the officials of this Department in enforcing the Food and Drugs Act. These are standards of identity and are not to be confused with standards of quality or grade; they are so framed as to exclude substances not mentioned in the definition and in each instance imply that the product is clean and sound. These definitions and standards include those published in S. R. A., F. D. 2, revision 4, and those adopted October 28, 1936.

Federal government agencies increasingly use electronic bulletin board technology as a means of providing access to and dissemination of electronic government information. This paper identifies and analyzes existing government bulletin boards (BBSs). It also assesses the types of information available to information users on the BBSs as well as the cost and technological access issues involved in federal agency use of BBSs. Furthermore, the paper presents a typology of bulletin boards. Finally, it discusses information policy implications resulting from BBS development, especially with regard to access and dissemination of electronic government information. These “new” access mechanisms are often‐times difficult to use, are poorly deployed and operated, and may serve to limit access to some types of government information.

It's not enough to simply acquire alternative and small‐press materials. They must also be made easily accessible to library users by means of accurate, intelligible, and thorough cataloging.