企業의 社會的責任

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ENTERPRISE

Ⅰ. Conceptual Framework The term, social responsibility of an enterprise, could be used in ethical or moral, as well as legal, context. Thus, conceptually it may have different meanings in different contexts, depending on one’s motivation and viewpoint as to the social and public nature of the enterprises. Attempts would be made, in the present paper, to discuss the subject primarily from a legal aspect. What distinguishes it from the moral or ethical responsibility thereof, is a certain framework whereby an enterprise would be made subject to civil responsibility, criminal sanction, or administrative regulation. And this framework, being a basis of responsibility, has to be clearly definable. Inasmuch as we are concerned here with social, as opposed to individual, responsibility of an enterprise, ‘social’ poses certain definitional poblems. For the purpose of this discussion, ‘social’ responsibility of an enterprise should be construed as responsibility of a business toward ‘these concerned’ whose interests are affected thereby. Those concerned, then, would have to vary from one business activity to another. This gives rise to much ambiguity and confusion. It is true that the moral and ethical considerations play an important role in determination of the social responsibility of an enterprise. Nevertheless they are more or less secondary to the legal control. Indeed, it was only after the pollution, various wrongdoings of enterprises, and the pursuit of business interests to a socially unacceptable degree, came to head, that the question of the responsibility of an enterprise was brought to our attention. Ⅱ. Social Wrongs of an Enterprise Surveys show the social wrongs caused by the enterprises take various forms. For the purpose of this research they may be classified, by and large, into two categories; pollution and other antisocial activities. As far as the pollution is concerned, it would include the industrial pollution, such as air-pollution, water-pollution, noises, and vibrations, and other forms of pollutions by foods and pharmaceutical products. Exaggerated advertisement and packing of foods and pharmaceutical goods, false descriptions of ingredients, additives, and sources of supply, false or exaggerated labelling and advertisement as to the material, manufacturing process, effects, and contents, etc. are illustrative of the anti-social activities of the enterprises. Injuries to the consumers are prevalent in many products besides the foods and pharmaceutical products. Ⅲ. Social and General Responsibility of an Enterprise Statutory enactments on the general responsibility of an enterprise are seldom found nowadays. In the case of Germany, Stock Corporation Act of 1937 provided in Art. 70. para. 1. that a director of a corporation should manage the corporation in accordance with the welfare of the employees and common interests of nation and state. This is believed to be the only legislation expressly incorporating such a responsibility, although it has been deleted from the 1965 Act currently in effect. As far as the U. S. practice is concerned, the subject matter has been under public discussion and scrutiny for some time. Nevertheless, it has yet to be specifically legislated. The nearest case in point would probably be the Model Business Corporation Act, Section 4, m, of which provides: “Each corporation shall have power to make donations for the public welfare or for charitable, scientific or educational purposes.” Thus far 48 States have enacted their laws incorporating, one way or another, the legislative intent thereof. This is to say that the U. S. practices show the concept of social responsibility is basically viewed as return of the business profits to the society by way of gifts. In this respect, the social responsibility in the U.S. legislative practices falls into different conceptual scheme from what we have defined hereinabove.