Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 73:1–9
DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9192-4
The Social Responsibilities
of International Business Firms
in Developing Areas
ABSTRACT. Three principles must be taken into ac-
count in assessing the social responsibilities of interna-
tional business firms in developing areas. The first is an
awareness of the historical and institutional dynamics of
local communities. This influences the type and range of
responsibilities the firm can be expected to assume; it also
reveals the limitations of any universal codes of conduct.
The second is the necessity of non-intimidating com-
munication with local constituencies. This requires the
firm to temper its power and influence by recognizing
and responding to local concerns in the pursuit of its own
objectives. The third is the degree to which the firm’s
operations safeguard and indeed improve the social and
economic assets of local communities. At issue is the
question of adequate compensation for the inevitable
disruptions that an international business brings to a local
community. Beneficial returns must be shared and sus-
tained over the long term in an equitable manner. The
nine studies in this special edition illustrate in different
ways the importance of these three principles.
KEY WORDS: dialog, sustainability, social responsi-
bility, institutional context
Frederick Bird holds a Research Chair in Comparative Ethics at
Concordia University, Montreal. He is the author of The
Muted Conscience: Moral Silence and the Practice of Ethics
in Business (1996), and has co-edited three volumes of essays
on international business ethics: International Businesses and
the Challenges of Poverty in the Developing World (2004),
International Business and the Dilemmas of Development
(2005), and Just Business Practices in a Diverse and
Developing World 2006).
Joseph Smucker is Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology
and Anthropology, Concordia University, Montreal. His
research publications are in the areas of industrialization, labor
markets, labor market policies, and models of economic
development.
Ó Springer 2006
Frederick Bird
Joseph Smucker
Business enterprises can be the means by which
resources in developing areas are transformed into
goods and services that enrich lives in many ways.
They also provide opportunities for income, the
development of skills, and tax revenues. But there
are costs involved. Resources are consumed; benefits
are seldom shared in an equitable manner; traditions
and social institutions can be destroyed without
adequate replacements. The papers collected for this
special edition illustrate the variety of ways in which
these problems have emerged and the ways business
enterprises in different cultural contexts have sought
to minimize the effects of these problems. In one
case, efforts to ‘‘do good’’ resulted in even more
destruction of the local social fabric. In another case,
failure to act for the common good, despite the
companies’ claims to the contrary, required the state
to intervene to ensure pharmaceuticals were mar-
keted at affordable prices. The common theme
running through this special collection is not only
the question of accountability and responsibility that
business firms owe to their social constituencies and
physical environments, but also the questions of the
scope of their responsibilities and the most effective
means to carry out their obligations.
Conceptualizing the responsibilities
of the business firm
If we assume that business firms should be socially
responsible, in what ways should this be exercised? Is
it enough, as some would argue (Sternberg, 2000),
to focus only on ethical business relationships and
transparency in organizational governance? Or
should the more expansive concept of ‘‘stakehold-
ers’’ be embraced, requiring firms to assume
2 Frederick Bird and Joseph Smucker
responsibility for a broad range of economic and
social consequences of their operations?1 If so, how
should business firms proceed? How vast should be
the range of their responsibilities? Can these
responsibilities be universally defined, or do they
depend on the nature, strength and scope of other
institutions such as the state, the family and kin
group, or religious institutions? Does formal law
provide the framework within which business is
conducted, or do social networks and social norms
play a major role?2 By what standards should the
operations of a firm be judged: by codes designed to
be universally applicable, or by locally defined
interpretations? Or is it a matter of translating uni-
versal codes into particular contexts? And if local
contexts are taken into account, how should con-
flicting interests and objectives be resolved?
It is worth keeping in mind that managers of
business firms must deal constantly with contradictory
demands from diverse constituencies even in ‘‘ma-
ture’’ market economies. Market principles them-
selves are based on the resolution of diverse demands.
Buyers and sellers, with their contradictory objectives,
must come to some agreement; competitive pressures
for low consumer prices must be balanced against fair
wages for labor; demands from financial investors for
maintaining high profit levels must be assessed in
relation to long-term investment objectives; and if a
firm is to act ‘‘responsibly’’, private gain must be
measured against public costs (see also Leader, 2005).
In the research that provides the foundation for
the essays in this special issue of the Journal of Business
Ethics, we have been analyzing and assessing the
social impact of international business firms in
developing areas.3 We have conducted case studies
of international business operations in Nigeria,
Ghana, Uganda, South Africa, Sudan, and Mada-
gascar, in Africa; Pakistan, Vietnam, South Korea,
China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Fiji, in Asia and the
Pacific; and Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia,
Guyana and Northern Canada, in the Americas.4 In
each case, we have assumed that market principles
operate at least to some degree.
Our research on the operations of Western
international business firms in these diverse cultures
brought into dramatic focus the importance of
contextual variables in assessing their practices. The
salience of contextual variables on the outcomes of
business practices in foreign cultures caused us to
reassess the role of universal standards and codes of
conduct as we searched for morally compelling
guidelines that would foster socially and environ-
mentally responsible business practices. While stan-
dards may provide guidelines for fair and equitable
practices, and suggest objectives to strive for, they
nevertheless must be interpreted and applied within
the context of local exigencies. To be ethically
effective, they must be more than mere statements of
intent or means to burnish reputation or attempts to
manage potential risks or efforts to restrict the terms
of competition.
In arguing for a contextual approach, we offer
three principles of our own to be followed by busi-
ness firms if they are to act responsibly. First, they
must understand the institutional dynamics of the
local communities in which they are located. Second,
they must undertake to engage in open, non-intim-
idating communication with their constituents,
including representatives from the host community.
Third, they must ensure that their operations safe-
guard the sustainability, if not the improvement, of
economic and social assets of the host community.
These are demanding requirements, since priorities
must be established and choices must be made on
frequently ambiguous prognoses. We consider each
of these principles in turn.
The importance of local context
Is it reasonable to require business firms to assume
responsibility for the social and economic conse-
quences of their actions? If so, is it possible, is it even
desirable, to establish common standards to ensure
that they take this responsibility seriously? Many
observers would be quick to answer yes to both
questions. A number of organizations such as Social
Accountability and the Interfaith Center for Corpo-
rate Responsibility have crafted universally applicable
benchmarks for responsible business practices. The
Caux Round Table and the Global Reporting Ini-
tiative have established standards roughly in keeping
with these assumptions. Further, firms within specific
industrial sectors such as chemical producers, forestry
companies and mining companies have developed
their own universal codes (Webb, 2004). These
standards are, in effect, rules that govern responsi-
ble competitive behavior, regardless of where the
 Social Responsibilities of International Business
enterprise is located. Their requirements make it more
difficult for business firms to take advantage of areas
where, for example, environmental or labor standards
are lax, or even nonexistent.
Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that
international businesses operate in quite diverse
cultures and circumstances. Attitudes toward work
and authority, criteria employed for determining
wage scales, styles of negotiation and bargaining – all
can differ widely among ‘‘developing’’ as well as
‘‘developed’’ countries. Transactions that would be
considered questionable in some settings may be
quite acceptable in others – for example, wedding
gifts or payment of funeral expenses for a trading
partner’s family members, or the payment of publicly
recognized facilitation fees. Honest efforts to prevent
discrimination against women by establishing gen-
der-neutral employment guidelines can be seen, in
some social contexts, as an insensitive disregard for
women’s special situation and status.
A number of studies in our project describe how
companies dealt with diverse normative standards
that affected hiring policies, management styles, pay
scales, equity rules, contract bargaining, and the
acceptability of ‘‘questionable payments’’ (see espe-
cially Bird, 2005; Smucker, 2005b, 2006b). Before
setting targets and guidelines for socially responsible
business practices or evaluating the accomplishments
of particular firms, it is important to recognize the
unique features that distinguish the cultural and
institutional contexts in which these firms are lo-
cated. Since those circumstances differ, firms corre-
spondingly face quite different types of
opportunities, expectations, and obstacles. Moser
(1998) found that international petroleum firms in
the mid-1990s faced quite different opportunities,
risks, governmental support and government regu-
lations with respect to their environmental practices
in Colombia and Peru. A comparison of the research
results of Herman (2004a, b, c) with those of Naguib
(unpublished), reveals in dramatic ways that the
challenges and limitations facing businesses during
the gradual transition toward free-market principles
in Vietnam in the 1980s were quite different from
those faced during the same period by similar firms
operating in the much more industrialized and
multi-cultural context of Malaysia. Both differed in
still other ways from the industrializing, culturally
uniform, and corporatist context of the Republic of
3
Korea (Smucker, 2005a). The opportunities and
constraints, the public expectations and moral de-
mands facing businesses in South Africa became
quite different after the end of the Apartheid era in
comparison to what they had been previously (Daye,
2005; Kotze, 2005a, b; Raufflet, 2005). We there-
fore came to recognize that before assessing the so-
cial responsibility of business practices as formally
defined by the norms established by specific indus-
tries (Dashwood, 2006), or the codes formulated by
independent organizations, an evaluation of the so-
cial practices of firms needed to take into account
local contextual variables, including the local cul-
ture, the nature of local institutions and their inter-
relationships, as well as the history of the area. All of
these studies made us very aware of the dilemmas
managers of foreign firms faced in fusing together
Western business practices with local economic and
social mores and norms.
The first paper in this issue, ‘‘Social Standards’’,
by Thomas Beschorner and Martin Müller, deals
with the application of two types of codes: those that
emphasize adherence to universal principles, and
those which the authors call ‘‘social standards’’ and
which are set in place through ‘‘dialogs’’ with local
constituents. The authors argue for a scheme that
requires business firms to exercise their ‘‘organiza-
tional learning capacity’’ and to reflect on their roles
(to engage in ‘‘reflexivity’’) in the community in the
course of developing adequate responses. They ar-
gue that compliance with universal standards should
be modified by this processual approach, which in
turn requires continual communication with local
stakeholders and a readiness to modify modes of
operation. In effect, good business behavior within a
host community is in constant evolution, rather than
being imposed, ready-made, by codes developed
elsewhere.
‘‘The Geographic, Political and Economic Con-
text for Corporate Social Responsibility in Brazil’’,
by Margaret Griesse, presents a brief history of the
country’s economic development and also a
description of the institutional structure of Brazilian
society and the nuances of meaning that guide
individual behavior. Griesse also describes the re-
gional disparities of the country, its continuing
poverty and inequalities in spite of rapid industrial-
ization, and notes the continuing importance of race
in understanding the social dynamics in this area.
4 Frederick Bird and Joseph Smucker
Her essay also notes some distrust among the general
population toward persons in political authority.
Here, we are presented with a unique social terrain,
which must be taken into account if a business firm
wishes to perform as a responsible corporate citizen.
Against this panoramic background, the reader will
see that certain broad ethical questions are likely to
emerge. For example, should a business firm disre-
gard existing social inequalities while conducting its
affairs, or should it become engaged with its host
society in finding ways to ameliorate these problems?
A second study by Griesse, also set in Brazil, illus-
trates the way an international firm, in this case, the
Caterpillar company, can successfully become an
integral part of a local community. What is striking in
her description is the learning stance the company as-
sumed before becoming active in the local affairs of the
community of Piracicaba. Still, Griesse notes, there
remains some tension among community members
regarding the degree to which Caterpillar is contribut-
ing to the community’s welfare versus the degree to
which it is an agent of control. Here, we are confronted
with the realities of power and the distrust it can
create, despite a business firm’s best intentions.5
By being aware of the different trajectories of his-
tory and the differences in cultural contexts, one can
gain a better understanding of the proper approaches
managers should take in accommodating their firms to
local communities. ‘‘Beyond Paternalism’’, by Jean-
Baptiste Litrico, illustrates the importance of social
rituals in the interactions between workers and foreign
managers in Mexico. The author describes the nature
of traditional forms of social status, how this influences
social interaction, and how the judicious use of formal
attributes of organizational management in combi-
nation with these traditional social patterns have
served to reduce interpersonal tensions. He further
describes how the company fostered a common col-
lective interest, transforming personal bonds of trust
into allegiance to the organization as a whole. What is
striking about this account is the care and sensitivity
managers took in attempting to understand local
norms, values, and needs. Like Griesse, Litrico high-
lights strategies that foreign firms have employed in
fostering effective labor policies, working with local
governments, and advancing the welfare of local
communities.
While socially responsible business firms can be
expected to interpret general moral guidelines in
relation to local contextual exigencies, the outcomes
of these interpretations may vary considerably. In
some areas, such as South Africa during the Apart-
heid era, local norms and institutional structures can
become detrimental to the practice of fair and
equitable business policies. This frequently results in
difficult decisions. Would it be better to continue
operations and offer employment for the under-
privileged in an institutional setting that supports
racially defined inequality? Or would it be more
socially responsible to cease operations altogether, as
an act of opposition to those policies? In fact those
businesses that adopted the Sullivan Principles con-
sciously committed themselves to practices not in
keeping with apartheid laws. In this case, no insti-
tutional means were at hand to ensure equitable
standards. Hence, these business firms stepped into
the breach and in doing so expanded their concep-
tions of social and moral responsibility. Extending
this approach further, one might expect socially
responsible firms to bargain for just and equitable
treatment not only for their own employees but also
for those of their suppliers and their customers.
There are many ways that socially responsive
firms can be expected to contextualize general moral
guidelines. How they respond will depend on their
priorities and their resources. Assessments will re-
quire a determination of what kinds of socially
responsible practices they should attend to, when
they should undertake them, and the amount of
resources they should devote to them (Bird and
Gandz, 1990). It is not enough simply to adopt codes
of conduct and to express high moral concerns in the
hopes that this will contribute to a reputation of just
and equitable practices. Indeed, firms that have an-
nounced such policies without demonstrating the
effects of their application have found themselves
under severe censure (Schwartz and Gibb, 1999, p.
11). Nor is it sufficient merely to decry the difficult
conditions they encounter in their operations.
The importance of communication
In addition to taking into account local contextual
factors, a second consideration for the practice of so-
cial responsibility has to do with the nature of com-
munications between business firms and local
communities. There are many cases of international
 Social Responsibilities of International Business
business firms having been insensitive to local mores,
unappreciative of current exigencies, and inattentive
to the voiced concerns of local constituencies. In ef-
fect, these are examples of the abuse of power. Such
abuse has been pervasive and includes such examples
as De Beers’ treatment of its employees in South
Africa; the role of the United Fruit Company in
undermining the government of Guatemala in the
1950s; the literal colonization by Mantesu of
Manchuria; and the role of Union Minière in over-
throwing the newly elected government of the Congo
(Drohan, 2003; Litvin, 2002). We could, as well, cite
less notorious cases, which we encountered during
our research, such as the insensitivity of British
American Tobacco to the economic distress of its
growers in Uganda (Sejjaaka, 2004), or the failure of
Barama Forestry, a Malaysian firm which, despite
seeking a Forestry Stewardship Award, failed to pre-
vent its forestry roads in Guyana from being used by
hundreds of wildcat miners to ravage lands and villages
of local indigenous people (Whiteman, 2004).
The fact that international businesses are often in
positions of power in their negotiations with local
constituencies can cause them to act with arrogance
and insensitivity to the needs of the local community
(Newell, 2005). But attempts to wield such power
may also activate counter-movements, especially in
cases where public institutions like the state have
available their own resources of power. William
Flanagan and Gail Whiteman, in ‘‘AIDS is Not a
Business’’, describe how the government of Brazil
quite cleverly created overwhelming pressure on
giant pharmaceutical firms to lower the cost of their
HIV drugs.6
On the other hand, good intentions can go ter-
ribly wrong when there is no communication with
relevant audiences, or when norms of equality
among the participants in communication are not
established. In ‘‘Representational Approaches Mat-
ter’’, Farzad Rafi Kahn describes in vivid detail the
consequences of international organizations’ failing
to engage in dialog with representatives of the
community of Sialkot in Pakistan. In this case, well-
meaning NGOs as well as the International Labor
Organization demanded that children not be en-
gaged in the manufacture of soccer balls. Kahn’s
paper describes the decimating effects of enforcing
this universal code without taking into account the
social context within which the manufacture of
5
soccer balls took place, namely within the household
in which mothers and their children incorporated
the work into their family routines. As a conse-
quence of the dogmatic enforcement of this uni-
versal code, family units were severely strained, and
in some cases destroyed, as institutions of child
socialization. Further, norms of gender relations
were violated. The result was a worsening of eco-
nomic and social conditions.
Clearly, in order to understand the local culture
and to appreciate the possibilities and obstacles
which local communities might present, business
firms as well as reform-minded organizations need to
engage in open conversations with representative
groups and individuals. They must question, listen
to, and explore alternatives with local representatives
through mutually respectful interactions.7
Sustaining and improving assets
Sensitivity to local cultures and dialog with local
representatives are necessary first steps in enabling
business firms to act in socially responsible ways. But
these factors alone do not ensure positive outcomes.
Indeed, they can be employed for the firm’s own
gain and the detriment of the local community.
Social responsibility, and indeed the establishment of
trust itself, requires that firms demonstrate that they
take seriously the welfare of the community. Busi-
ness firms should conduct their operations so that
they add to rather than deplete the economic and
social assets of the areas in which they are operating.
This includes not only contributing fairly to taxes
but also taking an active part, where necessary, in the
development and upkeep of infrastructure and social
services and the advancement of general welfare,
especially in the absence of government or other
institutional supports.
‘‘Social Investment through Community Enter-
prise’’, by Emeko Nwankwo, Nelson Phillips, and
Paul Tracey, provides an account of how business
interests addressed the problem of ensuring the
ongoing success of a project designed to improve the
living conditions of the local population. The au-
thors carefully assess a number of approaches business
firms might take in their attempts to build this
capacity. Based on their extensive field work on
the development of water systems in Nigerian
6 Frederick Bird and Joseph Smucker
communities, they conclude that the most enduring
and accountable arrangements for ensuring the
continued viability of local water systems is through
the support of local community enterprises rather
than through direct intervention.
In ‘‘Developing Social Responsibility’’, Margaret
Griesse returns to Brazil to study the operations of
DuPont, and how the corporation introduced
international standards of health and safety in man-
aging its work force, as well as its activities to raise
education standards in the community. DuPont has
also supported sustainable-development programs,
particularly with respect to Brazilian rain forests. In
response to fears of its sales of genetically modified
seeds, it has set up an advisory board of experts
responsible to the local community. Still, as Griesse
points out, there remains the problem of how con-
sumers can be assured that safeguards for the use of
these seeds have been implemented and maintained.
Here is a case where a company is treading a fine line
between pursuing its own interests and assuring the
local population that its operations and involvement
in the community have long-term benefits.
The controversy over the use of genetically mod-
ified seeds illustrates an additional concern that should
be on the agenda of socially responsible firms. Business
firms need to ensure that they can be trusted to en-
hance the social welfare of their host communities. This
might mean going beyond merely ensuring that their
products are safe or that they pay their fair share in
supporting government-sponsored welfare programs,
or that they donate funds to philanthropic projects. It
might mean actively intervening to ameliorate specific
social problems. ‘‘Building Bridges between Business
and Society’’, Emmanuel Raufflet and Cecilia Gurgel
do Amaral’s account of the development of the Abrinq
Foundation, is a striking example of positive activism
by a group of business leaders who took it upon
themselves to develop programs designed to protect
homeless children and to enhance their personal
development.
These studies illustrate that what matters most,
from the perspective of people living in developing
areas, is whether international businesses operating
in their communities advance their social and eco-
nomic welfare, or whether they exploit the social
and material resources of these areas solely for private
gain. These questions go beyond mundane matters
of wage rates, and the payment of taxes and royalties.
They have to do with the stewardship of natural
resources, the creation and distribution of financial
assets, the development of productive assets, the
enhancement of human assets, and the integrity and
effectiveness of social assets embedded in social
institutions (Bird, 2003; Sachs, 2005).
Unfortunately, there have been far too many
examples of ruthless destruction of potential assets.
Rubber harvesting as practiced in the Congo in the
early twentieth century depleted natural resources,
reduced human assets (by killing and maiming many
workers and their families), and destroyed the social
assets embodied in the traditional patterns of com-
munal life (Drohan, 2003). By turning our attention
to asset development, we shift our focus from the
means by which economic activity is carried out to
the consequences of that activity. In practice, it can be
argued that all renewable resources should be used in
sustainable ways insofar as that it feasible. From the
perspective of an ordinary sense of justice, it can also
be argued that there should be an augmentation of
other resources as compensation for the depletion of
those resources that are not renewable.
In practice, a commitment to asset development
understood in this way assigns priority to practices that
develop skills and capabilities of workers (Nussbaum,
1999; Sen, 1999), strengthen local suppliers and
commerce, help to develop local physical and social
infrastructures, increase the productive capacities of
local enterprises, and strengthen local systems of credit
(Bird, 2006a, b, c; Sachs, 2005). By pursuing these
objectives, business firms can strengthen local insti-
tutions and their associated networks and thus create
the means whereby individuals and groups can not
only conserve, but also enhance their varied assets.
Too often, international business firms are likely
to see their foreign direct investments as a major
component of cost-minimization policies. If they
were to view their investments as a means to en-
hance their assets, these firms might be more likely
to incorporate the welfare of their host community
in their business plans. This distinction in strategy is
relevant to the operation of foreign firms in China.
Some firms located or contracted their operations in
China as a means of employing cheap labor. They
invested little in these operations, and sought to
minimize costs in order to increase short-term
profits. In contrast, other firms, especially those
interested in the ever-growing consumer markets in
 Social Responsibilities of International Business
China, were able to tailor their operations in the
service of long-term objectives. As a result, they
were more likely to invest in projects that increased
productive capacities (such as skills development for
their workers), and to support infrastructure devel-
opment. They were also more likely to look for
ways to use local suppliers (Santoro, 2000). By
developing these assets, these firms contributed to
the well-being of the larger community.
Conclusions
It is significant, we believe, that much is now being
asked of major business enterprises. But a moment’s
reflection will not find this surprising in this era
when international business corporations play a
dominant role in national affairs and in international
relations, and where economic wealth is defined as a
necessary condition for well-being. In assuming such
an important and influential role, more will be ex-
pected of business firms. They cannot assume such
positions of authority without acting responsibly.
They cannot restrict the range of that responsibility if
their actions have negative effects on the common
good, and certainly not if other societal institutions,
especially governments and their agencies, are weak,
ineffective or corrupt. Yet it must also be recognized
that ultimately business interests, by definition, are
limited in their response to the range of responsi-
bilities they may be asked to assume.8 Most business
firms have had to confront these issues, if only be-
cause their responses are crucial to their reputations –
an important attribute of growing importance in
competitive markets. Being recognized as a good
corporate citizen can have a direct influence on sales
as well as investments.
The research findings reported in the following
essays well illustrate, we think, the myriad ways in
which business firms have responded to their ‘‘pub-
lics’’. We have argued that these are not merely
operational matters. They are matters of ethical con-
cern. They are matters that require sensitivity to the
norms and values of host communities; that require
open dialog, or conversation with representatives of
these communities. They oblige firms to engage in
practices that enhance or, at the very least, sustain the
economic and social assets of their host communities.
7
Notes
1
For a history of the interest in socially responsible
business practices, see Heald (1970) and the recent essay
by Smucker (2006a), who argues that demands for
greater social responsibility increase or decrease,
depending on the degree of influence of business enter-
prises on the larger society, relative to that of other
institutions which defend the interests of civil society,
including the state. Chamberlain (1973), in a most
intriguing account, documents the transformations of
the societal role expected of business corporations in the
United States.
2
It should be noted that the ‘‘rule of law’’ does not
necessarily ensure equal civil rights or equal access to
the formal market (see De Soto, 1989, pp. 131–172).
3
We use the term ‘‘international businesses’’ broadly
to include not only transnational enterprises but also lo-
cal businesses in developing areas connected to foreign
firms as partners, affiliates, or suppliers.
4
More than thirty scholars from 13 countries partici-
pated in this research, which was supported by a grant
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. The case studies and essays based
on this research have appeared in three books published
by Palgrave Macmillan (Bird and Herman, 2004; Bird
et al., 2005; Bird and Velasquez, 2006).
5
For other examples, see Herman, 2004b; Velasquez,
2006.
6
Vogel (2005) notes that business corporations are
limited in what they can accomplish on their own.
Accordingly they should support those government pol-
icies that serve to strengthen civil society and that re-
quire all firms to act responsibly toward that end.
7
Bird has further developed this position, arguing for
an understanding of ethics as ‘‘good conversation’’ (see
Bird, 1996a, b; Bird and Waters, 1989).
8
For examples of various approaches to this problem,
see Blowfield, 2005; Jenkins, 2005; Margolis and Walsh,
2003; Palacios, 2005; Pearson and Seyfang, 2001, p. 17,
and Utting, 2005.
References
Bird, F.: 1996a, The Muted Conscience: Moral Silence and the
Practice of Ethics in Business (Quorum Books, Stamford,
CT.).
Bird, F.: 1996b, ÔMoral Universals as Cultural RealitiesÕ,
in N. Brady (ed.), Ethical Universals in International
Business (Springer Verlag, Berlin), pp. 97–149.
8 Frederick Bird and Joseph Smucker
Bird, F.: 2003, ‘The Value-Added Approach to Business
Ethics’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Untenehmensethik
4(2).
Bird, F.: 2005, ‘Dilemmas of Development’, in Bird et al.
(eds), International Business and the Dilemmas of Devel-
opment, ch. 1.
Bird, F.: 2006a, ‘Justice in International Business’, in F.
Bird and M. Velasquez (eds.), Just Business Practices, ch.
2.
Bird, F.: 2006b, ‘Toward a Political Ethic for Interna-
tional Businesses’, in F. Bird and M. Velasquez (eds.),
Just Business Practices, ch. 4.
Bird, F.: 2006c, ‘Global Perspectives on Poverty’, in F.
Bird and M. Velasquez (eds.), Just Business Practices, ch.
8.
Bird, F. and J. Gandz: 1990, Good Management: Business
Ethics in Practice (Prentice Hall of Canada, Scarbor-
ough, ON).
Bird, F. and S. Herman, .: 2004, International Businesses
and the Challenges of Poverty in the Developing World:
Case Studies on Global Responsibilities and Practices (Pal-
grave Macmillan, London).
Bird, F., E. Raufflet and J. Smucker, .: 2005, International
Business and the Dilemmas of Development: Case Studies in
South Africa, Madagascar, Pakistan, South Korea, Mexico,
and Colombia (Palgrave Macmillan, London).
Bird, F. and M. Velasquez, .: 2006, Just Business Practices in
a Diverse and Developing World (Palgrave Macmillan,
London).
Bird F. and J. Waters: 1989, ‘Managers Moral Muteness’,
California Management Review 32(1):73–88.
Blowfield, M.: 2005, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility:
Reinventing the Meaning of Development?Õ, Interna-
tional Affairs 81, 515–524.
Chamberlain, N.W.: 1973, The Limits of Corporate
Responsibility (Basic Books, New York).
Dashwood, H.: 2006, ‘Global Initiatives to Promote
Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Sector’,
in F. Bird and M. Velasquez (eds.), Just Business Prac-
tices, ch. 5.
Daye, R.: 2005, ‘Toyota South Africa: Responsible
Change After Apartheid’, in Bird et al. (eds.), Interna-
tional Business and the Dilemmas of Development, ch. 3.
De Soto, H. : 1989, The Other Path (Basic Books, New
York).
Drohan, M.: 2003, Making a Killing: How and Why Cor-
porations Use Armed Force to Do Business (Random
House Canada, Toronto).
Heald, M.: 1970, The Social Responsibilities of Business:
Company and Community, 1900–1960 (The Press of
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland).
Herman, S.: 2004a, ‘A Short Economic History of
Vietnam, 1945–1986’, in F. Bird and S. W. Herman
(eds.), International Businesses and the Challenges of Pov-
erty, ch. 8.
Herman, S.: 2004b, ‘Forming Social Capital from the
Bottom Up: The Emergent Private Sector in Vietnam,
1986–2002’, in F. Bird and S. W. Herman (eds.),
International Businesses and the Challenges of Poverty, ch. 9.
Herman, S.: 2004c, ‘Developing Social Capital through
Human Resources: ‘‘Vietsani’’ and the Future of
Western Management’, in F. Bird and S. W. Herman
(eds.), International Businesses and the Challenges of Pov-
erty, ch. 10.
Jenkins, R.: 2005, ‘Globalization, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Poverty’, International Affairs
81:525–540.
Kotze, E. 2005a, ‘Green Steel: A New South African
Steel Company’s Response to Internal and External
Challenges’, in Bird et al. (eds.), International Business
and the Dilemmas of Development, ch. 4.
Kotze, E.: 2005b, ‘Old Wine in New Bottles: Exploring
the Efforts of a Traditional South African Wine
Company to Respond to the Challenges of a New
South African Society’, in Bird et al. (eds.), Interna-
tional Business and the Dilemmas of Development, ch. 5.
Leader, S.: 2005, ÔTwo Ways of Linking Economic
Activity to Human RightsÕ, International Social Science
Journal 57, 541–550.
Litvin, D.: 2002, Empires of Profit: Commerce, Conquest,
and Corporate Responsibility (Texere, New York).
Margolis, J. D. and J. P. Walsh: 2003, ÔMisery Loves
Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by BusinessÕ,
Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–305.
Moser, T.: 1998, Transnational Corporations and Sus-
tainable Development: The Case of Colombian and
Peruvian Petroleum Industries. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cambridge University.
Newell, P.: 2005, ÔCitizenship, Accountability and
Community: The Limits of the CSR AgendaÕ, Inter-
national Affairs 81, 541–557.
Nussbaum, M.: 1999, Women and Development: The
Capabilities Approach (Cambridge University Press).
Palacios, J.: 2005, ÔCorporate Citizenship and Social
Responsibility in a Globalized WorldÕ, Citizenship
Studies 10, 572–596.
Pearson R. and G. Seyfang: 2001, ‘New Hope or False
Dawn? Voluntary Codes of Conduct, Labor Regula-
tion and Social Policy in a Globalizing World’, Global
Social Policy 1, 49–78.
Raufflet, E.: 2005, ‘Beyond Cash: A Brief Account of
Corporate Social Responsibility in South Africa’, in F.
Bird et al. (eds.), International Business and the Dilemmas
of Development, ch. 2.
Sachs, J.: 2005, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for
Our Time (Penguin Press, New York.).
 Social Responsibilities of International Business
Santoro, M. A.: 2000, Profits and Principles: Global Capi-
talism and Human Rights in China (Cornell University
Press, Ithaca NY and London).
Schwartz, P. and B. Gibb: 1999, When Good Companies
Do Bad Things (John Wiley, New York).
Sejjaaka, S.: 2004, ‘From Seed to Leaf: British American
Tobacco and Supplier Relations in Uganda’, in F. Bird
and S. W. Herman (eds.), International Businesses and the
Challenges of Poverty, ch. 6.
Sen, A.: 1999, Development as Freedom (Random House,
New York).
Smucker, J.: 2005a, ‘The Formation of Business Practices
in South Korea’, in Bird et al. (eds.), International
Business and the Dilemmas of Development, ch.8.
Smucker, J.: 2005b, ‘Managing for Whom? Foreign
Ownership and Management of Korea First Bank’, in
Bird et al. (eds.), International Business and the Dilemmas
of Development, ch. 9.
Smucker, J.: 2006a, ‘Pursuing Corporate Responsibility
in Changing Institutional Fields’, in F. Bird and M.
Velasquez (eds.), Just Business Practices, ch. 3.
Smucker, J.: 2006b, ‘Markets, Development and Equity:
Lessons from South Korea’, in F. Bird and M. Velas-
quez (eds.), Just Business Practices, ch. 10.
Sternberg E.: 2000, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action
(Oxford University Press).
Utting, P.: 2005, ÔCorporate Responsibility and the
Movement of BusinessÕ, Development in Practice 15,
375–388.
Velasquez, M.: 2006, ‘Natural Law in International
Business Ethics’, in F. Bird and M. Velasquez (eds.),
Just Business Practices, ch. 1.
9
Vogel, D.: 2005, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and
Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (Brookings
Institution Press, Washington).
K. Webb.: 2004, Voluntary Codes: Private Governance, the
Public Interest, and Innovation (Carleton University
Research Unit for Innovation, Science, and Environ-
ment, Ottawa).
Whiteman, G.: 2004, ‘Forestry, Gold-Mining and
Amerindians: The Troubling Example of Samling in
Guyana’, in F. Bird and S. W. Herman (eds.), Inter-
national Businesses and the Challenges of Poverty, ch. 11.
Frederick Bird
Department of Religion
Concordia University
1455 Boulevard de Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Quebec,
H3G 1M8, Canada
E-mail: fbird@wisc.edu
Joseph Smucker
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Concordia University
1455 Boulevard de Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Quebec,
H3G 1M8, Canada
E-mail: smucker@vax2.concordia.ca