January 10th, 2018
Comparison between mondragon corporation and Microsoft – conclusion
Various stakeholders play an important role towards the growth of an entity thus requiring the entity to establish an effective balance among such stakeholders’ interests. Although capitalistic entities could achieve such a balance through their corporate social responsibility programs, recent events such as the financial crisis have highlighted that such initiatives may only achieve a temporary effect in enhancing social good. Accordingly, the alternative forms organizing may prove necessary to achieve long-term effects. One such alternative is a cooperative approach as exemplified by MCC. In this approach, entities incorporate their employees into joint ownership of the corporation and use a fair process in distributing business surpluses to all members. Such an approach enhances employees’ commitment to the corporate values thus reducing the risk for imprudent practices within the organization. Accordingly, a cooperative approach could be the needed shift for entities to contribute towards a socially just business and economic environment.
Anilhira, R 2008, Outsourcing America: the true cost of shipping jobs overseas and what can be done about it, AMACOM Div American Management Association, New York.
Crane, A & Matten, D 2007. Business ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Datamonitor 2011, Microsoft Corporation: company profile. Datamonitor, New York NY.
Devaro, J 2011. Advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labour-managed firms, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, London.
Flessati, D 1982, The Mondragon experiment, BBC documentary, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMvktpKDmo>
Ferrel, OC & Fraedrich, J 2011. Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases, Cengage Learning, Texas.
Forcadell, FJ 2005, ‘Democracy, cooperation and business success: the case of Mondragron Corporacion Cooperative’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 56, pp. 255 – 274.
Heineman, BW 2007, ‘Avoiding integrity landmines’, Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 100-108, viewed 09 May 2012, <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/files/2007/11/hbr_heineman_avoiding-integ.pdf>
Jeurissen, R 2007. Ethics and business, Van Gorcaum Press, Assen.
Jonas, E.G., & Lee,R., 2010. Interrogating alterity: alternative economic and political spaces, Ash gate Publishing Company, London.
Kirkpatrick, G 2009, ‘The corporate governance lessons from the financial crisis’, Financial Market Trends, [pre-publication version vol. 2009/1], OECD, viewed 1 April 2011
Macleod, G 1997, From Mondragon to America: experiments in community development, University of Cape Breton Press, Ottawa.
Microsoft Corporation 2011, 2011 annual report, viewed 09 May 2012 <http://www.microsoft.com/investor/AnnualReports/default.aspx>.
O’Toole, J & Vogel, D 2011, ‘Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism’, California Management Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 60 – 76.
Rendtorff, DJ 2009, Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations, Copenhagen Business school Press, Copenhagen.
Rivlin, G 2011, ‘The problem with Microsoft. Fortune 29 March, viewed 8 May 2012 <http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/29/the-problem-with-microsoft/>.
Shaw, HW 2010. Business ethics: a textbook with cases, Wards Worth Cengage Learning, Boston.
Strong, M 2011, ‘What are the limits to conscious capitalism: a response to James O’Toole and David Vogel’s “two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism”’, California Management Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 109 – 117.
Terris, D 2005. Ethics at work: creating virtue in an American corporation, Brandeis University Press, New England.
Uranga, MG 2003, Basque economy: from industrialization to economy globalization, University of Nevada Press, Nevada.