(1) In the province of Liaoning the state-owned enterprise Handy Hands produces a wide range of tools for the transportation industry. It employs 10,000 workers and faces increasing com-petition by private businesses partly owned by foreign investors. Although it stopped receiving subsidies from the government, it still has numerous social welfare obligations (for housing, medical care, retirement, etc.). What corporate responsibilities does Handy Hands have in terms of improving productivity, preserving jobs, and providing social welfare benefits?

(2) The rural township enterprise, Three Flowers, in Sichuan is a local collective with 60 workers that produces furniture for households and offices. To date, it has been operating quite suc-cessfully under the direction of the local government; however, there are increasing demands for Three Flowers to treat women equally with men in terms of wages and career opportunities, and for it to introduce new production technologies. Yet, the local government has become more conservative over the years and resists these new ideas. What corporate responsibilities are at stake?

(3) The terms of a joint venture are being negotiated between a multinational chemical firm based in the USA and the New China Dye Company in the Tianjin Special Economic Zone. The US firm requires high environmental standards and technologically so-phisticated safety features, while the New China Dye Company criticizes such requirements as an "imperialistic imposition" of foreign standards. What does corporate responsibility require to solve this conflict?

(4) In the province of Fujian, Modern Tech, a small-scale enterprise with 260 unskilled workers and financial backing from Taiwanese interests, manufactures low tech electronics. Due to the neglect of safety standards, several accidents occurred in the factory. Wage disputes are frequent and a strike is imminent. What does it mean to assure corporate responsibility?

(5) The Hong Kong-based Trade Text, a sourcing firm with annual sales of HK$ 480 million (approximately USA $60 million), buys textiles (shirts, underwear, etc.) from business partners in Southern China and sells them to department stores in Japan and Europe. Insiders know that parts of those textiles are produced by child labor. What does corporate responsibility mean for Trade Text, the Chinese business partners and the overseas department stores?

These five examples illustrate the enormous variety of decision making situations which enterprises of different types are facing in China during the 1990s. Moreover, when we account for the broader context of a Chinese economy in gradual transition, the challenges for responsible corporate conduct are even more complex and demanding. It is, therefore, surprising that these questions have so far drawn little attention in Western media and in business ethics studies. While publications about China in general and its dramatic economic changes in particular proliferate (see for instance, the articles and their long lists of pertinent references in The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring, 1994; The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May, 1994); and Foreign Affairs (May-June, 1994), considerations and studies focusing on enterprises in China and their responsibilities seem to be quite rare (see De George 1993, 155-157; Ralston et al. 1993; Chu 1994; Huang 1994; Ip 1994). Surely, this situation is due partially to the fact that the increasing importance of relatively independent enterprises in China is a rather recent phenomenon, information about which apparently is not easy to collect. (This latter point is certainly true for people outside China, but likely applies to many people in China as well.) Another important reason for this still poorly researched territory may be that traditional studies in economic development essentially focus on broad policy issues including the role of government and, more recently, on the well-being of households and individuals (for instance, Dasgupta 1993). Yet, very often, these same studies tend to ignore the indispensable roles business enterprises actually play and should play in the development process.

On the contrary, business enterprises with their structures, conduct and performance have an importance which hardly can be overestimated. They can either be powerful engines for, or bul-warks against, human development. They matter greatly as crucial links (or "interfaces") between macro-economic conditions, on the one hand, and the impact on individuals, on the other hand. More-over, to the extent of their economic power as single firms and in conjunction with others, they are able quite substantially to in-fluence and shape macro-economic conditions.

The crucial issues in assessing responsibility in general and corporate responsibility in particular is the extent of the autonomy and freedom of the actors. If the enterprise, i.e., the actor, has little autonomy (because its decision-making is, for instance, closely determined by government), it also has little responsibility. If, however, corporate autonomy and freedom is considerably larger, it involves a correspondingly extended responsibility. Before the economic reform, most enterprises in China were government agencies and not financially independent. Then barriers to enter-prise initiatives were removed and "responsibility contracts" intro-duced. A "dual-price" system was introduced and government controls were reduced (see Rawski, 1994, 272-273). The autonomy (of state-owned enterprises) expanded greatly and managerial autonomy will continue to expand in the future (Jefferson and Rawski 1994, 51-52 and 65). Although it would be hard to identify the precise extent of autonomy and freedom had in specific enterprises, the general tendency towards more autonomy and freedom over the last fifteen years is undeniable.

Given the increasing importance of enterprises with ex-panding autonomy and freedom, the question about corporate responsibility arises. The next section will discuss, though rather briefly, some underlying assumptions: the conceptual assumptions about corporate ethics and human development, and the contextual assumptions regarding different types of enterprises in China and its economy in gradual transition. Then it will attempt to identify a list of corporate responsibilities and give reasons for these nor-mative perspectives. The last section will address the limits of corporate responsibilities in order to lend the proper weight to that for which enterprises can and cannot be held responsible.

Basically, corporate ethics relates to the economic organi-zation as such (e.g., enterprise, firm, company, corporations): its goals, which may be stated explicitly and/or aimed at implicitly; its strategies to achieve these goals; its structure and culture; and its conduct and performance, including its impact on stake holders inside and outside the organization. Corporate ethics -- frequently called "business ethics" in the narrow sense -- should not be con-fused with the ethics related to individual managers (sometimes referred to as "managerial ethical leadership") or to economic systems ("systemic ethics"). Business ethics in the broad sense comprehends decision making and acting at the individual (micro-), the organizational (meso-), and the systemic (macro-) levels of business and economic life (see Enderle 1993, Goodpaster 1992). These three levels are qualitatively distinct and closely inter-connected, each being characterized by both a certain space (or extent) of freedom of the single economic actor and certain con-ditions limiting its space, which are fixed at different levels. Within this comprehensive conception of business ethics, corporate ethics concentrates on the meso-level, but also takes into account the more directly relevant features of the micro- and macro-levels.

Corporate ethics involves three characteristics:

(1) The enterprise has a certain autonomy that allows it to choose among various options in terms of objectives. strategies, cultures, etc. In other words, legal regulations, economic market forces, strong social customs, and other conditions do not fully determine the decisions and actions of the enterprise.

(2) To the extent of its autonomy and freedom, the enterprise is a "moral actor", which is an application of the old saying "Ought implies can", and carries "moral (or ethical) responsibility" (as I use the term "responsibility" in "corporate responsibility"). As such, the enterprise faces three kinds of ethical challenges: mi-nimal ethical requirements, positive obligations beyond the minimum, and aspirations for ethical ideals, all three of which are included in the term "integrity" (see DeGeorge 1993, especially 184-196).

(3) Corporate ethics fundamentally concerns the entire organization with all its aspects, not solely the decisions of ma-nagers (who certainly play a prominent role). This far-reaching approach goes beyond the "Strategies of Compliance", i.e., ethics programs to prevent, detect and punish legal violations inside the organization. It advances "Strategies of Integrity" which take the conception of ethics as a driving force of the enterprise and strive to define its guiding values, aspirations, and patterns of thought and conduct, while including legal concerns as well (see Paine 1994).

As stated above, enterprises can be powerful engines for, or barriers retarding human development. Hence, the meaning of "human development" is crucial. Decades of discussions about economic and human development have brought forth an enormous variety of approaches, concepts and theories. Despite ongoing controversies (see, e.g., Streeten 1994, Srinivasan 1994), I share, to some extent, the optimism of Aturupane, et al. (1994) about an emerging consensus that relates mainly different, but complementary, perspectives and indicators. The "humanitarian" perspective primarily considers human beings as ends -- "to enlarge people’s choices" as stated by the Human Development Report (UNDO, 1990, 10) -- while the "human-resource developers" stress the means or productivity aspect, with a strong emphasis upon income and production (an extreme form of the latter are the human capitalists who adopt the "human-capital approach"). Another controversial point concerns the relevance of different indicators of development, namely, income vs. social indicators. Since, in my view, Amartya Sen’s "capability approach", which deeply in-fluenced the Human Development Reports by the United Nations Development Programme, is very fundamental in its focus, highly sophisticated, and of great practical relevance. I use it to clarify the concept of "human development" in this paper.

Sen’s approach ia guided by the idea that each human being should have the freedom to achieve well-being, an idea Sen syste-matically discusses in his monograph Inequality Reexamined (1992). Thus, the first question involves assessing well-being, which is answered by the concept of functioning; the second question focuses on the freedom to pursue well-being, which in turn is conceptualized by capabilities.

Generally speaking, well-being can be assessed in numerous ways:

- in terms of commodity bundles: Person X monthly has 2 kg of rice, 300 g of chicken, shares a room lacking electricity with three family members, has a low-skill job, no basic health care, etc.;

- in John Rawls’s terms of "primary goods": each person in a liberal society should have "primary goods" such as rights, liberties and opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect; or finally;

- in terms of functionings: "The relevant functionings can vary from such elementary things as being adequately nourished, being in good health, avoiding escapable morbidity and premature mortality, etc., to more complex achievements such as being happy, having self-respect, taking part in the life of the community, and so on" (Sen 1992, 39). Living is seen as a set of interrelated functioning, consisting of beings and doings. So a person’s achievement in this respect is understood as the vector of his or her functionings. Functionings are constitutive of a person’s being, and any evaluation of "well-being" has to take the form of an assess-ment of these constituent elements.

Closely related is the notion of the capability to function, which represents the various combinations of functioning that the person can achieve. "Capability is, thus, a set of vectors of func-tionings, reflecting the person’s freedom to lead one type of life or another" (Sen 1992, 40).

The crucial difference in Sen’s approach as compared to the other’s previously mentioned is the radical focus on the being and actions each person actually achieves as well as his or her freedom to pursue these functionings. The capability approach goes all the way from external "commodity bundles" to the real freedoms of each person. Thereby two characteristics are paramount. Firstly, there are various types of "conversion" between commodity bun-dles and commodity characteristics, etc., which, secondly, are deeply dependent on the enormous diversity of human beings. The types of conversion from income, resources and "primary goods" into functioning are particularly important since they determine what a person can actually do and be. For instance, the same amount of income may suffice for an elderly person, but not for a pregnant women; or, a one-bedroom apartment on the tenth floor may be suitable for a healthy single person, but not for a physically challenged person. In other words, the same means to freedom can entail different extents of freedom according to different rates of conversion. These rates depend on the person’s internal charac-teristics, such as age, gender, general abilities, particular talents, proneness to illness, etc., as well as on such external circumstances as ownership of assets, social backgrounds, environmental pre-dicaments, and so on.

In conclusion, when we want to assess individual well-being and freedom and, in that assessment, take seriously human di-versity, we should focus mainly on functioning and capabilities as the informational basis of our assessment -- which does not nece-ssarily exclude income, resources, etc., when used for specific purposes. Moreover, functioning and capabilities also provide the basis for judging social arrangements, welfare economics, poverty and, certainly, corporate conduct. While the choice of the proper informational basis for ethical evaluation is of fundamental sig-nificance with far-reaching consequences, it also leaves open many questions: What list of capabilities and functioning is relevant for ethical evaluation? What basic capabilities are constitutive of a decent livelihood and provide the basis for fighting poverty? How can the capability approach be linked to such ethical theories as human rights and Confucianism? The capability approach states fairly clear ultimate goals, particularly with regard to basic capa-bilities. This allows great flexibility in choosing appropriate strategies to achieve these goals. At the same time, it might be hard to determine what specific strategies should be ethically required as well as the responsibilities that particular actors, such as a cer-tain company, a local government, or a non-governmental orga-nization, should assume. Some of these questions will be taken up in section three.

The examples in the introductory section represent major types of industrial enterprises which include, by Chinese con-vention, mining and utilities as well as manufacturing. "Industry is the largest sector of China’s economy, accounting for 50 percent of total output and 80 percent of exports, and employing 102 million workers in 1992. . . . Its robust growth, amounting to well above 10 percent annually during the 1940s, . . . undergirds China’s standing as the world’s fastest-growing economy" (Jefferson and Rawski 1994, 47).

According to the China Statistics Yearbook the following types of industrial enterprises can be distinguished: State-owned enterprises (SOEs); collective enterprises such as urban collectives (UCs) and rural enterprises in townships and villages (TVEs); privately-owned firms employing less than eight workers and private firms employing eight or more workers, joint-ventures (JVs), foreign-owned firms (FOFs), and other ownership forms (see Jefferson and Rawski 1994). Table 1 gives an overview of their performance from 1980 to 1992; Table 2 describes the scale, capital intensity, and labor productivity of these firms operating under different ownership regimes in 1987. Three facts deserve particular notice. (1) The share of nominal output of SOEs dropped substantially from more than three quarters of national output in 1980 to less than half of it in 1992; yet, SOEs still have by far the largest share. (2) The share of the TVEs strongly increased so that public enterprises (SOEs, UCs, and TVEs) still made up 86.4 percent of the national output in 1992. (3) Privately-owned firms, starting from a share of 0.5 percent in 1980, rose to 14 percent in 1992, and those private firms with eight or more workers showed by far the highest labor productivity in 1987.

As discussed above, from the point of view of corporate ethics, the actual extent of the autonomy of the enterprise is of fundamental importance, and this depends largely on the specific type of the organization. Differences of autonomy are determined not only by the ownership regime, but also by such legal obliga-tions as social welfare responsibilities and formal and informal requirements by the local community. (However, these prima facie assumptions need further ethical examination as to whether and how far these demands are ethically justifiable.)

With regard to SOEs, we can observe "a distinct, albeit gradual and uncoordinated `corporatization’" (Jefferson and Rawski 1994, 58). The characteristics of labor management, prior to reforms, are changing. The system of permanent employment with very low rates of labor mobility is evolving towards a system of contract labor, and the community-like enterprises which offer a full range of benefits tend to have less social obligations (Chum 1994). Yet SOEs still have to take on many costs, including the pro-visions of housing and medicaid care, as well as the care, schooling and employment of the employees’ children (Chum 1994). Employees of SOEs, almost all in cities, benefit (like those of the government) from comprehensive "labor insurance", which pro-vides disability and old-age pensions, maternity and sickness benefits, medical care, and (since 1986) unemployment benefits. UCs belong to the same urban social-security system, but hold a lower status than SOEs and therefore have a parallel, but less generous, labor insurance (see Hussain 1994, 277).

As to the TVEs, contrary to the misleading term "collective", they are not owned by local communities as a whole and are ins-titutions through which community members could express their individual preferences (Naughton 1994a, 267). Township leaders are appointed by county officials, most often from outside the township in question. In their "managerial contract", explicit suc-cess indicators are established, covering economic and social objectives: TVE output and sales value, profit, and taxes, as well as family planning, maintenance of public order, and education (Naughton 1994a, 268). According to several researchers, the demographic stability of China’s rural communities promotes the emergence of "invisible institutions" which provide a "moral framework for rights" or a "cooperative culture" that serve to reduce problems of shirking and monitoring found in most public enterprises (Jefferson and Rawski 1994, 61). With respect to social security provisions, the situation in rural areas, compared to cities, is sparse and highly variable (Hussain 1994, 278). While labor insurance does not extend to rural wage employees, some county and township governments organize social welfare plans. But "these (plans) lack a common minimum provision and vary widely, depending crucially on local public resources and the initiative of the leadership" (278).

For enterprises with foreign investment, many government regulations have been promulgated to direct labor management (see, Chu 1994). They include the system of contract labor, the establishment of social security systems, and a higher degree of labor management autonomy (than in SOEs). Equity joint ventures must implement government laws and regulations on working conditions, safety measures and environmental protection.

This brief description may give a sense of the significant differences among various kinds of Chinese enterprises, which of course need further and more substantial analysis. Moreover, it is very likely that "corporate China" is about to undergo further im-portant changes in the near future, a situation deeply influenced by macroeconomic and political conditions.

In contrast to the "economies in transition" of central and eastern European countries and of the new republics in the former Soviet Union, the Chinese model of transition is characterized basically by its "gradualism" (Jefferson and Rawski 1994, Naugh-ton 1994, Perkins 1994, Rawski 1994, Yusuf 1994).

Among numerous other aspects, "gradualism" is particularly true with regard to privatization. Although state-owned enterprises have lost a substantial share of China’s nominal output over the last decade, this change has not been caused by a dramatic privatization campaign like in eastern Germany or the Czech Republic. Rather, the loss has been compensated by a strong increase of township and village enterprises so that public enterprises still widely predo-minate in modern China (see section 2.3).

To find the appropriate pace of transition depends on nume-rous factors which are controllable only to a certain extent. To date, China has shown a remarkably successful record in many economic respects. Yet, in the near future, it will have to face tremendous challenges whose outcome seems not predictable. I would mention only a few: (1) the question as to whether Chinese macroeconomic policy is "getting the fundamentals right", the "fundamentals" being defined by the World Bank (1993) as those policies that encourage macroeconomic stability, high investment in human capital, stable and secure financial systems, limited price dis-tortions, and openness to foreign technology (see, e.g., Hornik 1994); (2) the question concerning the impact of economic decentralization on the political structure of the country (see, e.g., Sepal 1994); (3) the significance of the flows of capital out of China (see, e.g., The Asian Wallstreet Journal Weekly, March 21, 1994); (4) the socio-cultural challenge of a "new vision" that integrates traditional and modern values; (5) the environmental challenge of "sustainable growth", defined by the World Com-mission on Environment and Development (1987) as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

It goes without saying that these challenges are of tre-mendous importance for the country as a whole, but also for assessing the responsibilities of enterprises.

In order to map corporate responsibilities more concretely, l would like to suggest the following scheme (see Figure 1), which is influenced by Ciba’s mission statement. Corporate responsibility basically includes the economic, the social and the environmental dimension. As for the economic and environmental dimensions, their meaning is fairly obvious: economic and financial structure and performance of the enterprise in terms of output, productivity, competitiveness, human resources, financial assets, etc.; and its environmental impact in terms of both consuming natural re-sources (as "inputs" to the firm’s production process) and bur-dening the environment ("outputs"). The social dimension is more difficult to define; essentially it includes what is not covered by the other two dimensions, in particular legal responsibilities and responsibilities based on other social norms (which are required, e.g., due to the concept of the "extended family"). These three di-mensions are equally important (hence their circular arrangement in the figure) and interrelated, but they do not represent three separate areas of activities. In addition, the three concentric circles represent the three kinds of ethical challenges mentioned above: minimal ethical requirements, positive obligations, and aspirations for ethical ideals. All three challenges concern and permeate the economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

It is obvious that this mapping of corporate responsibilities contrasts with the common conception of the business enterprise in two crucial respects. Instead of the hierarchical order of economic responsibilities over social (except legal) and environmental ones, there is a circular interrelationship of these three dimensions. Fur-thermore, all three dimensions are not value free, but involve ethical responsibilities of various degrees.

To illustrate this mapping by the fictional examples in the introduction above, we may classify the various issues as follows: Economic responsibilities include increasing productivity and competitiveness as well as preserving and creating jobs in case 1; introducing new technologies (improving productivity) and treating men and women equally (according to their productivities) in case 2; productivity-related wages in cases 4 and 5; social res-ponsibilities are involved in gender treatment (case 2) and child labor (case 5), in safety standards (cases 3 and 4), and in social welfare schemes, be they legally required or socially demanded (especially cases 1 and 2); and finally, environmental respon-sibilities are explicitly mentioned in case 3, but likely are relevant in other cases as well. Clearly, this illustration shows that the three dimensions are closely interconnected.

The valuation of human development in terms of capabilities and functioning, generally discussed above, is now to be applied to corporate conduct. However, as this is a widely undeveloped terri-tory, I would like only to delineate some perspectives with the help of a few examples.

The function of work as a constitutive of a person’s being can take a variety of forms and consists of a number of basic elements such as reasonable and certain working hours and conditions, fair remuneration and meaningful activity. While it might be im-possible to determine the varieties of this function, its basic elements are less difficult to identify; the function can be clearly distinguished from the capability to work, namely the freedom to choose among different functions of working. Consequently, to do a certain job is not identical with choosing to do the job, which is why any kind of "forced" labor is deficient in terms of capabilities. Moreover, to assure the capabilities of people to work, associations at work might be necessary. It also follows that labor mobility means choosing among functioning to work which includes, at least, those basic elements alluded to above. Lay-offs with no such alternative options cut the capability of the laid-off person to work. This failure, however, is due not only to the decision by the enter-prise, but also to the failures of other businesses and the govern-ment to create decent jobs in sufficient numbers. One top priority of human development is to assure the capabilities of people to work.

A second example is the issue of treating men and women equally. If this question is addressed only in the "space" of income or career paths (which in many situations already would be a significant progress), equality in the "space" of functioning and capabilities is not yet achieved because men and women benefit from it differently (technically speaking, they have different rates of conversion). Undoubtedly, this view includes a series of im-plications in terms of wages and promotion, as well as social welfare benefits.

In cases three and four, one of the problems is about safety standards for which two characteristics of the capability approach are particularly relevant. First, safety features, that is the means to assure safety, should not be confused with safety itself, that is the capability and functioning of the workers to be safe at the work place. High-tech features may be an effective protection in the United States, but less effective in China when their handling requires appropriate training which Chinese workers do not have. (The rates of conversion differ in both countries.) On the other hand, the focus on functioning can remove some controversy about "clashing value systems" and put the core issue in the forefront, i.e., whether the workers are really safe.

Moreover, the distinction between "freedom as control" and "effective freedom" (Sen 1992, 64-66) clearly applies to these two cases. The capability to be safe does not necessarily mean that the workers must have the "freedom as control" directly to operate the levers of control in order to be safe. Often the machines are highly complex, which would demand corresponding knowledge for exerting "freedom as control". Therefore, it makes more sense to understand the capability to be safe as "effective freedom". This means that the controls are exercised by experts in line with what the workers value and want, i.e., in line with their "counter factual decisions" -- with what the workers would choose if they had the corresponding knowledge.

The fourth example relates to a wide range of social welfare provisions which are, to a varying extent, required from different types of enterprises in China. They may include "labor insurance" that provides disability and old-age pensions, maternity and sickness benefits, medical care and unemployment benefits, and may go as far as housing, transportation, the care for schooling and employment of the workers’ children. From the perspective of human development, two fundamental questions arise: (1) What are the basic capabilities which ought to be assured to each person? and (2) What are the responsibilities of the governments at the national, provincial and local levels, of the various types of enterprises, and of the other actors in society (such as families and nongovernmental organizations) to achieve those goals?

Since discussing these questions exceeds by far the purpose of this chapter, I will only indicate the following line of reflection. Social welfare provisions should primarily be evaluated in the space of capabilities, and the basic capabilities are to be identified clearly. Given these goals, there is a great number of possible patterns for sharing the social welfare responsibilities among the actors in society, but two extremes should be avoided: these res-ponsibilities should not be assigned entirely to the government(s) in order to liberate the enterprises from all "noneconomic bur-dens", nor should they be completely allocated to the enterprises as the "only productive organization" in society. The basic reasons for such a mixed sharing pattern are that social productivity involves numerous facets which do not allow a clear-cut line to be drawn between government and enterprises (and other social actors), and that a certain degree of redistribution is always necessary to help the needy. With regard to the different social burdens which enterprises in China currently have to carry, I would suggest that, first, one should consider the full amount of burdens including taxes, subsidies and so on, borne by the enterprise, and then one should make sure that each enterprise, regardless of its type, bears an equivalent amount of burdens so that all enterprises can compete on a level playing field.

In the near future, it seems likely that enterprises will want to bear fewer social welfare responsibilities in order to compete better internationally. This may lead to a reduction of social welfare pro-visions, which would no longer assure the basic capabilities of all citizens. Yet, this international challenge can also be met in a different way by maintaining the same amount of provisions (because of its top social priority) and shifting parts of them to government.

The fifth example concerns environmental standards and may he approached in a way similar to social welfare provisions, that is, clearly to identify the goals and apply a mixed pattern of sharing responsibilities. One might argue that, for environmental purposes, the capability approach is deficient because it does not account for the intrinsic values of nature itself, regardless of human beings. But it seems to me that the capability approach can provide a comprehensive evaluative basis for "sustainable growth"; both the needs of the present generations and the ability of future generations to meet their own needs can be conceived in terms of capabilities and functioning. However, I admit that this definition, elaborated by the World Commission on Environment and De-velopment, does not include the intrinsic values of nature either. Thus the capability approach is not deficient but possibly may be insufficient.

As stated above, corporate ethics involves minimal ethical requirements, positive obligations beyond the minimum, and aspirations for ethical ideals. This distinction is crucial for identi-fying corporate responsibilities in the economic, social and envi-ronmental dimensions on the informational basis of capabilities. Some minimal ethical norms are fairly clear and universal, but the more one moves toward ethical ideals the more diverse and culture-bound the ethical challenges become and, consequently, the more they are determined by the moral actors.

Minimal ethical norms apply to all enterprises, regardless of whether the enterprise is on the brink of collapse or profitable. While being universal, these demands are always embedded in, and somewhat shaped by, a specific culture. Although they are unam-biguous general principles necessary for a society to function and for business transactions to take place, it is not always easy to understand what the principles mean and entail m particular decision-making situations. Two different but not opposing views may explain the contents of such minimal norms.

The Initial Declaration, Toward a Global Ethic (Council 1993), attempts to formulate universally recognized ethical prin-ciples for a new global order. A second view is developed by Richard De George (1993) and relates more specifically to inter-national business from a U.S. perspective. As to the basic ethical norms, there is a high degree of common vision. The Declaration states three "irrevocable directives", namely, "you shall not kill!", "you shall not steal!", and "you shall not lie!", and extends them to the three commitments for a global culture of non-violence and respect for life, of solidarity and a just economic order, and of tolerance and a life of truthfulness. Similarly, De George mentions the injunction against arbitrarily killing other members of the community to which one belongs, the command to tell the truth and the reciprocal negative injunction not to lie, and the respect for property (though the meaning of property and respect may vary from society to society). With regard to business, he adds the norms of honoring contracts and of exercising fairness in transactions (as far as they are freely chosen). Underlying these norms is the Funda-mental Demand that "every human being must be treated hu-manely" (Declaration) or the principle "not to harm" (De George) that is basic in numerous ethical traditions and may include non-human beings well.

In addition to these basic norms, there are other minimal ethical requirements which hold from a particular cultural pers-pective. As an example, I refer to the ten ethical guidelines and seven strategies for dealing with corruption which are developed by De George for U.S. multinational corporations (De George 1993). From the Chinese as well as the Japanese, European and other perspectives, similar attempts should be made by scholars and business people who have intimate knowledge of the specific cultural, political and economic contexts.

With regard to the ethical challenges in terms of positive obligations beyond the minimum and aspirations for ethical ideals, a large field of possible initiatives in both business practice and academia is opening up. Since these initiatives greatly depend on particular circumstances, they may be very diverse and cannot be stated in terms of universal norms and general guidelines. Some-times the impression prevails that ethics and responsibility have to do only with general principles and strict norms. However. the time seems to have come for the realization that making decisions and taking actions in an evolving world with many uncertainties also requires a great deal of moral imagination.

Throughout this paper, a strong emphasis has been placed on the ethical significance of enterprises and their responsibilities for human development in China. While these issues are tremendously important, they also should not be overstated. The autonomy and freedom of enterprises are confined by numerous limits and thus their responsibilities as well. The limits set by macroeconomic policies and the economic order (at the "macro-level") are grasped with particular awareness when a society faces the choice between two opposing economic systems (as was the case in Germany before 1989) or is moving from one system to another (in the so-called "economies in transition"). In these situations business ethics may primarily focus on what a "just" economic system is and how it can be achieved. An outstanding work of this type is Arthur Rich’s Wirtschaftsethik [Business Ethics] (Rich 1984/1990) which reflects the debate about capitalism and socialism in continental Europe after the Second World War. Yet this preoccupation tends to lose sight of, or to underestimate, the role and responsibilities of enterprises, including their important co-responsibility to build up, just background institutions.

On the other hand, corporate responsibilities are limited also by individual decision-makers, such as managers, employees, consumers and investors. Basically, the decisions individuals make (at the "micro-level") are not identical with corporate decision-making (at the "meso-level"); otherwise, no conflict between these two levels could arise. Moreover, as corporate structure, strategies and culture impact on individuals, individuals may influence enterprises to some extent. This is a strong conviction in the United States which gives high priority to the ethics of (individual) leadership in business (and politics). The message appears to be that "examples do matter" (see Murphy and Enderle 1994). Al-though I share this view, the concentration on individual deci-sion-making sometimes seems exaggerated (e.g., in Stark 1993) by unduly "personalizing" corporate and societal issues.

In conclusion, business ethics must realistically assess the limited extent of freedom of the moral actors at all three levels and help the actors assume their responsibilities.

1. The names of these exemplary enterprises are fictitious.

2. The multinational corporation Ciba, Basel/Switzerland, says in its Annual Report 1992: "We strive to achieve sustainable growth by balancing our economic, social and environmental responsibilities. Empowered employees and a flexible organization support our commitment to excellence."

3. The Declaration was signed by leaders of all major world religions who gathered in Chicago in the fall of 1993 for the "1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions". The only major ethical tra-ditions not represented in the document were Confucianism and atheist humanitarianism.

Table I

Overview of Chinese Industrial Performance, 1980-1992

Ownership Index of Real Output (1980=100) Average Annual

Growth, 1980/92

Type 1980 1985 1990 1992 (percent)

State 100 148 210 257 7.8

Collective 100 247 554 914 18.4

Private 100 21752 126057 241455 64.9

Other 100 492 3530 8736 37.2

Total 100 176 328 480 13.1

Share of Nominal Output (%)

1980 1985 1990 1992 Percent Share

of Incremental

Output, 1980/92

State 76.0 64.9 54.6 48.4 43.6

Collective

Urban 13.7 13.3 10.3 11.8 11.5

Township-Village 9.9 18.8 25.3 26.2 28.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total Output 515.4 971.6 2392.5 3706.6

(Y billion)

Source: Yearbook (1993, pp. 409, 413); Rawski, (1993).

Note: Percentage totals may not check due to rounding error.

aPrivately-owned firms employing less than eight workers.

bIncludes private firms employing eight or more workers, joint ventures, foreign-owned firms, and other ownership firms.

Source: Jefferson and Rawski 1994, 48.

Figure 1: Mapping Corporate Responsibilities

Economic Social

Responsibilities Responsibilities

(3)

(2)

(1)

Corporate

Responsibilities

Environmental Responsibilities

Three Kinds of Ethical Challenges:

(1) Minimal ethical requirement

(2) Positive obligations beyond the minimum

(3) Aspiration for ethical ideals

of some of Xiao Cheng’s disciples this view seemed fallacious. But when the translation of Da Ban Yie Ban Yin ( ) came out it confirmed that Buddha is present in everything with no exceptions, even of a stone. It is said that Master Dao Sheng travelled widely to disseminate Buddhist doctrine. The story that once he went to Hangzhou to give a sermon, and the stone in the pool bowed to him survives to the present day. Though only folklore, it implies an ethical principles for environmental protection. The stone, if viewed merely as a stone, certainly is lifeless, but in Chinese philosophy the Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist schools all believe that everything is infused with life and is equal so that even a stone had a reason for existence and its proper soul.

Chinese Da Sheng Buddhism holds that everybody and everything has the Buddhist spirit and can turn into Buddha and display its splendid life value in the world. The idea of ecological ethics that everything in nature has equal life value, equal right and equal dignity in nature is very similar to what Chinese Da Cheng Buddhism calls the Buddha soul and spirit. It is claimed in Da Ban Yin Ban Yin ( ) that all things have an equal right to survive and evolve. This is similar to the theory of modern ecological ethics which also upholds that everything on earth has the right to exist and develop.

Modern ecology requires us to change nature and protect it. The co-existence of the objectives of nature and humanity requires that we adopt a policy of both changing and protecting the nature.

Humankind cannot use nature’s objective to replace his own, but he be at the mercy of nature. For the same reason, we cannot supplant nature’s objective by that of humanity. We must acknowledge and respect nature’s objective, and protect its ecological balance, structure and reproductive capacity. At same time, under certain conditions, we must transform nature, change the course of realizing its objective, and enable the human objective to be realized. From this starting point, we must draw upon the treasures of ancient philosophy and strive vigorously to construct and develop ecological ethics.CHAPTER XX

The development of an ideal personality is a necessity for every human and is a topic of philosophical research. In history there is a parallel between the development of the personalities of both men and a women, but the difference between the two is much more conspicuous. Generally speaking, the molding and improvement of women’s personality is more difficult and requires more attention. Of course, the forming of personality is influenced by many elements, among which is the economical activity. From the point of view historical materialism this is the primary and the most immediate factor. This study concerns the relation between development of economics and of the personality of women.

The theme here is that both males and females are subjects of a creative society, but under different socio-economic forms which imply that the female has a specific experience. During economically primitive times women held a higher position as authorities of families and society, but were not self aware in this regard. In agricultural economies, women’s authority collapsed and they lost their whole personality, manifesting thereby the antinomy which can exist between the development of the economy and of women’s personality. The development of the industrial economy and the establishment of the system of democracy awoke and helped evolve women’s personality. However, backwardness of thought regarding the development of the economy and consequent male behavior created difficulties for women’s personality development. A modernized economy will enrich the female subject’s personality and open the possibilities for women to rediscover their self and improve their personality.

Almost every nation has undergone a time when they worshiped female goddesses and had beautiful legends concerning their authority. Female goddesses could not only repair heaven and make the earth, but could also create and multiply human beings. The worship of female goddesses reflects the authoritive position of female in material things and in producing human beings during primitive economic times. With respect to material production, their level then was very low. Women collected natural fruit, while men hunted for animals, but because of poor instruments men often came back with nothing, whereas the collection of fruit by women was the main source of food. In their state of group marriage, everyone knew his or her mother without knowing the father; child bearing was considered the business of women alone. In both material and human production women occupied a dominant position and were respected by everybody. With men they worked hard for the development of humankind, but did not ride roughshod over people by means of their position. Hence, their personalities were sound and beneficial. In such a time women had both position and personality, but they could not be said to have had independent individual personalities. They were conscious of a heavy dependence upon nature and human beings; there was no place for a sense of independent personality.

Progress in productive tools changed the natural division of labor. The rise of agriculture and livestock provided a new productive force. In addition, individual marriage replaced group marriage so that people knew their own parents. Child bearing was no longer a holy affair, but a burden binding women in the family. Men came to occupy the authoritive position in society originally held by women. With the establishment of the system of private property, women no longer had an independent personality, but became an exploited and oppressed part of men’s property.

The development of economy and the progress of the marriage relation need not have led to the loss of women’s personality, but the fact is just the contrary. We have seen several antinomies above: first, women invented primitive agriculture, contributed to the invention of fire and livestock farming, and helped to bring about the development of the economy and progress in history. At the same time, women showed themselves less competent than men in such productive activities as agriculture and livestock farming, which made them subordinate to men; second, women contributed to the continuation of the human race, but child bearing bound them in families and deprived them of the opportunity to take part in social activities; third, males created the culture and value system and made themselves subjects of the society, while treating females as object and tools. Although these are historical antinomies, they were inevitable for human beings in their efforts to free themselves for the bonds of nature. In a society of low productive power, it is an axiom that the weak are prey to the strong. The backwardness of production and its corresponding feudal system and culture could not provide room for an equality of both sexes. Therefore, for the progress of the economy it was unavoidable that women’s personality would be sacrificed. In the dark ages in China as well as in the West women could not participate in politics and the praiseworthy characters of the female were also distorted: women become jealous due to living together with their husband’s concubines; they became self effacing due to being subject to maltreatment; and they became narrow-minded through living for a long time in the boudoir without going out. In the meantime, the distortion of the male personality was manifested in another way. Many men were subordinate to other men due to the social system which gave primary to the father’s rights so that they had no personality of their own. In the family, marriage for the sole purpose of child bearing and expression of the sexual impulse without love alienated the human essence of males.

The industrial economy destroyed the natural sense of the family as the basic unit. Great quantities of labor were needed by large industry. This created opportunities for women to enter social life, to participate in economic activities, to earn salaries, and hence no longer to be the property of others. This provided a good basis for their positions as social subjects. In addition, the democratic system, corresponding to the industrial economy, promoted such ideas as "all are equal in terms of money"; "all are equal before the law", "all are equal before God". This gave rise to public opinion favorable to the independence of women as regards their personality. All this was helpful in awakening women’s personalities as subjects. In industrial society women actively fulfilled their obligations while seeking their legitimate rights and interests in activities which constantly improve their personality. However, the following elements in industrial society frustrated the development of women’s personality or even subjected it to certain deviations.

First, industrial production places the machine at the center; it aims at producing material objects and is determined by the investment of human power and other resources; it emphasizes physical labor and operational technology, and the proportion of physical labor is much greater than that of mental work. This situation is unfavorable to women; they suffer sexual discrimination in seeking a job, which hinders the establishment of women’s personalties as subjects.

Second, due to the backwardness of ideas in comparison to the progress of the economy, certain feudal ideas such as "the male has dignity while the female is humble" and "a woman should be subordinate to a man" still fetter women, and influence social expectations regarding their role and value. This gives rise to certain dilemmas for women in seeking their rights and fulfilling their obligations. Many women feel a tension between their role in society and in their family, and in seeking a position in social life while feeling a sense of obligation to be a good wife and mother.

Third, the male culture inclines women to be masculine: as society has long been dominated by men the behavior of successful men in social life is taken as the pattern for all people. As women have not created their own pattern of behavior, they must conform to the pattern of man’s behavior so that their role in social life will more easily be accepted. This stage cannot be surmounted until women fully participate as subjects in society. Although the slogans such as "equality for both sexes" play a great role in freeing women from the fetters of family to become subjects in society, they are harmful to the maintenance of the distinctively female personality. In China, a trend toward the masculinization of women was strong after the 1950s, and reach its height in the 1970s. The "Iron Young Woman" in the 1950s was very similar to the male physique; in the 1970s the dress, even the style of women’s hair, was masculinized. Coming into 1980s, people exclaimed with surprising that "there are no woman in this country"; they began to doubt whether the "strong woman" was perfect in personality. Women refused to be masculinized.

However, people have no answer to the question what is the ideal personality for women? They sink into puzzlement and inertia. Men are afraid of their wives being "strong women", and women themselves fear being "strong women". In order to be thought of as tender, many women do not dare to show their talent, but then they worry about being too feminine; they do not know how to mould their personalities. The solution to the problem requires further development in the economy as well as constant progress in ideology; one is complementary to the other.

The modernized economy is a great revolution over the traditional one and will bring about change in all facets of society. The female personality will be developed and improved in the process of the modernization of society and its ideal will be realized.

First, the productive mode of the modernized economy helps manifest the personality of women as subjects. In modern industry, what determines the production is no longer physical human strength, but the application of a high level of technology, which increases the proportion of mental work. Now in some developed countries, the proportion of mental work versus physical labor approximates 1:1, while the value created by the former far exceeds that created by the latter. Therefore, the application of high level technology will reduce or eliminate the physical inferiority of women in production, and enable women to give play to their superiority in patience, carefulness and nimbleness. This is obviously indicated in developed countries: in the U.K. women have more job opportunities than men.

Second, the operational mode of a modernized economy enables women to choose the job suited to them. The open, dynamic pattern of the economy enables women to find positions of their own in a wider range of social activity. In developed countries, women are exploring molding ideal personalities. They are not the traditional good mothers and wives who sacrifice themselves in a closed family context, nor are they the so-called strong women of industrial times. They develop their own standard and hope to get a valuable job with flexible hours and a good location; they hope to take account of both family and career. Some women give up work and become housewives while bring up their children, but their return to the family is for the purpose of educating their children and giving their children the natural love of a mother so that the children can grow soundly. In the meantime, they engage in further studies to give play to their potentialities or to develop their interests, so that they will be more competitive when they take up a career after their children have grown up. Such exploration is praiseworthy under the conditions of a modernized economy; it advances the civilization of the whole society.

Third, the high educational level of society, the high degree of democracy and the modernization and socialization of house work due to the modernization of the economy will enable women to elevate their quality as human beings, to demonstrate their personality, to strengthen their competitive power in social life, and to realize a sound personality. There will be a day when we need no longer emphasize that the male and the female differ and recognize that there is something common to both sexes. Then the peculiar and varied beauty of the character and personality of the female will demonstrate itself naturally in the world.

Of course, molding the female personality depends not merely on the progress of economy and is not merely a matter for women alone. It depends on the consistent efforts of the whole society; this requires theoretical work by scholars to find the incompatibilities and in time eliminate them.