I’ll check out Crosby. Thanks for advice.
As for Drucker, he’s just apparently some kind of social democrat. Anyway, more gems of nonsense:
(i) “To make elimination of any ‘external’ impact into business opportunity shou1d always be attempted, but often, eliminating any ‘external’ impact means increasing costs of business. What was ‘externality’ for which general public paid becomes business cost. Therefore it becomes competitive disadvantage unless everybody in industry accepts same rule. This, in most cases, can be done only by regulation—that means by same form of public action. Whenever an impact cannot be eliminated without an increase in cost, it becomes incumbent upon management to think ahead and work out the regulation which is most likely to solve the problem at the minimum cost and with the greatest benefit to public and business alike. And it is then management’s job to work at getting the right regulation enacted. Management—and not only business management—has shunned this responsibility. The traditional attitude has always been that “no regulation is the best regulation.” But this applies only when an impact can be made into a business opportunity. Where elimination of an impact requires a restriction, regulation is in the interest of business, and especially in the interest of responsible business.” (Drucker 1974:334).
BUT Nonsense: there are no externalities in any objective way that could justify regulation. If someone cared what color my underwear is would be externality, and require “regulation.” Anything that is regulation in business is usually excuse to act on prejudice against something.
(ii) “It is not possible to disregard demand for social responsibility, as such distinguished economists as Milton Friedman of Chicago have urged. There is danger that social responsibility will undermine economic performance and with it society altogether. Social responsibility cannot be evaded. It is not only that the public demands it. It is not only that society needs it. The fact remains that in modern society there is no other leadership group but managers. If the managers of our major institutions, and especially of business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one else can or will. Social impacts and social responsibilities have to be managed” (Drucker 1974:325).
BUT There is no such thing as collective will, nor social responsibility, i.e., responsibility in respect to social will or collective preference independent of individual people.
(iii) “Manager is, indeed, ‘entrepreneur’ and responsible for directing vision and resources toward greatest results and contributions” (Drucker 1974:17).
BUT Nonsense: entrepreneur receives profit himself, because he undertook action given uncertainty using his own property. The manager receives wage, so he never receives profits, and can only give advice the entrepreneur. At the end of the day, it is entrepreneur who decides which manager to hire or fire, and thus, what decisions, given uncertainity to make, even if manager is one who had made decisions! If stockholders don’t care, and hire any manager presented to them, then yes, they are poor quality entrepreneurs and should not be surprised when they lose money.