Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:27:00.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Entrepreneurship, Strategy, and Business Philanthropy: Cotton Textiles in the British Industrial Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2019

Alice Shepherd  and
Steven Toms
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyzes the relationship between entrepreneurial philanthropy and the competitive process. Competitive conditions interacted significantly with entrepreneurial responses to ethical problems posed by the rapid emergence of factory production following the British Industrial Revolution. Entrepreneurs’ attitudes toward regulation and the labor process are used to identify the major differences and similarities in competitive behavior. These variations are explored using nineteenth-century case studies highlighting examples of philanthropy and competitive behavior. The analysis leads to a typology showing that entrepreneurial philanthropic behavior is conditioned by business strategy variables: specifically, combinations of technological and labor resources controlled by individual entrepreneurs and their businesses.

Keywords

British Industrial Revolutioncotton textile industrybusiness regulationentrepreneurshipphilanthropybusiness ethics
Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 93 , Issue 3: Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy , Autumn 2019 , pp. 503 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the issue editors, three anonymous reviewers, and also participants at the PDW held in Glasgow, June 2017, at the European Business History Association Vienna meeting, August 2017, and at a seminar held at Newcastle University Business School, November 2017, for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

1 Acs, Zoltan J. and Phillips, Ronnie J., “Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy in American Capitalism,” Small Business Economics 19 (2002): 189–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Audretsch, David B. and Hinger, Joshua R., “From Entrepreneur to Philanthropist: Two Sides of the Same Coin?,” in Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives, ed. Marilyn L. Taylor, Robert J. Stromm, and David O. Renz (Cheltenham, 2014), 24–42Google Scholar.

3 Examples include the Gates and Soros foundations. Bishop, Matthew and Green, Michael, Philanthrocapitalism (London, 2008)Google Scholar.

4 Sulek, Marty, “On the Classical and Modern Meanings of Philanthropy,” in The Philanthropy Reader, ed. Moody, Michael and Breeze, Beth (Abingdon, 2016), 31–36, 33–34Google Scholar; Rhodri Davies equates the modern understanding of philanthropy with nineteenth-century developments. Davies, , Public Good by Private Means (London, 2016), 27Google Scholar; Shapely, Peter, Charity and Power in Victorian Manchester (Manchester, 2000)Google Scholar; Maltby, Josephine and Rutterford, Janette, “Investing in Charities in the Nineteenth Century: The Financialization of Philanthropy,” Accounting History 21, no. 2/3 (2016): 263–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Building on common definitions of philanthropy, such as a social relation arising from moral obligation to meet an expressed need: Ostrander, Susan A. and Schervish, Paul G., “Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as a Social Relation,” in Critical Issues in American Philanthropy, ed. Van Til, Jon (San Francisco, 1990), 67–98Google Scholar. Going beyond more general definitions, such as voluntary action for the public good, synonymous with charitable donations, Sulek, “Classical and Modern Meanings,” 33–34.

6 For example, Howard H. Stevenson's definition as the pursuit of opportunity beyond resources currently controlled. Stevenson, “A Perspective on Entrepreneurship,” Harvard Business School Background Note 384-131 (Boston 1983).

7 Pierre Bourdieu, for example, disputes disinterested motivation, arguing that there will be concealed interests deriving from “the habitus or struggles in the social field.” Sayer, Andrew, “Bourdieu, Smith and Disinterested Judgement,” Sociological Review 47, no. 3 (1999): 403–31, 404CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For example, Porter, Michael and Van der Linde, Classe, “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 4 (1995): 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, Michael and Kramer, Mark, “Strategy and Society,” Harvard Business Review 84, no. 12 (2006): 78–92Google ScholarPubMed. Generic aspects of corporate strategic philanthropy creating competitive advantage include reputation, market position, employee motivation and productivity, and cost reduction. Parker, Lee, “Corporate Social Accountability through Action: Contemporary Insights from British Industrial Pioneers,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 39, no. 8 (2014): 632–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Harvey, Charles, Maclean, Mairi, Gordon, Jillian, and Shaw, Eleanor, “Andrew Carnegie and the Foundations of Contemporary Entrepreneurial Philanthropy,” Business History 53, no. 3 (2011): 425–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thomas Hobbes's view of human nature is that altruism is motivated by the good feeling experienced by the donor. Singer, Peter, “The Rich Should Give,” in The Philanthropy Reader, ed. Moody, Michael and Breeze, Beth (Abingdon, 2016), 183–88, 184Google Scholar.

10 Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles, Gordon, Jillian, and Shaw, Eleanor, “Identity, Storytelling and the Philanthropic Journey,” Human Relations 68, no. 10 (2015): 1623–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Bekkers, René and Wiepking, Pamala, “A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40, no. 5 (2011): 924–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boulding, Kenneth, “Notes on a Theory of Philanthropy,” in Philanthropy and Public Policy, ed. Dickinson, Frank (Boston, 1962), 57–72Google Scholar.

11 The pinnacle predated the onset of state provision in the twentieth century. Davies, Public Good by Private Means.

12 Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (New York, 1944)Google Scholar.

13 Most millowners maximized profits to the exclusion of all else, reflecting intense competition and cyclical industry dynamics. Dutton, Harold and King, John, “Limits of Paternalism: The Cotton Tyrants of North Lancashire, 1836–54,” Social History 7, no. 1 (1982): 59–74, 63–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Burawoy, Michael, “Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills: Factory Politics under Early Capitalism in England, the United States, and Russia,” American Journal of Sociology 90, no. 2 (1984): 247–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Nardinelli, Clark, “Child Labor and the Factory Acts,” Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (1980): 739–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 The Blincoe memoirs were published in increments beginning in 1830. Waller, John, The Real Oliver Twist (Cambridge, U.K., 2006)Google Scholar; Gray, Robert, The Factory Question and Industrial England, 1830–1860 (Cambridge, U.K., 1996), 7, 66Google Scholar.

17 For example: Ashworth, Edmund, “Minutes of a Conversation” in Letters on the Factory Act, Senior, Nassau, ed. (London, 1837)Google Scholar.

18 Regulation began with the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act, 1802, 42 Geo. 3, c. 73. The Cotton Mills and Factories Act, 1819, 59 Geo. 3, c. 66, outlawed employment of children under age nine and limited the working day to twelve hours for ages nine to sixteen, followed by the Labour in Cotton Mills Act, 1831, 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 39, limiting the working day to twelve hours for those under eighteen and night work to ages twenty-one and over. To defeat a further ten hours bill put forward by Michael Sadler M.P., prominent manufacturers successfully lobbied for a new parliamentary commission (The Factories Inquiry Commission) resulting in the Factory Act, 1833, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 103, referred to as “Althorp's Act,” which established a maximum workweek of forty-eight hours for those aged nine to thirteen, limited to eight hours a day; for children aged thirteen to eighteen, it was limited to twelve hours a day. Following further debates, the ten-hour day was enshrined in the Factories Act, 1847, 10 & 11 Vict., c. 29.

19 The Combinations of Workmen Act, 1825, 6 Geo. 4, c. 129; Dutton, Harold and King, John, Ten Per Cent and No Surrender: The Preston Strike, 1853–1854 (Cambridge, U.K., 1981), 81–85Google Scholar; Huberman, Michael, Escape from the Market: Negotiating Work in Lancashire (Cambridge, U.K., 1996)Google Scholar.

20 On the rate and effects of urbanization, see Owen, David, English Philanthropy, 1660–1960 (Harvard, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Cunningham, Hugh and Innes, Joanna, eds., Charity, Philanthropy and Reform: From the 1690s to 1850 (London, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Joyce, Patrick, Work, Society and Politics: The Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian England (New York, 1980)Google Scholar; Dutton and King, “Limits of Paternalism”; Huberman, Michael, “The Economic Origins of Paternalism: Lancashire Cotton Spinning in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Social History 12, no. 2 (1987): 177–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 For example, Prochaska, Frank K., “Philanthropy,” in The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750–1950, ed. M. L. Thompson, Francis (Cambridge, U.K., 1990), 357–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Himmelfarb, Gertrude, The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values (London, 1995)Google Scholar.

24 Owen, English Philanthropy; Harrison, John, Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America: The Quest for the New Moral World (Abingdon, 2009)Google Scholar; Trincado, Estrella and Santos-Redondo, Manuel, “Bentham and Owen on Entrepreneurship and Social Reform,” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21, no. 2 (2014): 252–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Broadberry, Stephen and Marrison, Andrew, “External Economies of Scale in the Lancashire Cotton Industry, 1900–1950,” Economic History Review 55, no. 1 (2002): 51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smelser, Neil J., Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: An Application of Theory to the British Cotton Industry (Abingdon, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Marvel, Howard P., “Factory Regulation: A Reinterpretation of Early English Experience,” Journal of Law and Economics 20, no. 2 (1977): 379–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nardinelli, Clark, “The Successful Prosecution of the Factory Acts: A Suggested Explanation,” Economic History Review 38, no. 3 (1985): 428–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Shapely, Peter, “Urban Charity, Class Relations and Social Cohesion: Charitable Responses to the Cotton Famine,” Urban History 28, no. 1 (2001): 46–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lawes, Kim, Paternalism and Politics: The Revival of Paternalism in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain (Basingstoke, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Joyce, Work, Society, Politics; Huberman, “The Economic Origins”; Dutton and King, “Limits of Paternalism.”

29 Marvel, “Factory Regulation”; Nardinelli, “The Successful Prosecution.”

30 Adapting Burawoy's definition, which distills much of the literature on paternalism. Burawoy, “Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills,” 262.

31 The study excludes disrupted conditions that prevailed before 1815, during the Napoleonic and 1812 Wars, and after 1861 and the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War.

32 Himmelfarb, The De-Moralization, 143.

33 London Gazette, 25 Mar. 1831, 581. Philips was the principal opponent of the 1819 act. For example, British Parliamentary Papers (hereafter, B.P.P.), Hansard, Cotton Factories Bill, HC Deb, series 1, vol. 37, 19 Feb. 1818, c. 561–62.

34 Brown, David, “From ‘Cotton Lord’ to Landed Aristocrat: The Rise of Sir George Philips Bart., 1766–1847,” Historical Research 69 (1996): 62–82, 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thomas Ashton operated a similar sickness and funeral fund. Ashworth, Henry, Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Ashley (Manchester, 1833), 12Google Scholar. Sick clubs aside, philanthropic initiatives on hospitals and other social care infrastructure were minimal before 1860, millowners preferring to directly employ factory surgeons. John Pickstone suggested that such entrepreneurial philanthropy depended strongly on control and the directness of its workplace impact. Pickstone, , Medicine and Industrial Society: A History of Hospital Development in Manchester and Its Region, 1752–1946 (Manchester, 1985), 5, 75, 142Google Scholar.

35 B.P.P., Hansard, Cotton Factories Bill, 23 Feb. 1818, c. 585.

36 Sadler Committee, B.P.P., Select Committee on Bill for Regulation of Factories: Report, Minutes of Evidence, 706, 1831–1832 (ev. Charles Aberdeen, qq. 9648–9651, 447).

37 B.P.P., Select Committee on Bill for Regulation of Factories (ev. Aberdeen, qq. 9549, 441); Hoole, Holland, A Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Althorp M.P., Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Defence of the Cotton Factories of Lancashire (Manchester, 1832), 4Google Scholar.

38 Ashworth., Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Ashley, 31–32; Anon., “Remarks on the Objections Which Have Been Urged,” in The Factory Act of 1819, ed. Carpenter, Kenneth (New York, 1972), 3Google Scholar.

39 Anon., “An Inquiry into the Principle and Tendency of the Bill Now Pending in Parliament, for Imposing Certain Restrictions on Cotton Factories,” in Carpenter, The Factory Act, 31, 44.

40 Hoole, Letter to Althorp, 4. See also: Anon., Remarks on the Propriety and Necessity of Making the Factory Bill of More General Application (London, 1833), 15–16Google Scholar.

41 B.P.P., Select Committee on Manufactures, Commerce and Shipping: Report and Minutes of Evidence, 19, 1833 (ev. Milne, q. 11097, 658; qq. 11055–11057, 656).

42 Tuffnell, Edward, Character, Object and Effects of Trade Unions (London, 1834), 15Google Scholar.

43 Rose, Mary, The Gregs of Quarry Bank Mill: The Rise and Decline of a Family Firm, 1750–1914 (Cambridge, U.K., 1986)Google Scholar; Boyson, Rhodes, The Ashworth Cotton Enterprise (Oxford, 1970)Google Scholar.

44 For example, the Factories Inquiry Commission. B.P.P., Royal Com. on Employment of Children in Factories. First Report, Minutes of Evidence, App; Reports of District Coms, 450, 1833 (ev. Hoole, 846–49). The role of sunk costs underpinned Senior's famous “last hour” argument. Senior, Nassau ed., Letters on the Factory Act (London, 1837), 7Google Scholar.

45 The Coats dynasty's paternalism was also influenced by the family's early exposure to the United States, where paternalistic attitudes were common in the cotton industry. Cooke, Anthony, The Rise and Fall of the Scottish Cotton Industry, 1778–1914 (Manchester, 2010)Google Scholar. Cairncross, Alec and Hunter, J. B. K., “The Early Growth of Messrs J and P Coats, 1830–83,” Business History 29, no. 2 (1987): 157–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Reilly, Valerie, “Coats and Clark: The Binding Thread of Paisley's History,” Renfrewshire Local History Forum Journal 15 (2009): 1–12Google Scholar; Manchester Times, 6 July 1861; Bedford, Jane, “Ashton, Thomas, 1818–1898,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. C. G. Matthew, H. and Harrison, Brian (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar.

47 B.P.P., Factories Inquiries Commission, 450 D1, 1833 (ev. Ashton, 855–856; ev. Greg, 782–83; ev. Hoole, 731–32). Hoole demonstrated that the loss in wages across the whole industry would be “at least £1,000,000 per annum” on a loss of output “at the disposal of our foreign competitors” of 40,000,000 lbs. (732).

48 B.P.P., Factories Inquiry Commission, Royal Com. on Employment of Children in Factories Supplementary Reports, Part I. and II, 167, 1834, (ev. James Coats, 199[t]).

49 Cowle, Malc, Dirty Politics, Hard Times: A Trilogy of Chartism (Manchester, 2010)Google Scholar; Huberman, Escape from the Market, 90. In 1831, Thomas Ashton was murdered, allegedly for his opposition to cotton trade unions. Leeds Intelligencer, 13 Jan. 1831; “Murder of Mr. Thomas Ashton,” Manchester Guardian, 8 Jan. 1831.

50 “Noble Conduct of Lord Ashley,” Age, 23 Aug. 1840; “The Oastler Memorial at Bradford,” Morning Post, 18 May 1869; “Robert Owen, Esq.,” Morning Post, 29 Sept. 1821; Illustrated London News, 11 June 1842, 70.

51 In his 1844 speech, in addition to Fielden and other M.P.s, Ashley cited numerous millowners as supporters of the Ten Hours Bill: Mr. Kay, Mr. William Walker, Mr. Hamer (Bury), Mr. Cooper (Preston), Mr. Tysoe (Salford), Mr. Hargreaves (Accrington). B.P.P., Hansard, “Hours of Labour in Factories,” HC Deb, series 3, vol.74, 10 May 1844, c. 911.

52 Bentham was a significant investor and sleeping partner in New Lanark. Trincado and Santos-Redondo, “Bentham and Owen.”

53 Morgan, John Minter, Remarks on the Practicability of Mr. Robert Owen's Plan to Improve the Condition of the Lower Classes (London, 1819)Google Scholar.

54 Owen, Robert, The Life of Robert Owen (1857, reprinted London, 1920), 111Google Scholar.

55 Bourne, Henry Fox, English Merchants (London, 1886), 405Google Scholar.

56 Morgan, Remarks, 25.

57 Morgan, 26.

58 Owen, Life of Owen, 164.

59 For example, his scheme presented in the Report to the Committee of the Association for the Relief of the Manufacturing and Labouring Poor. Grimm, Robert T., Notable American Philanthropists: Biographies of Giving and Volunteering (Westport, CT, 2002), 230Google Scholar.

60 Owen, Life of Owen, 140–41, 289. Sidmouth, the Secretary of State, dismissed the complaint against Owen, an alleged treasonous speech, as frivolous (Owen, 165–66). Sir George Philips likewise attempted to undermine Owen, questioning his religious beliefs in the House of Commons Committee on Peel's Factory Bill, a line of questioning judged to be irrelevant and expunged as a consequence (Owen, 167).

61 “Answers to Certain Objections Made to Sir Robert Peel's Bill,” in Carpenter, The Factory Act, 22–23.

62 Carpenter, 12–13. Swainson was then the third-largest employer in Preston. Dutton and King, Ten Per Cent and No Surrender, 11.

63 “Progress of the Ten Hour Bill,” The British Labourer's Protector and Factory Child's Friend, 22 Feb. 1833, 183; “National Regeneration Society,” Cobbett's Political Register, 14 Dec. 1833, 654, 659–60.

64 B.P.P., Select Committee on the State of Children Employed in the Manufactories of the United Kingdom: Report and Minutes of Evidence, 397, 1816 (ev. Owen, 252).

65 B.P.P., Select Committee on Bill for Regulation of Factories (ev. Aberdeen, qq. 7414, 7417–7418, 332).

66 Gardner's experiment commenced in Apr. 1844, with no reduction in the rate of wages. It coincided with a petition presented to Lord Ashley by Sir George Strickland, the M.P. for Preston, in support of the Ten Hours Bill, Preston Chronicle, 27 Apr. 1844.

67 “Reduction of the hours of labour” Preston Chronicle, 26 Apr. 1845.

68 B.P.P., Hansard, The Ten Hours Factory Bill, HC Deb, series 3, vol. 83, 29 Jan. 1846, c. 380, 383.

69 B.P.P., Hansard, “Hours of Labour in Factories,” HC Deb, series 3, vol. 73, 18 Mar. 1844, c. 1236.

70 B.P.P., Select Committee on Hand-Loom Weavers’ Petitions: Report and Minutes of Evidence, 556, 1834 (qq. 8060–8063, 633–34). John Fielden to William Fitton, in “National Regeneration,” reprinted in Carpenter, The Factory Act, 10, 14.

71 David Holt to John Fielden, in “National Regeneration,” 31–33; See also: B.P.P., Select Committee on Manufactures (ev. Smith, q. 9096, 551)

72 London Gazette, 31 May 1833, 1074.

73 “The Cause of the Wages Dispute,” Preston Chronicle, 10 Dec. 1853.

74 B.P.P., Select Committee on Manufactures (ev. Milne, q. 10975). Milne reported widespread distress in his district (q. 11151, 663).

75 Croft, Linda, John Fielden's Todmorden: Popular Culture and Radical Politics in a Cotton Town c. 1817–1850 (Todmorden, 1994)Google Scholar; Boyson, Ashworth Cotton Enterprise, 197–98.

76 B.P.P., Hansard, The Ten Hours Factory Bill, c. 408. Operatives refuted these claims in their evidence. “The Ten Hours Bill,” The Northern Star, 14 Feb. 1846.

77 Horrockses and other large Preston firms benefited from abundant labor from the Fylde rural hinterland. Huberman, Escape from the Market, 54. The transition is similar to that observed by Burawoy at Lowell, Massachusetts, after 1860. Burawoy, “Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills,” 264–66.

78 Huberman, Escape from the Market, 60.

79 The experiment immediately followed Ashley's use of Gardner's results in support of the Ten Hours Bill in Jan. 1846. “The Eleven Hours Factory Experiment,”Liverpool Standard, 14 Apr. 1846.

80 Dutton and King, “Limits of Paternalism,” 64–65, 68–69.

81 Law, Brian R., Fieldens of Todmorden: A Nineteenth Century Business Dynasty (Littleborough, 1995), 140–41Google Scholar.

82 For Ashley's condemnation of the factory system, as opposed to individual masters, see: B.P.P., Hansard, Ten Hours Factory Bill, 15 Mar. 1844 HC Deb vol 73, c. 1080, 1081. The masters themselves, through an association of well-disposed masters, should unite and form a committee to be the “medium through which the improved condition of the people should come.” Holt, “National Regeneration,” 32, 33.

83 Tuffnell, Character, Object and Effects of Trade Unions, 98, 103. A lockout of all Glasgow mills was threatened by masters following a dispute at Houldsworth's mill. B.P.P., First Report from Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery 51, 1824 (ev. Smith, 639).

84 Tuffnell, Character, Object and Effects of Trade Unions, 16–17, 89.

85 “The Preston Strike and Lock-out,” Preston Chronicle, 14 Jan. 1854.

86 Tuffnell, Character, Object and Effects of Trade Unions, 100.

87 B.P.P., Select Committee on Hand-Loom Weavers (ev. Fielden, q. 8043, 631).

88 Kenworthy, William, Inventions and Hours of Labour: A Letter to Master Cotton Spinners, Manufacturers, and Millowners in General (Blackburn, 1842), 13, 15–16Google Scholar. Joseph Gillow made a similar argument in Preston ten years later. “The Cause of the Wages Dispute,” Preston Chronicle, 10 Dec. 1853.

89 Kenworthy claimed in 1844 that many Blackburn millowners had softened their stance, receiving support from Robert Hargreaves of nearby Accrington. Lewis, Brian, The Middlemost and the Milltowns: Bourgeois Culture and Politics in Early Industrial England (Stanford, 2002), 301, 302-3Google Scholar. A letter from Kenworthy read out to a meeting at which Hornby and other masters were present also strongly opposed these proposals. “The Relay and Shift System in Factories,” Preston Chronicle, 23 Mar. 1850.

90 Kenworthy, Inventions.

91 “Advance of Wages,” Blackburn Standard, 27 July 1853.

92 McIvor, Arthur, Organised Capital: Employers’ Associations and Industrial Relations in Northern England, 1880–1939 (Cambridge, U.K., 2002), 48Google Scholar.

93 Dutton and King, “Limits of Paternalism,” 70–71.

94 For example, Bolton began this practice as early as 1810. Huberman, Escape from the Market, 6. A new list was agreed in 1823 following a strike. Kirby, Raymond and Musson, Albert, The Voice of the People: John Doherty, 1798–1854: Trade Unionist, Radical and Factory Reformer (Manchester, 1975), 100Google Scholar. John Welsford Cowell, as part of his investigation for the Factories Inquiry Commission, collected extensive evidence from Manchester lists. Factories Inquiry Commission, 167.

95 For example, “The Preston Strike and Lockout,” “The Strike: Blackburn and Preston Prices,” “Blackburn Prices,” Preston Chronicle, 24 Dec. 1853, 7 Jan. 1854, 14 Jan. 1854.

96 Mason, John, “Spinners and Minders,” in The Barefoot Aristocrats: A History of the Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners, eds. Fowler, Alan and Wyke, Terry (Littleborough, 1987), 48, 52Google Scholar. After the strike, Preston firms negotiated a piece rate list. Huberman, Escape from the Market, 139.

97 Blackburn Standard, 8 Sept. 1847.

98 Blackburn Standard, 6 Oct. 1847.

99 “Grand Conservative Demonstration,” Blackburn Standard, 14 Sept. 1853.

100 Dutton and King, Ten Per Cent and No Surrender, 92.

101 Blackburn Standard, 9 Mar. 1853.

102 Cooke, Rise and Fall.

103 Gray, Robert, The Factory Question and Industrial England, 1830–1860 (Cambridge, U.K., 2002), 221, 191–92Google Scholar; Burgess, Keith, The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

104 Wilkins, Alan and Ouchi, William, “Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly 28, no. 3 (1983): 468–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ouchi, William and Price, Raymond, “Hierarchies, Clans, and Theory Z: A New Perspective on Organization Development,” Organizational Dynamics 21, no. 4 (1993): 62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Van Reenen, John, “The Creation and Capture of Rents: Wages and Innovation in a Panel of UK Companies,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, no. 1 (1996): 195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Akerlof, George and Yellen, Janet, “The Fair Wage-Effort Hypothesis and Unemployment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 105, no. 2 (1990): 255–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, John S., “Toward an Understanding of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, no. 5 (1963): 422–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

107 William J. Baumol and Robert J. Stromm suggest amending the rules of the game to enforce social responsibilities of entrepreneurs so that they are also financially worthwhile. Baumol, and Stromm, , “Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy: Protecting the Public Interest,” in Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives, ed. Taylor, Marilyn L., Stromm, Robert J., and Renz, David O. (Cheltenham, 2014), 11–23Google Scholar.

108 Patriotic Millionaires, Renegotiating Power and Money in America, accessed 4 Dec. 2017, https://patrioticmillionaires.org/book/powerandmoney.pdf.

109 B.P.P., Modern Slavery Bill, Written Evidence, 2014–15 (q. 5, 83; qq. 2, 23, 30, 105–8)

110 Greenwood, Royston and Suddaby, Roy, “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms,” Academy of Management Journal 49, no. 1 (2006): 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Daly, Siobhan, “Philanthropy as an Essentially Contested Concept,” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23, no. 3 (2012): 535–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “slippery idea,” see Robert L. Payton, “Philanthropy as a Concept,” (1987), accessed 16 Nov. 2017, http://134.68.190.22/output/pdf/0081.pdf, 10; “diversity and confusion,” see Frumkin, Peter, Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy (Chicago, 2008), 26Google Scholar.