Friedman social responsibility essay
This quotation implies that Friedman does not proclaim that directors can act in any way to maximise profit as they have to abide by the law and follow ethical custom.
It will be argued that directors cannot act in any way to increase profits and that corporations should engage in socially responsible activities as it can be shown that they at least have an indirect positive effect on organisational performance.
In that case, the manager would only have one priority, to maximize profits.
I shall summa- Points b and c depend on aon the rize his main arguments, examine some o f his ground that "the imposition o f taxes and the premises and lines o f inference, and propose a expenditure o f tax proceeds are governmental counter-argument.
Even when it did take place, the discussion involved only big companies. Conclusion I have considered Friedman's principal objec- Notes tions to socially responsible action in business and argued that at the bottom of most of his 1 Milton Friedman, 'The Social Responsibility of objections is an inaccurate paradigm.
Point e depends, in part, on dsince it is the executive's failure to serve the interests o f his principal which Thomas Mulligan is an Assistant Professor at The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, in the areas of results in the withdrawal o f that principal's Manufacturing Management Systems and Business support.
So the debate continues unabated: What, exactly, is businesses' responsibility? Lone Ranger executives are no more practice.
However, what if that manager determined that social endeavors is the best option to maximize profits?
Friedman doctrine example
However, this led to the matter of public opinion towards corporations playing a larger role in how well they integrate themselves into a community or help preserve the environment is a factor in how consumers choose to purchase products. Or by mensurate with the size of his or her stake. If we accept the counter-paradigm proposed Decisions about socially responsible actions, above as truer to the nature o f a socially respon- no less than decisions about new products or marketing campaigns, can be made using this sible corporate executive, then there is no basis "business-like" approach. The Ford Pinto, popular car of the s, made a profit off of a vehicle that endangered the lives of hundreds of people. If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it Friedman's paradigm must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. Meijer and Schuyt examined the role of Corporate Social Responsibility in purchasing behaviour and found that for Dutch consumers, corporate social performance serves more as a Hygiene Factor than as a Motivator. The varied works of philosophers have led to the development of ethical frameworks that may be applied to any particular situation. Friedman elaborated on how businesses cannot have assigned responsibilities. In so doing, these people serve as "legislators" for the company. Then there will be an analysis of one of the five drivers of responsible enterprise and explain the role in which the government plays a part in boosting responsible enterprise. Companies that operate exclusively for the sake of maximising shareholder return and thus do not engage in socially responsible activities are considered unethical in the utilitarian point of view. Among the key findings: Two-thirds say corporate citizenship and sustainability issues are of growing importance for their businesses. In that case, the manager would only have one priority, to maximize profits. Insofar as his actions in accord with his 'social responsibility' reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money.
based on 31 review