I'd like to more clearly understand Milton Friedman's and others as necessary views on corporate social responsibility. What about worker safety?
Child labor in less-developed countries? Are issues like these to be ignored by corporations?
A position paper on Milton Friedman - David Federhen - Term Paper (Advanced seminar) - Business economics - Business Ethics, Corporate Ethics - Publish. Milton Friedman's (in-)famous article “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” will serve to represent the libertarian view which.
This indeed sounds like an uncivil, potentially unpleasant society. But dig a little deeper, think about the issues as an economist would, and we see that there is no contradiction between corporations pursuing profit and a civil and civilized society. View the discussion thread.
It is far better to establish a framework of law that will clearly and transparently induce the firm to internalize costs. Another 35 percent without formal programs conduct regular reviews of these activities. Register or log in. Among the key findings:. Furthermore, for companies to be genuinely ethical, they should engage in a reasonable level of socially responsible activities as this maximises the wealth of all stakeholders.
Milton Friedman and the Social Responsibility of Business. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment.
Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire 'hardcore' unemployed instead of better-qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty. Insofar as his actions in accord with his 'social responsibility' reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money.
Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money. They can do good -- but only at their own expense. What American business leaders too often forget is that this means all the assets employed -- not just the financial assets but also the brains employed, the labor employed, the materials employed, and the land, air, and water employed.
Among the key findings: Two-thirds say corporate citizenship and sustainability issues are of growing importance for their businesses. Another 35 percent without formal programs conduct regular reviews of these activities. Most companies—71 percent—report publicly on citizenship and sustainability performance. Only 11 percent say there is no board review on these issues. There's a growing case to be made that they can, they should, and eventually must. Rethinking the Role of the MBA. The only moral responsibility of directors and executives is to meet shareholder expectations, which is to maximise their return on investment.
Friedman interprets this principle as the corporation with the highest return to shareholders. When the issue of an electric company that cut supply to a customer for non-payment upon which the customer died as a consequence was presented to Friedman, he applied the Kantian view to justify their actions.
He argued that a utility company that does not cut off electricity to non-paying customers would perish as there is no reason for customers to pay their bills. He considers this as ethical because the directors have a moral duty to ensure the survival of the corporation. The socio-economic view is a utilitarian argument as Frederick 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.
Following the utilitarian adage of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, 10 companies are ethically obliged to participate in socially responsible activities that maximise the total welfare of all stakeholders. There is, however, a problem with applying standard consequentialist theories where we are required to maximise agent-neutral value.
A deontic constraint is a principle that assigns a value to individual agents over others 12 , and in the case of corporate social responsibility, it could be argued that the rights of the shareholders should be protected in preference of the rights of the whole of society. What would Milton Friedman say about Fair Trade? If corporate social responsibility is detrimental to business, as suggested by Friedman, then shareholders will tend to avoid investing in companies that act socially responsible. There is, however, empirical evidence that this is not the case.
Firstly, Friedman fails to acknowledge that acting ethically can be a valuable marketing proposition.
By understanding the desires of consumers, a corporation can offer products and services that match their ethical thresholds, thereby adding value to both shareholders and consumers, thus avoiding marketing myopia as described by Theodore Levitt. Consumers prefer products and services that make claims of social responsibility on product labels. 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.
Interestingly, this behaviour was not related to household income. Secondly, the growth of ethical investments demonstrates that some investors prefer organisations that do not seek profit maximisation by imposing ethical constraints on their operations. Executives and directors that behave unethically create significant shareholder dissatisfaction, as demonstrated by the many recent examples or corporate misbehaviour.