Argument For Promotion Of Core Csr

1635 WordsOct 6, 20167 Pages
I am a Must/Must/Can and through this paper, I will argue my middle must against my opponent (Milton Friedman’s) “must not” argument for promotion of core CSR. WE MUST PROMOTE CORE CSR vs WE MUST NOT PROMOTE CORE CSR Milton Friedman, in his work titled, “ The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, emphasizes the role of business in society is to maximize shareholder wealth, and likens any activity misaligned with regard to that mission as “stealing”. In my argument against Milton Friedman’s “must-not” engage in core CSR stance, I would like to introduce the argument of expanding the responsibility of business to only maximize profit. Before I elaborate, please consider the following example: GlaxoSmithKline( henceforth referred to as GSK), the 6th largest pharmaceutical, publicly traded firm in the world, that in March 2016 stopped filing drug patents in low income countries such as Botswana, and partnered with NGO’s to administer vaccinations and screen for conditions like malnutrition and HIV. In fact, one of GSK’s medications administered through this program, saves about 0.5 M Botswanans per year from malaria. The argument promoting core CSR rests on an analysis of the “Responsibility Gap”, as described by Margolis J of Harvard Business School. The responsibility gap analyses the responsibilities that firms have beyond their financial obligations and fiduciary responsibilities. On the individual level, humans have limited capacity to
Open Document