Comparing Profit Maximization and Shareholder Wealth Maximization

Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management says that the purpose of a business is to make money for the owner or the stockholders of the business. Friedman says that there is only one social responsibility for the business: to use its resources in order to increase

Lawrence, Anne (2010). Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy. 13th Edition. McGraw-Hill Learning Solutions, 2010. VitalBook file. Bookshelf.

What Friedman implies is that shareholders should only be concerned with maximizing profits and not be obligated to be “socially responsible.” In that case, the manager would only have one priority, to maximize profits. However, what if that manager determined that social endeavors is the best option to maximize profits? This would make the corporation socially responsible while still maintaining maximum profits. The argument presented by Friedman in this case is that while the manager is performing as expected by maximizing profits, this type of “social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.”

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

Over the years, firms have increasingly been maximising shareholder value. However, Steve Denning, a former director of the World Bank, author of six leadership and management books and columnist for Forbes, disagrees. His article “The Origin of the ‘World’s Dumbest Idea’: Milton Friedman”, was published on June 26, 2013 on Forbes, debates against Friedman’s argument that the social responsibility of corporations is to make money for its shareholders. The main issue here is whether the maximisation of shareholder value as the guiding principle of executives is detrimental to the corporation. Although Denning has exhibited valid points in his argument, his lack of citation, biased view on most arguments and his tone has dampened the credibility

Business organizations today are socially and ethically responsible for doing the right thing, exercising good judgment in their business activities with employees, stakeholders, customers and the community. Business organizations emphasis should not only be on profits, but also on how business decisions impact society.

In their theories of how a business should operate, R. Edward Freeman and Milton Friedman hold virtually opposite beliefs as to what businesses’ responsibilities should be. In favor of the Stakeholder theory, Freeman believes that any person or organization that has a “stake” in the business should also play a role of participation in the business’s actions and decisions. In the other corner of the ring stands Milton Friedman, who holds the belief that said business is only responsible for those that actually own stock in the business – the owners, or stockholders.

The expectation that businesses behave responsibly and positively contribute to society all while pursuing their economic goals is one that holds firm through all generations. Stakeholders, both market and nonmarket, expect businesses to be socially responsible. Many companies have responded to this by including this growing expectation as part of their overall business operations. There are companies in existence today whose sole purpose is to socially benefit society alongside businesses who simply combine social benefits with their economic goals as their company mission. These changes in societal expectations and thus company purpose we’ve seen in the business community over time often blurs the line of what it means to be socially

Milton Friedman argues that persons may choose to undertake social responsibilities to their communities, churches, or nations, and devote their own incomes to causes that they deem morally worthy. But, he adds, if corporate executives attempt to take such social responsibilities or to direct the corporation’s profits to such personal causes, without approval from the shareholders, then:

Prior to this class, I would’ve viewed the purpose of a business to be exactly as Milton Friedman describes in his article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” In this article, he claims that corporate executives have responsibility to their employers, those employers being shareholders whose monetary contribution gives them capital to work with so they can expand the business, and the only way they will fulfill that duty is to make them as much money as possible. Businesses do not have a duty to provide any sort of contribution, monetary or time, to foundations that assist the less fortunate. Either of these contributions effects the profits the company can generate for their shareholders, and since it is not the executives’ money to work with, they should not be using it for things that the shareholders did not intend their money to be used for. As individual businessmen, acting as a sole entity not as an arm of the corporation, it is perfectly fine to engage with the community and make contributions to the betterment of the community because you’re using your own time and money, not the company’s. In certain cases, this argument makes a lot of sense. Businesses are not always the best equipped to make decisions for the improvement of the less fortunate, as seen by the example of Tom’s Shoes. Sure they donate a pair of shoes to communities where people don’t have them, but shoes are not the most necessary item for the citizens in that

Nevertheless, Friedman pointed out that the profits has taken the firms in to the hand of business intellectuals by which Friedman recommend that the financial system by which the organisation run its business is in the restricted responsibility protection which makes the organisations to privatise their profits (Friedman 1970 pp. 177-184). Friedman also suggested that according to him the shareholder theory in terms of socially responsible can only increase the profit. But on the other hand shareholder theory of Edward Freeman completely support the theory of shareholder towards its role to be socially responsible in the society and maximising the profits for the benefits of shareholders within the firms and society as well (Freeman 2008 pp. 162-165).

Milton Friedman wrote in his famous 1970’s article in The New York Times Magazine, that “the one and only social responsibility of business, is to increase profits for shareholders.” Milton Friedman's view on business responsibility accentuates the importance of maximizing firm's value. He pointed that the “there is one and only one social responsibility of business –to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engaged in open and free completion without deception or fraud’’ and by taking on the burden of social cost, the business becomes less efficient (Milton Friedman, 1962).

In light of the recent scandals that rose around big multinationals such as Enron and WorldCom, it has become evident that reform in the traditional corporate operations and objectives was to be encompassed in the organisations corporate strategies. Indeed throughout the years, companies main objectives were defined primarily as being economic objectives, Multinationals developed with sight of profit maximisations regardless to the other incentives, Friedman considered that to be the foundation for a well-managed company, it was further considered that the financing of any other sort of social corporate activities rather unnecessary. The expenses were regarded as expenditures for the owners and investors; this was a time where shareholders rights were regarded as conflicting with other constituents namely the employees, creditors, customers or the community in general. However this interpretation is seen as rather inadequate due to the nature of the amalgamated relation between both constituents. Stakeholders in modern corporate doctrine are considered as a core apparatus for the well functioning of a business. It is however often argued that the only way for a corporation to achieve better results and maximise its profits is to include other people in the process, individuals or organisations with direct or indirect interest in the well performance of the company, that is the reason why modern regulations and codes include a number of stakeholders other than the

In today’s world, different types of business have emerged and business operations have become the cornerstone of making a success, however the way in which they are operated is what is important. Most businesses hunt the main objective of making a profit without considering how that might affect other factors of society and that is what in most cases diminishes the longevity of the organisation.

“Corporate finance theory, teaching and the typically recommended practice at least in the US are all built on the premise that the primary goal of a corporation should be the maximization of shareholder value.”