Do you agree with Milton Friedman’s (1970) claim that : « the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits » ?

I believe that Greenspan is being realistic about business ethics. In the article, he says that we should achieve success through work that has honor. Most business men in today’s society are honest and have fair values in mind. But I think the small percentage that are corrupt can taint the true honest hard working American. Greenspan also mentions in the article that he thinks that achieving success through honest work and dedication it will give a

Instead, Friedman says federal government expenditures make the economy less stable and do not, in fact, assist its growth. Friedman uses evidence he has gathered from his research to prove the correlation between the rise in government expenditures and the rise in gross domestic product. Friedman is quick to point out how this is not consistent with the Keynesian multiplier theory. He goes on to discuss many other reasons for this difference. Friedman moves onto the topic of capitalism. He says that in a capitalist society, it indirectly costs the government money to discriminate. With this in mind, he suggests that the government should not pass fair employment laws, as these give employers the freedom to employ somebody based on whatever qualifications or factors they wish. Friedman uses the same logic to support the abolishment of right-to-work

Taking a share holder approach to social responsibility, Milton Friedman views shareholders as the economic engine of the organization and the only group a firm must be socially responsible to. For the risk taken by investing in the firm, Friedman says the goal of the firm is to maximize profits and return portions of those profits to shareholders. Because a firms’ only concern is to increase profits for themselves and shareholder, they have not social responsibility to the public or society. The shareholder themselves in their private capacity, have social responsibility. Friedman states that the only social responsibility a business has is to use its resources to increase profits. The company is to engage in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Dunn & Burton, n.d.).

Milton Friedman was the most prominent economist of free market in 20th century. Friedman was born in Brooklyn, New York on July 31, 1912. Friedman earned his B.A. from Rutgers University, M.A. from University of Chicago, and Ph.D. from Columbia University. In 1967, Friedman was the president of the American Economic Association and served as a economic adviser to President Nixon. In 1976, Friedman won the Nobel Prize in Economics Sciences, "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.” Friedman taught economics at the University of Chicago for over 30 years. Sadly, Friedman passed away of heart failure at 94 years old in 2006. Friedman believed a free market economic system with minimal state intervention works best. Friedman’s idea of Laissez Faire, Monetary Policy, Negative Income Tax, and School Vouchers are revealed in the following paragraphs.

The important claims follows that Shareholders have no direct duty to guide social responsibility exercises Which is in the exact shadow of Freidman’s famous economical viewpoint (Schaefer, 2008). Basically the corporation only concern is the wealth of his company and not the welfare of the economy, employees or environment. I disagree With Friedman and Schaefer, in my opinion though the wealth the company is beneficial to the economy having a balance of all is the best strategy. Having the balance may not benefit the company in the short-run, but long term the decision is best suited for

According to Investopedia, Milton Friedman was an American economist and statistician known for his strong beliefs in free-market capitalism. Friedman was also opposed to any government ran programs that regulated policy that was used for the purpose of fueling business activity and employment. In 1970, Friedman wrote an article labeled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”. The basic premise of the article was to argue that business should not worry about social responsibility; rather

FRIEDMAN AND FRIEDMAN (P.133, 2002) ARGUED ’THERE IS ONLY ONE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS (…)TO INCREASE ITS PROFITS SO LONG AS IT SAYS’

The issue of corporate social responsibility has recently been the subject of much debate. These debates pose the question “What responsibilities, if any, do corporations have to society and the greater good?” From a legal standpoint the answer to that question is none. Legally, corporations have no responsibility to participate in any type of social responsibility, in fact, doing so is illegal and can lead to directors and corporate officers being sued by shareholders. Although the specific law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the general idea is always the same, corporations are only responsible for making the greatest profits for their shareholders. For example, In Maine, Section 716 of the business corporation act reads in part: ”The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and the shareholders.” (qtd. In The Humanist). The opposition to these viewpoints believe however that the action of corporate executives participating in social responsibility will in fact not only benefit the community and the general public, but in the long run, the corporation itself along with its shareholders. Many believe, as do I, that as a society we are more likely to engage in business with corporations who give back to its consumers and who concern themselves with the betterment of our society and the world as a whole, and in turn the result for these corporations is larger

The extent to which a business should practice corporate social responsibility is a continuing debate in modern society. Only providing services or selling products no longer constitutes a successful company, as there are expectations for firms to behave in a manner that is consistent with public policy. This creates a philosophical dilemma for corporations who wish to maintain positive relations with society, but not impede on their internal operations. The question becomes if corporations today can engage in business strategies that are both ethical and profitable.

In his landmark paper “The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its profits” Friedman decrees a distinct separation between personal views and professional decision making, is required on behalf of the executive to best serve the corporation he is charged with leading. An executive’s primarily responsibility is to the corporation, and its profitability, and that directive alone should be the guiding principle behind all business decisions (Friedman, 1991). Friedman argues that the executive who makes corporate decisions based on personal judgments are not only blurring the lines between their private and public lives, but diminish the separation between government

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) originated in 19537 with the publication of Bowen’s book Social Responsibilities of Businessmen (Carrol, 1999). Some perceived that at that time, the emphasis is placed on business people’s social conscience, rather than on the company itself. Some argue that corporate entities do not have any social responsibility except the ones that were written in agreement with government while establishing corporate entities, whereas others justify that corporate entities do have social responsibility. The roots of critics of CSR are so old that it is a challenge to the neoclassical business model itself (Valor, 2005). According to Smith (2005), there

Capitalism is dominating the lives of today’s world and people do not even realize how they are being swindled. The civilians of the modern society do not acknowledge how they are being used as assets to make bottom lines for the world’s most competitive companies. With so many corporations and businesses running, there is a neverending race of who can get the most consumers and profits. For companies to attract investors and customers, they use CSR, or corporate social responsibility, to gain advantages in the business industry. Corporate social responsibility is when a company decides to do certain activities to help improve society . CSR consists of different types of categories which are philanthropy, ethical labor practices, and the environment. Throught the decades, there has been a constant debate that concerns how beneficial and helpful corporate social responsibility really is. Some people argue that CSR can let a company make profits and help the general public at the same time, but others suggest that companies who use CSR are only prioritizing their self interest and wealth. Therefore, a company cannot be socially responsible while simultaneously making a profit because corporate social responsibility is used as a way to avoid government regulation and to greenwash a company’s reputation.

Notably, Milton Friedman (2002) argued the desideratum of any other social responsibility for businessmen other than that of making maximum profits for their stockholders to exist when he clearly stressed: ‘Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible’ (p.133). He also reasoned the unavailability of determinant factors of such social responsibilities, taking into account that it is neither efficient nor reliable to enforce nebulous social responsibilities on corporations. Consequently, critics opine that the concept of CSR is inimical to sound business practices and strays away from the basics of wealth creation (Clement-Jones, 2005; Murray, 2005; Jamli and Sidani, 2008). These academics feel businesses should involve

From a normative perspective, the theory argues that the relationship that exists between the society and businesses is essential to ethical values. Therefore, from this point of view, businesses should accept Corporate Social Responsibility as an ethical obligation more than they should any other consideration. On the other hand, in instrumental perspective, Corporate Social Responsibility is a platform for the business to make profit, therefore, only the economic aspect of the interaction in this case is measured between the society and the business (Donaldson, & Preston, 1995). Primarily, the paper will base its argument on whether it is wrong for businesses to undertake Corporate Social Responsibility activities for

So the partnership officials are capable of the general public not the entire business. The Corporate Executive drove the business. They have the principle obligations towards their managers to make the most benefit by performing best exercises for the business. Then the Corporate Executive, as a man may have his own social obligation, which implies he doesn 't generally need to take after of his proprietors. On the off chance that the corporative official 's moral qualities are not quite the same as the business, he may consider his own advantage as opposed to for the business. Along these lines, the stockholders, clients, or representatives ought to have the capacity to pick how they wish to spend their cash in the business. It is then seen that the corporate official is going about as an "open worker," as opposed to an operators of the partnership. This can prompt a loss of both clients and workers if the corporate official 's activities diminish corporate benefit and the cost of its stock. Friedman accepts, in a free society, "there is one and one and only social obligation of business—to utilize its assets and take part in exercises intended to expand its benefits insofar as it stays inside of the diversion 's standards, which is to say, participate