Feldman: Businesses as Social Agents

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

Today I read an article by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic. She titled it “Liberal Arts and the Bottom Line.” It was a critique of Milton Friedman’s business philosophy that decreed, “the business of business is business.” The implication seems to be that anything that drives the profit down (i.e. all ethical business practices–fair wages, environmental impact, etc.) was antithetical to the definition of business. Numbers, Friedman said, were the ultimate measure of the success of the business and of individual employees as well. Wallace points out that this model has serious flaws. A singular focus on ‘the bottom line’ can have an incredibly detrimental effect on workers’ lives, the economy, and the environment. She attributes the recent economic downturn and BP oil spill in large part to this philosophy.

Through written form and literary techniques, the book feed elaborates on many ideas that Anderson puts forth to the responder, one idea that is evident in the book is the idea of morality using it to show that corporations are in fact evil. Morality is the ability of humanity to distinguish between right and wrong, and once we have lost this capability we symbolically lose the core of our humanity. Anderson influenced by his social context where money is power writes “We Americans are interested only in the consumption of our products. We have no interest in how they are produced, or what happens to them once we discard them, once we throw them away.” The repetition of the word “we” and the high modality used in the

The ethical issues presented in this case are the different views that each individual has on how the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This dispute is between Mr. Milton Friedman, John Mackey, and T.J. Rodgers; all of which has a different outlook on CSR. The definition of CSR refers to the responsibilities that business has to the society in which it operates and to those actions that a business can be held accountable. Most philosophers have come up with three different types of responsibilities that corporations can be held accountable for. The first and most important of the three is a corporation’s duty to not cause harm. If a corporation can

With advanced technology comes the globalization and moving businesses to third world countries from U.S. This movement caused the rate of unemployment to rise and people see themselves in struggle to take care of their families. These issue are the complex of corporations in America. After seeing the movie (The Corporation) based on the book written by Canadian Professor Joel Bakan, we see that corporations are institutions that creates great wealth and profit but in the other hand causes enormous and hidden harm to people. Corporation cannot be imprisoned for criminal activities. Corporations are not humans they are designed by law to be concerned only for their stockholders. This is the issues that we see in our modern society the rich

The corporate world has an unfavorable view of itself by being selfish, evil, and against the average American. Companies market themselves and their products in certain ways that makes them and their products appealing to everyone and if not everyone then a certain group of people. Every company has a mission to follow and values to go by, but some companies lack ethics and morals. In this paper I am going to talk about one company that engages in ethical behavior and another that doesn’t.

Can business thrive by profit alone? Barry (2000) described Milton Friedman’s short essay, in the 1970’s, as extremely controversial, in which he denied that corporate executives had any moral duty to relax the conditions of profit maximization on behalf of the wider interests of society. This example of the “bottom line” of business has been demonstrated within the past couple of decades by publicly criticized companies, for fraudulent activities, such as, Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth along with many others. These company executives were willing to sacrifice the vast majority and greater good of society for profit gains. This mindset left many of loyal investors, consumers and employees without a sound stabilized future. There are also many businesses that produce a high yield on their investments;

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).

Friedman argues that the only responsibility a business has to society is to act in its own self-interest to create revenue and remain successful in the economic system (158).Created to make a profit by providing a task or service, a business must “use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Friedman 164). A business could use any tactic to gain a profit as long as they remained “within the rules of the game” (Friedman 164). The rules implied that no deception or fraud could take place while the corporation obtained their profit.

Some business leaders are taking good moral decisions and the reason behind that idea is that the core part of their business strategy is to create mutual benefit for both wider society and business as well. The growing desire of top management is to find out ways to create mutual benefit for both the organizations and the stake holders but the public still believes that companies are greedy entities which make decisions only in their self-interest, even at the cost of greater public welfare. It is the utmost obligation of the companies to discern the social issues while making the decisions (Yashiro, Yoshida and Suzuki, no date; Godwin, 2006; Schwab, 1996; Godwin, 2008; Werhane, 1998; Werhane, 2002; Heath, 2008; Mehalik and Gorman, 2006).

There are several problems that can we seen in business ethics. “Discussions of the role of the corporation in society and the very purpose of a corporation as a social institution are examples. It is not disputed that the purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make a profit for stockholder, but there has been an intense debate about whether maximizing stockholder profits is the sole legitimate purpose of corporations” as Milton Friedman and other have argued and whether beneficent corporate conduct is justifiable. This question is normative, but there is also the question of moral psychology raised by Smith: “Does beneficence have any place in the world of business?” An example is found in public utilities’ program to help customers pay for electricity, gas, oil, phone service, and the like. This attitude not only won’t increase the company profits but reduce. In fact, this is a corporate form of charity. The money is taken directly

The overwhelming facts point to a shady underworld of self-dealing and opportunistic exploitation of the poor and working class, which was until recently, well hidden from the commoner. The executives of WorldCom and Enron provide real world examples of unethical business practices, where the desire to make money for their shareholders transcended into an addiction to greed and self-dealing that were displayed by their, “excessive pay, perks, and golden parachutes”(Carson 392) at the expense of all stakeholders. All is not lost, there are corporations that pride themselves in their sound business model and commitment to ethical business practices. Such companies as Eaton Corporation, and Weyerhaeuser, who according to Ethisphere.com, a business ethics watchdog, are among the “2010 World`s most ethical companies.” (Ethisphere)

One philosopher wrote, "Like the wheel, business is one of the great human inventions. But unlike the wheel, the existence of business depends upon a social context, on unwritten rules and conventions…there is no more chance that we could return to an idyllic state before business existed than we could uninvent the wheel" (Klempner, n.d.). Just as the wheel has been redeveloped time and time again, thus making it better and better, we too must redevelop and enhance our philosophical and ethical decisions in the way we operate businesses in today 's society. Trying to maximize profits in business while catering to growing societal demands, proves to be quite complicated and challenging. Society and business owners alike are continually struggling to find that happy medium. Comparing and contrasting the many moral philosophies and belief systems, combined with trial and error is one way society as a whole can create a system that hopefully one day works for us all.

In the article “Doing well by doing good”, the words ‘business” and “ethics” has been pointed out that they can’t come together. Companies wondered where do ethics go and it has been widely wrath despite being taught in school. Ethics has been the custom yet uncertain. There are protesters in Washington, DC who were criticizing the immorality of a company including the IMF. Most people reacted that companies shouldn’t be in the business ethics at one’s convenience but should be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environment. The leader of market economics, Milton Friedman, stated that to increase the profits, the company has to use its resources and has to engage in activities.