Role Of Corporate And Social Responsibility Essay

In so doing, corporations does not go empty handed; the reward is profits for its owners and management. The society benefits more in terms of growth and satisfaction in different respects. Company goals nowadays incorporate morals or some statements that linger on ethical behavior and morality, hence companies have a social responsibility as defined by their very own mission statements and objectives. This further attests to the notion that there is a social contract to deliver what society deems necessary to achieve developmental growth.

In the article, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits,” Friedman states that “businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they proclaim that business is not concerned merely with profit but also with promoting desirable social ends.” This social responsibility is defined as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is the belief that “corporations owe a greater duty to their communities and stakeholders” by having a “social conscience.” This, among other things, includes being environmentally responsible, contributing to non-profit organizations, and eliminating discrimination.

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

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a very controversial topic. A question that has been debated for the past few decades is; is it corporately viable to introduce social responsibility as a proposed addition to the work ethic of business organisations. As well as, if adopting the framework of corporate social responsibility would yield positive improvements for those organisations.

He explains that all persons and environments require resources from the company impacting them, thus justifying that the community, employees, and customers should receive a share of business resources in the reader’s mind. Also, he summarizes an opposing view that “caring about customers and employees is good business” to get readers to be more willing to accept that corporations should fulfill social responsibilities, not just the individual. To address critics of his argument, maybe thinking that 100% of profits should go back into the community, he says that he believes investors do deserve some profits, but giving 0% to society is too little. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon explains his use common ground here, which gets readers to think or act selflessly a little bit to get them more accepting of bigger

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.

In this paper I am going to discuss and explain my opinion on why a company Q is or is not socially responsible in the following areas company Q close a couple of stores in high crime areas, company Q started offering a very limited health conscious an organic products, company Q was approached by the local food bank for donations of day old food and company Q declined the donation request from the food bank and started throwing the food away, and company Q suspected possible fraud among its employees.

The approach fundamentally holds that corporation in an entity has profound effects on society and on that basis those affected should have some confluence over the corporation. This approach is a more humane form of some economic value maximization model since it avoids conflict over value distribution by offering additional economic compensation to win over the firm’s employees, customer or investors. This may occur as part of a relational approach to human action in companies or as a means of building better relations with employees or in a company’s value chain. On the other hand the company may be trying to achieve something more than economic results, as human relations have value in

Therefore when Friedman mentions the role of a corporate executive, it doesn’t make sense for an individual working towards improving the business to care about social responsibilities if it isn’t a desire of his employer (Friedman, 1970). A corporate executive should only worry about social responsibility in his personal life not when the corporations stakeholders and employers money is at stake (Friedman, 1970). When a corporate executive acts voluntarily, he is “acting as a principle, not an agent; he is spending his money or time or energy…” (Friedman, 1970,

As argued by economist Milton Friedman, business's social responsibility is only to increase its profit with the use of its resources in a free market competition. Friedman also believes that companies have no obligation to exercise social responsibility to society (Friedman, 1970). However, studies have shown that when CSR is implemented it benefits the company financially, enhances reputation and attract

According to Milton Friedman social responsibility of business was to increase profits to stay within the rule of the game specifically avoiding deception and fraud. He argued that only individuals have social responsibility to increase profits and corporation is an artificial person (Milton Friedman, p.1) in the sense may have artificial responsibility but business as a whole cannot have responsibility (System not individual). A good corporation in Friedman’s view is not one that attempts activities only because they are ethically good, but because they are economically good.

Milton Friedman and Richard Freeman represent differences that exist on the positions held by scholars with regards to the obligations of a business firm. The major difference between the two is on the issues of corporation’s responsibilities to the society and the obligations to different groups. To whom does the corporation owe much responsibility? Friedman offers his views based on the shareholders theory. In his theory, he adopts the view that a corporation as an entity is just an artificial person defined under the law, and thus can only have artificial responsibility. His major disagreements are with those who hold the position that corporations have social responsibilities (Kaler, 2012, p. 250). In his view, the obligations of a firm are first to the stockholders. As a result, its primary should to maximize the stockholders profits under the set rules and regulations. This obligation should always prevail against others. On social responsibilities of an organization, his views are restricted to the position that only individuals are in a position to be held socially responsible. However, he insists that those individuals in management are employees of the stockholders and thus should only do that which is beneficial to the stockholders and in line with set legal obligation (Kaler, 2012, p. 255).

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.).

For a long time now, there has been much debate over the social responsibility of a business. Friedman is one of the most influential

Companies with extensive responsibilities even argue about the system in pursuing social responsibility of business. According to Ulrich Steger, the company should prioritize the shareholders’ incessant interest but they should also be concerned of their social responsibilities, morals and environmental goals that the public expects them to be. Without a doubt, companies’ primary goal is to earn a profit. Emphasizing on profitability affects the fundamental values in the company, its morality. Companies ignore the ethics just to earn a mountainous income. This often causes extensive repercussions in the companies.