Steve Denning Argument

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

What is the corporation’s social responsibility? Many might say the main idea is that a corporation must go further than carrying out their basic function of purely making profits. A corporation must create wealth in ways that avoid under minding society, and instead enrich the society it operates in. The term “corporate social responsibility” has been defined in numerous ways; from the constricted economic perception of increasing stockholder wealth (Friedman, 1962), to economic, legal, ethical and flexible strands of accountability (Carroll, 1979) to good corporate social responsibility to citizens (Hemphill, 2004). These disparities differ from fundamental assumptions of what corporate social responsibility involves. However, one has to keep in mind that the CEO of any corporation is legally the agent of the stockholder, and must focus on what the shareholder wants. More often than not, the shareholder would prefer profits for individual gain rather than spending their money on social projects. Stakeholder groups have increased their influence to enact their agendas. Using profits to fund schools and partake in fixing the environment are all great and wonderful things, but this social tax of using profits for social ends projects goes entirely against democracy. Or does it? Who should truly be held responsible for stakeholders around the corporation? Is it the responsibility of the government, philanthropists, employees, its

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.”

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to enhance its profits. The New York Times Magazine.

Friedman’s second argument follows a similar idea, but with another reason why the businessman’s ideas of social responsibility aren’t to be fulfilled through the business. If the agent of a business would spend money to further his supposed social responsibilities, he is using something that is not his to spend as he sees fit. Any money earned by increasing the price to consumers, decreasing the wages of the workers, or withheld from the stockholders belongs to the business and has been taken from these parties to be used in ways that they could have used it on their own. If the agent uses the money in

In 1970, Milton Friedman published an essay in which he argued that corporations’ only social responsibility ought to be making a profit for its shareholders as long as it is engaged in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Brusseau, 2012. page. 676). Moreover, Mr. Friedman also argued that only people can have social responsibilities because they control their actions and corporations don’t. However, we see that corporations are engaged in businesses such as making loans, signing contracts, acquiring licenses, creating jobs and services. They act as persons. If corporations had no responsibilities people would not invest in them; for that reason, I believe corporations should have legal and ethical responsibilities.

Does the maximaization of shareholder value reward socially destructive actions by corporations?Certainly not.A company is not an instrument of shareholders, but a coalition between various resource suppliers, with the intention of increasing their common wealth and hence is contradictory to Mr Al Dunlaps view of share holder primancy.

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,

Does the maximaization of shareholder value reward socially destructive actions by corporations?Certainly not.A company is not an instrument of shareholders, but a coalition between various resource suppliers, with the intention of increasing their common wealth and hence is contradictory to Mr Al Dunlaps view of share holder primancy.

In this paper, I show that Friedman’s argument that it is immoral for managers to act on social responsibilities, fails. He relies on that assertion that shareholders expect a maximal return on their investment and if managers spend corporate funds on “social responsibilities,” they are in turn taking profits away from shareholders and using their money for an unintended purpose. However, this claim is false, as shareholders cannot expect maximal profits and cannot dictate exactly what company funds are spent on.

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).

According to Milton Friedman “the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” As with the case study, Mr. Paulson solely aims for maximizing profit. “Acting "responsibly" risks reducing profits or forgoing revenue in the name of social good.” “Profits are the most important, but not the only behavioral constraint of the firm.”

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

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

“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.”