Term papers writing service


Different levels of involvement in social responsibility business essay

The Arguments Against Learning Objectives Define and elaborate the major arguments in favor of the corporate purpose as limited to increasing profits. Define and elaborate major arguments against corporations accepting broad social and environmental responsibilities. His arguments convinced some and not others, but the eloquent and accessible way he made them, combined with the fact that his ideas were published in a mainstream publication—the New York Times Magazine—ensured their impact.

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Profits?

Here are his arguments. Only humans have moral responsibilities because only we have consciousness and intentions: Therefore, only we can have responsibilities in the ethical sense.

What, then, is a business? Nothing more than different levels of involvement in social responsibility business essay tool, something we make to further our ends. In Woburn, Massachusetts, according to this argument, it makes no sense to say that W. Grace has some kind of corporate responsibility to keep the environment clean. What do corporate owners desire? According to Friedman, the typical answer is the highest return possible on their investment.

When you buy shares of the industrial chemical maker W. It follows, therefore, that executives—who in the end work for you, the owner—are duty bound to help you get that higher share price, and the quickest route to the goal is large profits.

Friedman is particularly cutting on this point. Presumably, corporate executives got to be executives by managing businesses profitably. One example of the reversed result comes from Newsweek. Executives at the magazine probably thought they were serving the public interest when they dedicated space in their April 28, 1975, issue to the threatening and impending environmental disaster posed by global…cooling.

As for the stoking, they certainly succeeded. Today, many scientists believe that global warming is the real threat and requires corporations to join governments in reducing carbon emissions.

If members of a society really are worried about carbon emissions or the disposal of toxic waste at chemical plants, then they should express those concerns to elected representatives who will, in turn, perform their function, which is to elaborate laws and regulations guiding the way all of us—inside and outside of business—live together. Government, the point is, should do its job, which is to regulate effectively, and those in the business world should do their job, which is to comply with regulations while operating profitably.

Friedman believes that human freedom is based to some significant degree in economic life. Our fundamental rights to our property and to pursue our happiness are inviolable and are expressed in our working activities. No community can flourish if everyone is just doing what they want. Stronger, the violation may ultimately lead to socialism In the economic world, the subordination of individual liberty to the general welfare.

The movement to socialism that Friedman fears comes in two steps: The notion of corporate social responsibility becomes a mainstream concern and wins wide public support. With the way forced open by activists, the risk is that government will follow: Under the weight of these intrusive laws, working men and women will be forced to give up on their own projects and march to the cadence of government-dictated social welfare projects. Friedman cites as an example the hiring of felons.

The Argument That Corporate Executives Are Responsible Only to Shareholders

The problem comes when governments decide that the social purpose of reinserting convicts is more important than protecting the freedom of companies to hire anyone they choose. When that happens, hiring quotas will be imposed—corporations will be forced to employ certain individuals.

This intrusive workplace rule will be followed by others. All of them will need to be enforced by investigating agents and disciplining regulators. As their numbers grow and their powers expand, freedom will be squeezed. The Best Way for Corporations to Be Socially Responsible Is to Increase Profits The final major argument against corporate social responsibility in its various forms is that the best way for most corporations to be socially responsible is to contribute to the community by doing what they do best: Jobs are created, and those that already exist get some added security.

  1. Friedman believes that human freedom is based to some significant degree in economic life. That is clear admission of how important CSR might be to their bottom line, no matter how difficult it may be to define CSR and link it to profits.
  2. Also, CSR activities focusing on sustainability issues may lower costs and improve efficiencies as well.
  3. This article is reprinted with permission.
  4. Why do they have it? According to Friedman, the typical answer is the highest return possible on their investment.
  5. One example of the reversed result comes from Newsweek.

With employment options opening, workers find more chances to change and move up: Corporate success, that means, should indicate that consumers are doing well. Their quality of life improves as their consumer products improve, and those products improve best and fastest when corporations are competing against each other as freely as possible.

What about the public welfare in the most general sense, the construction of parks, schools, and similar? Here, too, corporations do the best for everyone by concentrating on their own bottom line.

  • With employment options opening, workers find more chances to change and move up;
  • Government, the point is, should do its job, which is to regulate effectively, and those in the business world should do their job, which is to comply with regulations while operating profitably.

More hiring, sales, and profits all also mean more tax revenue flowing to the government. And since elected governmental entities are those organizations best equipped to do public good, the most a corporation can hope for with respect to general social welfare is to succeed, and thereby generate revenues for experts or, at least democratically elected officials to divide up wisely.

The term marketplace responsibility The twin views that the notion of corporate social responsibility is misguided and dangerous, and the corporate purpose of profit maximization serves the social welfare while cohering with the value of human freedom that should be paramount in business ethics. It has two aspects: They maintain that the responsibility stands on pure moral grounds.

More, there are operational reasons for the responsibilities: Further, to the extent ethical obligations control corporate directors, the obligations are to shareholders. The second argument is corporate executives are duty bound to pursue profits.

The third argument is corporations are ill-equipped to directly serve the public good.

  1. How does socialism limit freedom?
  2. Jobs are created, and those that already exist get some added security. Presumably, corporate executives got to be executives by managing businesses profitably.
  3. Today, many scientists believe that global warming is the real threat and requires corporations to join governments in reducing carbon emissions. How does socialism limit freedom?
  4. This intrusive workplace rule will be followed by others.
  5. How can the example be converted into an argument against the theory of the corporation as having social responsibilities?

The fourth argument is social issues should be managed by government, not corporations. The fifth argument is marketplace ethics reinforce human freedom and corporate social responsibility threatens society with socialism. The sixth argument against theories of corporate social responsibility is the best way for corporations to serve the public welfare is by pursuing profits. Review Questions What does it mean to say that, in ethical terms, a corporation is no different from a wrench?

What primary responsibility do corporate directors have to shareholders? Why do they have it? Why should social issues be managed by government and not corporations? What is the connection between corporate social responsibility and the threat to freedom posed by socialism?

How does socialism limit freedom? What is an example of a company doing good by doing well—that is, making profits—and for that reason improving the general welfare?

How can the example be converted into an argument against the theory of the corporation as having social responsibilities?