Milton Friedman, “the Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits”

It is overwhelming how corporations have embedded a social responsibility in their mission statements and company objectives. This leaves us with one assertion that is that corporations do have some level of obligation towards society’s morality; however, the corporation itself is not a moral agent (Klaus M. Leisinger). The discussion that follows is about corporations being moral agents or otherwise; however I will reach a conclusion that corporations do have an obligation that extends beyond obeying the law; evens so this obligation have been derived from the corporations quest for profit making. Corporation’s obligation

In (Cohen, 2008), the author quotes (Drucker, 1946) in noting that “Every organization must assume full responsibility for its impact on its employees, the environment, customers, and whomever and whatever it touches”. According to (Cohen, 2008; Drucker, 1946), that is the very definition of social responsibility. There are many ambiguities surrounding the concept of social responsibility; everything from definition to terminology, even what actions constitute responsible behavior is unsettled (Vogel, 2005). For purposes of this paper we will use the term corporate social responsibility (CSR).

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

Businesses, specifically larger corporations, play a major role in what occurs in society therefore, they are responsible to their stakeholders not only to pursue economic goals but the greater social good as well. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) means that a corporation should act in a way that enhances society and its inhabitants and be held accountable for any of its actions that affect people, their communities, and their environment. (Lawrence, 2010). Social responsibility is becoming the norm so much so that some businesses have incorporated it into their business model. There are three components of the bottom line of social

First thing let us start with a little overview of what Milton Friedman exposed in his article. It seems that the whole point of his essay revolves around one basic statement which clearly says that the only social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long it stays within the rules of the game (Milton Friedman, the social responsibility of business is to increase profit).

Many believe that business entities should have an ethical duty to be socially responsible, to work towards increasing its positive effects on society while decreasing its negative effects. Many organizations look for opportunities to be socially responsible while also creating shareholder wealth.

Milton Friedman argues that persons may choose to undertake social responsibilities to their communities, churches, or nations, and devote their own incomes to causes that they deem morally worthy. But, he adds, if corporate executives attempt to take such social responsibilities or to direct the corporation’s profits to such personal causes, without approval from the shareholders, then:

Prior to this class, I would’ve viewed the purpose of a business to be exactly as Milton Friedman describes in his article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” In this article, he claims that corporate executives have responsibility to their employers, those employers being shareholders whose monetary contribution gives them capital to work with so they can expand the business, and the only way they will fulfill that duty is to make them as much money as possible. Businesses do not have a duty to provide any sort of contribution, monetary or time, to foundations that assist the less fortunate. Either of these contributions effects the profits the company can generate for their shareholders, and since it is not the executives’ money to work with, they should not be using it for things that the shareholders did not intend their money to be used for. As individual businessmen, acting as a sole entity not as an arm of the corporation, it is perfectly fine to engage with the community and make contributions to the betterment of the community because you’re using your own time and money, not the company’s. In certain cases, this argument makes a lot of sense. Businesses are not always the best equipped to make decisions for the improvement of the less fortunate, as seen by the example of Tom’s Shoes. Sure they donate a pair of shoes to communities where people don’t have them, but shoes are not the most necessary item for the citizens in that

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

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,

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).

Milton Friedman was an American economist, statistician and writer, who had a massive impact on the research agenda of the economics profession. His famous words “the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, Milton. 1970) led to many controversial debates on whether businesses should have ethics or if profit should be their main goal. Corporate social responsibility has many definitions, as its interpretation is quite loose, so I have chosen one that relates the most to this essay, given by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, in 2000: “Corporate social

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

Snider, Hill and Martin. (2003) stated that “ CSR may be defined in general terms as "the obligation of the firm to use its resources in ways to benefit society, through committed participation as a member of society, taking into account the society at large and improving welfare of society at large independent of direct gains of the company" (as cited in Kok et al., 2001, p. 288). Since the growth of the corporations depend on the societal factors, corporations should be responsible for the society for the corporation’s own benefit in the long run. “The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) construct describes the relationship between business and the larger society” (Snider et al., 2003). According to The Wall Street Journal (2013),