Milton Friedman and Social Responsibility

Friedman do not affirm that the executives can act in any way as are used in accordance with the law and follow the ethical custom. But he closed the charity activity since they do not contribute straight to the victory. An upright overview of organization activities in the views of Friedman’s agreement is simply not that carry out happenings simply since they are ethical, but since they are economically feasible.

Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Milton Friedman and Social Responsibility" essay for you

Create order

One of the main reasons for Friedman to the exclusion of the corporate social responsibility is from Friedman views on ethical management spending.Friedman claims that it is not applicable for a business director or executive to start socially liable programmes, therefore, in particular, that a rational expenditure income is the money payable to shareholders dividends. Friedman (1962) declared that it is morally neutral construction legal in order to benefit the shareholders. Managers and executives of the company is working on this to achieving the company a goal. Only a moral responsibility to managers and directors should maximize the return on investment for the shareholders.

Friedman’s view is similar to the principle of survival of the suitable of Darwin in the market to get the finest of all probable outcomes. Fried-man in charge is the most powerful in a company where it returns high profits for shareholders. When the concern of an electric corporation that changed quantity to a consumer for non-payment upon which the consumer died as significance was offered to Friedman, he used the Kantian interpretation to rationalize their engagements. He said that the electric corporation that does not disconnect customers will disappear, because there is no need for clients to pay their bills.

View of Friedman, removing customers have not paid is considered a universal maximum, regardless of the precise results. He sees it as an ethic, which has a moral obligation to ensure the survival of the Corporation.View of Friedman, to counter the socio-economic development school, and social responsibility. As one of the main proponents of this interpretation suggests that the iron law of is of the opinion that “the social responsibility of entrepreneurs should be proportional to social power”. A utilitarian argument, as socio-economic think that Frederick (1960:60) points out that society must be strengthened and not focus on the socio-economic welfare of the total welfare been shareholders as stated by proclaimed Friedman. Businesses that function fully in the interests of maximizing shareholder returns and thus not participate in socially responsible actions well-thought-out ethical utilitarian point of view.

After giving is the greatest good for the most people to utilitarians says companies are ethically obliged to participate in social responsible for activities to maximize the contributions of all those interested in the general welfare. But the problem with the two theories is about where we have to maximize the value of neutral agent. Utilitarianism does not distinguish between people utility will be forced to do so by maximizing and deontic constraint to ensure that all stakeholders maximize welfare does not compromise the business long term. As norms restriction is the principle that individual representatives of the second in a series of social responsibility business (CSR), it may perhaps be disputed that the rights of the shareholders are protected in the preference of the society as a whole.If the corporate social responsibility (CSR) is detrimental to the company, as stated by Friedman, as trying to prevent the investment of shareholders corporations that are socially responsible. Nonetheless, empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case. First and foremost, Friedman fails to acknowledge that acting ethically can be a appreciated marketing proposal. To understand it is made up of consumers, the company offers products and services that correspond to their own ethical limit to add value to consumers and shareholders, prevent myopia of marketing as indicated by Theodore Levitt.

Research demonstrates that consumers select services and products that make demands on social responsibility. This study is supported by Herzberg motivator-hygiene theory. Hygiene factors are minimum necessities that requisite be met in every workplace to avoid job disappointment. Meijer and Schuyt looks at the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) buying behaviour and said that Dutch consumers, corporate social responsibility are more than a factor of hygiene as a motivating factor. Interestingly, this not related to income. Second, the growth of ethical investment shows that some investors prefer that organizations do not seek profits by setting the ethical constraints. There is likewise a clear case to be through that the Theory Motivator-Hygiene can be used to shareholders. Directors and Executives that act unlawfully craft noteworthy shareholder disappointment, as confirmed by the many current examples or corporate misconduct.

In Conclusion, Milton Friedman had vehemently opposed the shareholder in something that does not directly contribute to the richness of the shareholder’s money. He seized the Kantian interpretation that directors must have the duty to its shareholders, who seek a maximization of the benefits of wealth.As socially responsible companies in the outlook of Friedman, reduce prosperity  Friedman believes that organizations not to participate in an activity that is charitable. Socio-economic claims that the companies, ought to maximize good for the most people. The utilitarian view is that the idea of this beach for companies involved in activities socially responsible for example they maximizing the wealth of all the parties concerned. However to ensure that the financial viability of the Corporation is not been negatively affected by the limitations of norms that they must be recognized in right of shareholders only return to the need.

Work cited

Davis, K. (1960) Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities.? California Management Review? 2(3): 70??“76, p.71.Friedman: Journal of the History of Economic Thought? 25 1351962.Hammond, J.D. Remembering Economics.? Journal of the History of Economic Thought? 25(2): (2003) 133??“143.? ? Milton Friedman (1978)? Milton Friedman Speaks? (Video).? The Idea Channel. ExtractMilton Friedman. The social responsibility of business is to enhance its profits. New York Times 32(13): 122??“126. Previously published in Milton Friedman. (1962)? Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, (1970) p. 133.? `

Did you like this example?

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Get started
Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.
Thank you!

We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.

Get help with my paper
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. You can leave an email and we will send it to you.
Didn't find the paper that you were looking for?
We can create an original paper just for you!
What is your topic?
Number of pages
Deadline 0 days left
Get Your Price