Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stakeholder theory
How business affects society
How business affects society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stakeholder theory
A Critical Analysis of the Stigma of Writing Businesses have a significant impact on many communities around it, whether that impact is intentional or not. So, with that being said, should these businesses have a responsibility to society? To answer that question, John Mackey and T.J Rodgers both have written articles with differing views to give readers an understanding of what should be done in their minds. I’m going to break down both arguments respectively. In Mackey’s article “Putting Customers ahead of Investors” he begins by stating how the orthodox free market system functions according to Milton Friedman. Next, Mackey clearly states he is opposed to the current free market system in which, the only law that businesses must follow, …show more content…
He then discusses the opposing side to his argument in which corporations should have no philanthropic interest and it is a violation to shareholders money if they do not handle it responsibly. He does agree with this viewpoint, and even says there is nothing wrong with it, it’s just that the argument is simply too narrow. In his own words, “First, there can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors” (Mackey 453). He then follows up with an example in which his company, Whole Foods Market, holds a “5% day” where 5% of all profit for that day goes toward a non-profit organization of there choosing that follows their own beliefs. This philanthropic tactic increases the number of returning and new customers who become regulars; profits rise even though a percentage of it is given away for, in his eyes, a greater …show more content…
Mackey compares his company to these ideals and is thus saying that his company gives back because it is a part of human nature to do so. Overall, he believes that all companies to take up this practice and that each individual corporation needs to find a balance between giving and profiting, as long as you give more that 0%. I find his argument to be Rogerian based as he with his own company and as he recommends to others to find a middle ground between how much they give and how much they profit for their investors, and states that the opposing sides argument is correct but can also take in some of his ideas to improve the corporate business structure and have everybody benefit. In his article, he creates an argument that most people wouldn’t find an opposition too, and leaves the reader in agreement with his ideas, who wouldn’t want everybody to benefit from a corporation? Why would somebody be opposed to a corporation keeping profits for the investors high and also giving back to the community who supports them. Well, in T.J Rodgers article “Put Profits First” we dig deeper into the other side of the
One of the best-known philanthropists was the American industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who devoted the latter part of his life to giving away most of the huge fortune he had amassed in the steel industry. Following the principles laid down in his essay “Gospel of Wealth” , Carnegie returned over $300 million to society, primarily through foundations and trusts. Debs believed that wealth is predestined and that god gave him his wealth. Although different in ideas Carnegie perform what Eugene V. Debs believed in: the distribution of wealth.
Almost without realizing it, argues Sandel, we are gone from “having a market economy to being a market
By handing out money to a beggar, you are “only saving yourself from annoyance…” (Pg. 15) Carnegie states that nobody improves by almsgiving for you will only aid the person’s addiction. As an advocate of Social Darwinism, Carnegie believed in competitive natures within his workers. He believed in a definite separation of classes and it was not only needed, but also
Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish-born industrialist who started with nothing and built his way to the top through years of hard work. In the 1889 article, “Gospel of Wealth,” he advocated the ideas of philanthropy to encourage the rich to promote the welfare of humanity instead of conspicuous consumption. This altruism of allocating funds from the well-off was an idea that could help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. He concluded with the statement, “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced” to proclaim that millionaires and billionaires should pass on their wealth to encourage a legacy of giving either by inheritance or charity. I agree with his statement because his message is kind-hearted and humanitarian. Instead of taking millions to the grave, the money should be dispersed to help the community and individuals in our society.
Cecil Rhodes, in a speech at the chartering of the British South African company, said “Philanthropy is good, but philanthropy at 5 percent is even better.” Cecil Rhodes’s quote clearly illustrates a materialistic point of view, owing to the fact that he was the founder of De Beers Diamond Company. Being a businessman, a desire for profit is natural.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Overall, free market is a necessity if there is to be any forward movement and progression of society. In a controlled system nothing ever changes, and while this can prevent change for the worse, it also stunts change for the better. In free enterprise systems, people with brains and determination, such as Andrew Carnegie, are able to take advantage of new opportunities. While this system will not help individuals float along, and they are liable to sink (into debt and/or remorse), those who have the courage to try will find that success is only a risk
“Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He ... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
...ve up the fortunes they have built themselves. It is an admirable idea to give your money to help promote a thriving community. Carnegie states that he is against charity and believes that those in need should be taught how to improve their own lives. To fund these institutes and corporations a form of charity must be given. Wealthy citizens give their excess money to a few to disperse of in a way they see fit to help the race. Most Americans are not willing to give up such a large sum of money as noble and respectable of an idea as it is. I think that Carnegie’s plan, in theory, would work and would be best for the race. I do not think it is practical because most would rather spoil their own family with inheritance than give it away to help people unknown to them. Carnegie’s idea of fair is equal opportunities for everyone to help themselves and the race.
Andrew Carnegie was a man who actually believed strongly in using the money gained in a charitable way. According to Carnegie in a review titled “Wealth,” he stated, “…man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent…for his poorer brethren… doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (Document E). By the end of his life, he had donated up to $60 million, which funded more than 1,600 libraries. He substantially gave all his money away. A humble and virtuous man would yearn to do such a thing. There were actually other men who owned businesses who would be capable of doing similar acts of kindness. Yet again how could they, when their opponents were invincible? George Rice was a victim to Rockefeller’s colossal company, stating “…sought for the reason…giving it discriminating rates and privileges of all kinds as against myself and all outside competitors” (Document H). His business was unable to challenge one like Rockefeller’s. At the time, the only way to attain respect and have monopolies was to perform unethical actions against the people, and corrupt the government. With this in mind, giving back to the community appears
To supply the wants and needs of a consumer, society entrusts wealth-producing resources to the business enterprise.” (Santayana, George. Is The Tyranny Of Shareholder Value Finally Ending? So before we go into greater detail on the different perspectives related to social responsibility, one might question the meaning of social responsibility. It is generally agreed that social responsibility is defined as the business obligation to make decisions that benefit society.... ...
Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2013). Business in Society. In Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (Fourteenth ed., pp. 7-9). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
“There is only one and only one social responsibility of business- to use its resources and engage in activities designated to increase its profits so long as it decides to stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
Lawrence, A. T. & Weber, J. (2011). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
The problem that was investigated consisted of a question that Milton Friedman posed in one of his articles, which was featured in The New York Times Magazine in 1970. The question was, “What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities” (Friedman, 2007, p. 173)? Friedman (1970) elaborated on how businesses cannot have assigned responsibilities. Furthermore, he described how groups or individuals should be the only ones that can hold responsibilities, not businesses. He stated that associating responsibilities with the word business is too ambiguous. I will examine three discussion questions and three compare and contrast questions which Jennings (2009) posed in a case study that is related to Friedman’s (1970) article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”.
To conclude business organizations do not have the right to deceive individuals and consumers in specific because Albert Carr’s claim that business is a game cannot be justifiable and supported with reasons that may harm or the community and its people. However, I do believe that business organizations should be socially responsible and that would help them maximize profits in the long run (Lauren, 2011)