According to Riahi (2009), organisations (FirstGroup plc etc) can in fact be deemed as social units deliberately constructed to seek specific goal. In such respect, further resonating catalytic for pro and pessimistic dialogue: Milton Friedman argued within a 1970 New York Times magazine article that the only “social responsibility of business,” is to “increase its profits.” “The corporation,” he wrote in his book, Capitalism & Freedom, “is an instrument of the stockholders who own it, if the corporation makes a contribution, it prevents the individual stockholders from himself deciding how he should dispose of his funds.” (M. Porter, M. Kramer, 2003). Accordingly to their view, companies such as FirstGroup plc and Emerlad Energy plc would be undeniably misusing the resources entrusted to them as they engage in corporate social responsibility. In utter contrast, Heilbroner, on the other hand, suggests stockholder’s as no longer a significant source of venture capital, ‘merely a passive holder of certificate of varying degrees of risk & potential return, with little knowledge of the real performance of “his” corporation. Surely the other stakeholders deserve some return?’ (N. Smith, 1990) further underpinning businesses and its proprietors to comply with societal values & take an active role on society as this is in line with the long term interest of business ( P Griseri, N. Seppola, 2009) for e.g. whether it could be suggested as FirstGroup’s £1.8 million community contribution, particularly, training of the local indigenous population can in some factor be deemed as a rather integral part of the company’s strategic CSR – focal objective of the firm’s differentiation strategy. In addition, studies linking strategic investment to CSR (in particular, the resourced based view) have previously suggested that specialised skills or capabilities related to investment in CSR can lead to firm specific competitive advantages ( J. Frynas,2009) findings suggest firms with socially responsible practices have higher valuation and lower risk as investment in improving responsible employee relations, environmental policies, and product strategies contributes substantially to reducing firms’ cost of equity (Ghoul et al 2010). The capital market equilibrium model of Merton (1987, p. 500) implies that increasing the relative size of a firm’s investor base will result in lower cost of capital and higher market value for the firm. In a similar vein, Heinkel et al. (2001) develop an equilibrium model that implies that when fewer investors hold the stock of a firm, the opportunities for risk diversification are reduced and hence the firm’s cost of capital will be higher.
In most cases, profits and social welfare are at odds. In such a case, business executives being answerable to shareholders are likely to focus on the profit-making aspect of the business rather than going against the interest of their shareholders by promoting social welfare at the expense of profits. In addition, research shows that companies actively involved in Corporate Social Responsibility efforts are more likely to be targeted by activists (Kress, 2011). In fact, it has been established that many companies initiate corporate social welfare projects when they stand to gain from those projects. For example, automakers resulted to creating fuel-efficient vehicles when they became profitable; similarly, energy conservation became an important CSR activity when the cost of energy became very costly. As such, the companies are benefiting their society as they follow their own
Duane Windsor, via the aforementioned article regarding the future of social responsibility, purports “there are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices (pg. 225).” Windsor first provides a historical reflection of social responsibility beginning in the Progressive Era through the twentieth century and concludes with predictions for the future of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility, although not widely discussed or defined until post World War II, can be dated back to Ancient Rome as citizens exhibited a sense of civic responsibility. Andrew Carnegie, a man now compared to modern business tycoons/philanthropists such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, published this concept in the 19th century. Windsor does note, however, Carnegie’s philanthropic acts and published views followed his extensive success and wealth as a business mogul. Despite early literature discussing the importance of businesses responsibility to societal success rather than solely on shareholder profits, Windsor shares his interpretation of “anti-responsibility trends” in recent literature. He emphasizes, throughout this article, a concern regarding “wealth-oriented practices” dominating the future of corporate social responsibility. Windsor reviews prominent corporate social responsibility theorists who all contributed greatly to the distinctions between responsibility and responsiveness businesses have to ...
Furthermore, he believed that any corporation assuming a more socially responsible attitude would be met with economic limitations, rendering them less competitive in the market area (Friedman, 1970). R.E. Freeman’s ‘Stakeholder theory’ is often seen as a better alternative to Friedman’s ‘Shareholder primacy theory’. Both the Stakeholder theory and Shareholder theory are normative theories explaining what a corporations social responsibilities ought to be and both adopt a similar stance on management’s accountability (Smith, 2003). However, the Stakeholder theory states that a manager’s duty is not only to focus on shareholder’s interests, but also to balance them against the interests of the company’s other stakeholders. Freeman believes that managers should take into account their customer’s, supplier’s and employee’s interests, even if it brings about a decrease in shareholder returns (Smith, 2003). This is being expanded on because Freeman believes that if Friedman were alive today, he would be a supporter of his Stakeholder Theory. Simply because, in today’s day and age, globalization and increased competition in the markets has led to corporations having to rely not only their shareholders for support but on all their stakeholders (Makower,
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a word that is bandied about with really little regard as to what the full implications actually are. Consider a few thoughts: What exactly is a corporation’s responsibility? Who are the arbiters of CSR for corporations? What does it cost to “rein in” corporations? Why are some companies held to a different standard than others?
The earliest impressions that the book makes on the mind of the reader is that “Corporate Social Responsibility” is not just about some kind of vague theories but supports all that it preaches with practical applications. Labelling the book as “a Bible for today’s corporate citizen”- as the publisher does on the flap of the book- may be stretching it a bit too far, but “Corporate Social Responsibility”, does provide thoughtful answers to a number of vital questions on how a corporation could do most good for itself and its
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.... ...
This paper will compare and contrast the various interpretations of four separate authors in respect to ethics and social responsibility as they apply to business. The four articles to be reviewed are; “The Social Responsibilities of Business is to Increase its Profits” by Milton Friedman, “The Relevance of Responsibility to Ethical Business Decisions” by Patrick E. Murphy, “What is ‘business ethics’” by Peter F. Drucker and “To Be Ethical Not To Be: An International Code of Ethics for Leadership” by Ala’ Alahmad. Each of these articles represents the author’s interpretations on the interplay between “business ethics” and “social responsibility” supported by both external and personal research. Although none of the authors represent themselves as being opposed to ethics or responsibility in general, there appears to be opposition in the attempt to silo these two topics into a separate, distinct business application rather than maintain them as applicable to individuals’ separate of any corporate (or business) relationships.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the way a corporation achieves a balance between its economic, social, and environmental responsibilities in its operations so as to address shareholder and other stakeholder expectations. In general, when firms hold this wider encouraging role on the public by being engaged with stakeholders, a variety of profit can be produced for both company and the stakeholders. A key inclination is the combination of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into the organization strategy, culture, mission and communications. By incorporating corporate citizenship into the company it is no longer an additional “nice thing to do” or something made to obey laws or regulations. Instead, corporate responsibility has become something business leaders and workforce want to engage in, frequently because executives who believe in the long-term see business profit. The four types of social responsibilities a...
“Only about half (53%) of employees trust their organization’s senior leaders – the people who set the tone for organizational culture and need to inspire high-performance and commitment. In contrast, three in four (75%) of employees trust their immediate managers” (BlessingWhite, 2008, p. 2). Senior leaders have the difficult task of aligning organizational culture and ethics and it has been determined that it is impossible to demonstrate trustworthiness without a personal relationship. This finding is consistent among all generations in the workplace, throughout the different business lines, and at every level. Employee engagement is dependent on the manager-employee relationship. This is important as BlessingWhite (2008) stated that bad managers are the third most common reason for leaving, behind lack of career growth and actually disliking the job (p. 2). Contributing employee are employees who trust their managers. For leaders to be effective, they need to know what engagement means, they have to experience engagement, and they need to lead engagement. “They need to be able to help their team members believe in the value of full engagement and inspire them to pursue it on a personal level” (BlessingWhite, 2008, p. 21).
In recent years, companies are becoming socially responsible and now stakeholders almost expect a company to have CSR policies. Therefore, in twentieth century, corporate social responsibility (CSR) became an important development in public life (Barnett, ND).Corporate social responsibility is defined as “the ways in which an organisation exceeds the minimum obligations to stakeholders specified through regulation and corporate governance” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). Stakeholders can be defined as “those individuals or groups who depend on the organisation to fulfil their own goals and on whom, in turn, the organisation depends” (Johnson, Schools and Whittington, N.D cited in March, 2012). There are many purposes for this essay, the first purpose is to descried the key principles of corporate social responsibility and explain their importance for stakeholders. Secondly, is to show how far this company follows those principles in order to be accountable to at least three of its stakeholders. In this essay, three stakeholders, environment, customers and employees will be evaluated respectively and the key principles of the stakeholders will be examined.
Today’s 21st century has brought forth many changes, both positive and negative, as well as, an extremely diverse society whose different needs and wants must be met. Therefore, in an attempt to sustain a balance and comprehend today’s challenges, society as well as, businesses tend to adopt and incorporate certain methods, systems, and theories. As a matter of fact, in the past, the Milton Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility was adopted and very influential (Friedman, 1962). The Milton Friedman’s theory stated that the obligation of a business was to maximize its profits, and that business executives had a responsibility to their shareholders rather than to the greater good of society (Friedman, 1962). However, since things and people have evolved throughout the years, the perception of Milton Friedman’s theory has been impacted. Therefore, in this paper, one will further discuss the Milton Friedman Goal of the Firm, its relevancy as it applies to apprehending the purpose of a business in society, and whether or not the government or society portrays a role in expanding the Friedman discussion.
The article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” is written by a famous economist Milton Friedman. Friedman in this article implies that shareholders are the main drivers of the corporations and he believes that it is to them corporations must be socially responsible to. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profits and return the portion of these profits to shareholders for investing in the corporation. The shareholders can themselves decide which social causes to take part in rather than assigning a corporate executive to decide on their behalf. Friedman argues that a corporation must have no social responsibility to society because its only concern is the increase profits for itself and its shareholders.
Covey & Brown (2001) “the role of business in society has progressed over the years, from being primarily concerned with profit for sharehold¬ers to a stakeholder and community approach with a focus on corporate social responsibility”
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”.
While the concept of an individual having responsibility is commonly recognized, modern views have lead to the emerging issue of corporate responsibility. Business Directory.com defines corporate social responsibility as, “A company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs, and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources.” But such a concept has been much disputed since at least the 1970’s.