a very interesting point in the article:
The social responsibility of Business is to increase its profits by Milton Friedman.
The social responsibility of Business is to increase its profits by Milton Friedman.
basically the assignment is arguing the 2 sides of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Friedman points out this point: In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any another, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no 'social' responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals.
very interesting.
lol invisible hand.
ReplyDeletefuck friedman.
consumers as a whole can't be relied on to define social values. yes they can choose not to participate, ie. buy things they are morally against, no one is coercing them to. but consumers aren't completely informed of the moral implications of what it is they consume. we don't really know which companies could be exploiting asian kids, testing products on animals, etc. we know what we are told. so free market can't really be relied on as an indicator of 'shared values'.....
but in regard to corporate social responsibility... who really is the corporate?
ReplyDeleteeg. if it is the corporate executive, isn't his goal to maximise profit to give back to his shareholders?
Like, although he may love the environment, and wanted to something about it. In reality, he is USING the corporate's money to do what he think is right.
so if you employ someone to be an executive, shouldn't his ultimate goal be bring as much money as possible to the company?
where does the responsibility really lie upon ?
that's where the argument lies...
ReplyDeletebut why do the goals have to be directly opposing? surely businesses can be socially responsible and make profits for its shareholders at the same time.
in the longterm it's probably more beneficial for a companies profits to be socially responsible.
lol yeah, dumping your waste in the local rivers might be a cheaper way to do things, and a more profitable way in the short term, but what happens when they've completely ruined the environment (the environment from which it gets resources...). its shit for business, shit for profits, shit for shareholders.
by 'using' the shareholders' money towards a better environment, the organisation itself benefits in the longterm. enlightened self-interest...
lol this is such douchey thing to be discussing
lol
ReplyDeletewell me not believeing in altruism..
shared values.. is profits, and its equal distribution, or equitable distribution for some. when taken into long term account, they create social responsibility, as society comes to the realisation that working in unity working together is a way to keep the harmony and create a fair share of profits.
not many are rich enough/ have enough time / can be fucked to devise a new plan of society, a new way for equality, a new way for unanimous satisfaction, i mean they try with their g20 group huddles, their peace talks, their trading rounds, but like lol, the global community is too different. and even at a micro level, the company's/people; none want to fall behind in the earning money race, so they don't put much concentration into devising these plans or what not
actually i have no idea what my point is, but yeh lol'
fun11! i can actually sorta contribute to intellectual discussion for once. lol im ready to join those high class partys and talk about intellectual issues.. not really but yehs lol.
lolol jinn i must have read that 4+ times and i dont know what your point is.
ReplyDeletelolololol im glad we fall in the same category of agreement.
ReplyDeletelol i had this other point to make,
ReplyDeletebut now i forgot.