Are Profits The Only Business Of Businesses Milton Friedman

Are Profits The Only Business Of Businesses Milton Friedman Contends

Are profits the only business of Businesses? Milton Friedman contends that the sole responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The references are: Milton Friedman, from "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," The New York Times Magazine (September 13, 1970). Philosopher Christopher D. Stone insists on "Corporate Accountability in Law and Morals" in Oliver F. Williams and John W. Houck, eds, The Judeo-Christian Vision and the Modern Corporation (University of Notre Dame Press, 1982) stating it is time for corporate social responsibility to consider other than profit making sometimes even taking precedence in a business.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of business ethics and corporate governance, a central debate revolves around the primary purpose of a corporation. Milton Friedman, a leading economist and Nobel laureate, famously argued that the fundamental responsibility of a business is to maximize profits for its shareholders. He articulated this perspective in his seminal 1970 essay, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," published in The New York Times Magazine. Friedman’s thesis asserts that corporate executives, acting as agents of shareholders, have a fiduciary duty to prioritize profit maximization within the bounds of the law and ethical custom, emphasizing that this focus ultimately benefits society through increased economic efficiency and wealth creation.

Friedman’s argument is rooted in the classical economic view that the primary responsibility of business is to produce goods and services efficiently, thereby generating profits. He contends that diverting corporate efforts towards social responsibilities or ethical considerations that do not directly contribute to profit could undermine the free-market system and lead to a form of managerial altruism that may be detrimental to shareholders’ interests. According to Friedman, corporate social responsibility beyond profit maximization is a form of taxation without representation, where corporate managers impose their own values at the expense of shareholders and stakeholders. Friedman emphasizes that businesses are not equipped or authorized to make societal or moral judgments, highlighting that general social welfare is best served when businesses focus solely on their economic role.

However, contrasting Friedman’s perspective is the viewpoint of philosopher Christopher D. Stone, who challenges the notion that profits should be the only concern of businesses. In his work "Corporate Accountability in Law and Morals," Stone advocates for a broader understanding of corporate responsibility, emphasizing the importance of ethical conduct, social justice, and environmental stewardship. Stone argues that corporations wield significant power and influence over society and that with this power comes moral responsibility. He asserts that companies should consider the impact of their actions on various stakeholders, including employees, communities, and the environment, and that corporate accountability in law and morality should evolve to reflect the complexities of modern society.

This broader perspective underscores that corporations are embedded within societal systems and cannot operate in isolation from social and moral considerations. Stakeholder theory, which has gained prominence in recent decades, embodies this view by emphasizing that corporations owe duties not only to shareholders but also to customers, employees, suppliers, and communities. Such an approach advocates for ethical decision-making and sustainable practices, recognizing that long-term profitability and societal well-being are interconnected. Critics of Friedman’s profit-centric model argue that neglecting these responsibilities can result in social harm, environmental degradation, and even financial risks due to public backlash or regulatory actions.

The debate between profit maximization and corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not merely academic but has real-world implications. For instance, the rise of ethical investing, corporate social responsibility reporting, and sustainability initiatives reflect a shift towards recognizing broader corporate responsibilities. Companies like Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s have embedded social and environmental goals into their business models, demonstrating that profitability can be aligned with social purpose. Conversely, some critics warn that emphasizing CSR without clear accountability may lead to "greenwashing" or superficial efforts that do not produce meaningful societal benefits.

In conclusion, while Milton Friedman’s assertion that the primary business of a corporation is to increase profits remains influential, it is increasingly contested by scholars and practitioners advocating for a more holistic approach grounded in ethical responsibility and stakeholder interests. The modern corporate landscape suggests that long-term success and societal approval may depend on balancing profit motives with social and environmental considerations. This ongoing debate highlights the dynamic nature of business ethics and the evolving understanding of corporate purpose in contemporary society.

References

• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Stone, C. D. (1982). Corporate accountability in law and morals. In E. F. Williams & J. W. Houck (Eds.), The Judeo-Christian vision and the modern corporation. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
• Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. New Society Publishers.
• Schultz, M., & Pucik, V. (2014). Managing corporate ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 713-727.
• McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 603-609.
• Shamir, R. (2008). The social responsibility of business: A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 399-413.