Milton Friedman Wrote PowerPoint Presentation In 1970

Unit Iii Powerpoint Presentationin 1970 Milton Friedman Wrote An Arti

Unit III PowerPoint Presentation In 1970, Milton Friedman wrote an article titled "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” that sparked a debate about corporate responsibility that remains heated to this day. Read the Schwartz and Saiia article, "Should Firms Go 'Beyond Profits'? Milton Friedman versus broad CSR," pages 1-10, in order to gain a perspective on Mr. Friedman's views on corporate responsibility. In addition to the Schwartz and Saiia article, read Archie Carroll's “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders.” Both articles are available in the Business Source Complete database in the CSU Online Library.

These articles will help you develop an understanding of their business and ethical principles. You are encouraged to conduct additional research about Friedman and Carroll using outside sources. Compare the theories of Friedman and Carroll, and create a PowerPoint presentation on your comparative study. Your PowerPoint presentation should include the following elements:

- Slide 1: Title page

- Slide 2: Table of content or objective slide

- Slide 3: A summary of Milton Friedman's main points

- Slide 4: A summary of Archie Carroll's main points

- Slide 5: The principles you would like implemented at your current place of work (or where you wish to work in the future), and why you would include them

- Slides 6-7: Two detailed examples of organizations where Friedman's theories are applied

- Slides 8-9: Two detailed examples of organizations where Carroll's theories are applied

- Slide 10: Conclusion

- Slide 11: References in proper APA format

Paper For Above instruction

Comparison of Friedman and Carroll's Theories of Corporate Responsibility

Introduction

The debate surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) has persisted for decades, with significant perspectives offered by Milton Friedman and Archie Carroll. Friedman's seminal 1970 article encapsulates a shareholder-centric view, emphasizing profit maximization as the primary purpose of business. Conversely, Carroll's "Pyramid of CSR" advocates for a more holistic approach, integrating economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. This paper compares these two influential perspectives, illustrating their practical applications within organizations and discussing their relevance in contemporary business practices.

Milton Friedman's Main Points

Milton Friedman (1970) argued that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits within the boundaries of the law and ethical custom. He emphasized that managers are employees of the shareholders and should prioritize shareholder interests, asserting that engaging in social activities beyond profit maximization constitutes a misuse of corporate resources. Friedman believed that pursuing social goals through business undermines free-market principles and can distort economic efficiency. He maintained that social responsibilities are best fulfilled through individual citizens, governments, and nonprofit organizations, not corporations. According to Friedman, the primary obligation of business is to generate profit for its owners, provided this is done legally and ethically.

Archie Carroll's Main Points

Archie Carroll proposed the "Pyramid of CSR," which delineates four levels of organizational responsibility: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic (Carroll, 1991). The foundation of the pyramid emphasizes economic responsibilities, suggesting that businesses must be profitable to survive. The next level involves obeying laws and regulations, while the ethical layer guides businesses to act morally beyond mere legal compliance. The top tier encompasses philanthropic responsibilities, encouraging organizations to contribute to community betterment voluntarily. Carroll's model promotes a broader view of corporate responsibility, emphasizing that organizations should balance profit-making with their societal obligations, fostering sustainable and morally responsible practices.

Principles for Implementation in Future Workplace

At my future place of work, I would prioritize principles from Carroll's pyramid, notably integrating ethical and philanthropic responsibilities into corporate culture. Promoting ethical decision-making ensures that the organization upholds moral standards beyond legal requirements, fostering trust and integrity. Additionally, engaging in philanthropic initiatives aligns with a commitment to social contribution, improving community relations and corporate reputation. Incorporating these principles encourages sustainable business practices and reflects a holistic understanding of corporate responsibility, which is vital in today’s socially conscious environment. This balanced approach can contribute to long-term success and social legitimacy.

Examples of Organizations Applying Friedman's Theory

1. Walmart

Walmart exemplifies Friedman's profit-centric approach, aiming to maximize shareholder value through cost leadership and operational efficiency. Its focus on low prices and high volume sales aligns with Friedman’s assertion that business’s primary responsibility is to generate profit within legal boundaries. Despite criticism regarding labor practices and supply chain ethics, Walmart’s core strategy remains rooted in maximizing profits for shareholders, illustrating Friedman's theory in practice.

2. ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil, one of the largest oil companies globally, prioritizes profit maximization while adhering to legal and regulatory standards. Its strategic investments and operational decisions primarily seek to enhance shareholder value. The company's focus on return on investment and shareholder dividends exemplifies Friedman’s idea that businesses should concentrate on profit generation, even amid societal debates about environmental and social issues.

Examples of Organizations Applying Carroll's Theory

1. Patagonia

Patagonia reflects Carroll’s ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. The company advocates for environmental sustainability, actively participates in conservation initiatives, and donates a percentage of its profits to environmental causes. Its ethical stance on responsible sourcing and transparent supply chains demonstrates a commitment beyond profit, aligning with Carroll’s top levels of the CSR pyramid.

2. Ben & Jerry’s

Ben & Jerry’s incorporates social activism and community engagement as part of its core identity. The company advocates for social justice, fair trade practices, and environmental sustainability. Its charitable efforts and social campaigns exemplify Carroll’s model, illustrating how organizations can integrate societal values into their business strategy while maintaining profitability.

Conclusion

The contrasting perspectives of Friedman and Carroll provide valuable insights into corporate responsibility. Friedman advocates for a profit-driven focus, emphasizing legal and ethical boundaries, while Carroll promotes a comprehensive approach integrating moral and philanthropic responsibilities. Both models have practical applications, as demonstrated by organizations aligned with these theories. Modern businesses may benefit from a balanced perspective, incorporating Friedman's focus on profitability with Carroll’s commitment to social and ethical responsibilities, fostering sustainable and responsible business practices.

References

• Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. |(4), 39-48.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. |, September 13.
• McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. |(1), 117-127.
• Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. |(1), 319-329.
• Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge.
• Hollensen, S. (2015). Global Marketing. Pearson.
• Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. |(2), 225-243.
• Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1991). Partnering as a Focus of Business Strategy. |(3), 95-113.
• Lyons, T. (2018). Ethical Business Practices and Social Responsibility: Insights and Strategies. Routledge.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. |(12), 78-92.