For Friedman the role of an executive is to execute the objectives of the corporation in a manner that is consistent with the contract between the CEO and the shareholders. Friedman has really brought nothing new to my index of the many definitions that I’ve heard regarding the role of a corporation and it’s executives’, and provides further justification to legitimize the wealth of big business. As I was finishing the article, I found myself not all that impressed with this continuation of the status quo position of why corporations do not have any “social responsibility” except to increase profits.
As I read the final statement of this article, I realized that I would need to take another look at Friedman. The final statement: “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
John Locke might maintain that Friedman is either an idealist, or is not very perceptive. Locke would argue that man is by nature a self-maximizer which is why there is a need for (limited) government involvement in society. How does Friedman suggest that corporations accomplish this one “social responsibility?” If (most) corporations behaved in this manner, this course would not be necessary, and my guess is that the editorial pages of the newspapers would get quite small. Friedman…revolutionary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment