Friedman Theory upon CSR

  • Ten years of assignment help
  • 24*7 Online Assignment help
  • 500+ Experts

Get Help Instantly

  • Date Format: MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Friedman is known for its famous article about CSR which is analyzed in the current report in detail. In present research study varied arguments of Friedman are analyzed on varied parameters like first principle and empirical evidence, etc. In the middle part of the report, model of CSR is discussed and at end of report varied perspectives are analyzed and the roles these can play in bringing sustainability in business are analyzed (Rivas, 2017).
What Friedman is trying to persuade us to accept/reject?
Friedman believed that company social responsibility is to earn profit. In support of this he presents varied arguments which were published in the New York Times in 1970. In his point of view business is basically a tool like wrench that assist human being to satisfy his needs and wants. If wrench does not work properly and there does not fit properly then accident may happen. For such kind of incident human being that use wrench to fit true to the truck will be made responsible not true. In same way corporation cannot be made responsible for the peoples’ welfare it is just prepared to fulfill the needs. It is corporate executive that implements CSR at ground level. The corporate executive is hired by the company owner to work in his interest (Jahn, and Brühl, 2018). So corporate executive will not work for society as he will work for his employer. Friedman state that corporate executive or business owners does not spend money on CSR from their pocket. Instead, the money that belongs to someone which is shareholders is spending on CSR (Should corporations have social responsibilities? the argument against., 2020). So, basically company spends money that belongs to shareholders on its name which is not fair and unethical. If shareholders believed that they have any responsibility towards society, then they must spend money on CSR. The company is spending money that belongs to shareholders, which is wrong (Miotto, and Rom, 2017).
Another argument that Friedman presents is that corporate executive is skilled at office or business task as he is not skilled at social initiatives. His main argument is that how corporate executives can determine that what sort of initiative will be socially more beneficial and how and to what extent it will be implemented successfully on the ground level. Hence, company in no way can benefit society up to the required level (Roszkowska-Menkes, 2017). There is higher unemployment, but as part of CSR cannot employ unskilled employees at its workplace. So, he states that the Government work for society and due to this reason the CSR must be its responsibility.

It is concluded that Friedman is right and firms must focus on earning profit and they must perform CSR in such a way that generate sufficient amount of profit for the firm in the business. It is also concluded that after meeting economical, legal and ethical responsibilities if firms have found then it must perform philanthropic responsibility.

Books and Journals
Bani-Khalid, T.O. and Ahmed, A.H., 2017. Corporate social responsibility (CSR): A conceptual and theoretical shift. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences. 7(1). pp.203-212.
Chalkasra, L.S.P.S., and, 2019. A Review of Theoretical Perspectives on CSR Among Family Enterprises. Vision. 23(3). pp.225-233.
Chi, C.G.Q., Zhang, C. and Liu, Y., 2019. Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) attitudes: perspective of travel and tourism managers at world heritage sites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Djelic, M.L. and Etchanchu, H., 2017. Contextualizing corporate political responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in historical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 142(4). pp.641-661.
Espasandin-Bustelo, F., Palacios-Florencio, B. and García, J.S.R., 2020. CSR intellectual structure in management and tourism. The TQM Journal.
Jahn, J. and Brühl, R., 2018. How Friedman’s view on individual freedom relates to stakeholder theory and social contract theory. Journal of Business Ethics. 153(1). pp.41-52.
Jiang, F., and, 2018. Mapping the relationship among political ideology, CSR mindset, and CSR strategy: A contingency perspective applied to Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics. 147(2). pp.419-444.
Kim, J., Cho, K. and Park, C.K., 2019. Does CSR Assurance Affect the Relationship between CSR Performance and Financial Performance?. Sustainability. 11(20). p.5682.
Lu, M., 2018. Why CSR/CER? Theories and Empirics. In Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility (pp. 68-96). Brill Nijhoff.
Miotto, G. and Rom, J., 2017. CSR in Business Schools: A Theoretical Framework. business and society. 16. p.577.
Mitra, N., Mukherjee, D. and Gaur, A.S., 2020. Mandated CSR in India: Opportunities, Constraints, and the Road Ahead. In Rethinking Business Responsibility in a Global Context (pp. 193-217). Springer, Cham.

Our Guarantees


What People Say

Student and Parents Opinion

Call Back