Read the discussion:

1. Friedman’s approach makes sense in that if you look out for the stakeholders’ pocket books, business can resume and stakeholders can reap the benefits of the success. However, if stakeholders are the only main concern in a business, it can cause major ethical issues to arise, and this can cause bad publicity for the organization. For instance, if an organization is only concerned with their stakeholders’ pocket books, then they can’t be concerned with environmental issues or economic issues equally. Because dealing with environmental and economic issues costs the organization money, it in turn takes money out of the hands of the stakeholders. The approach by freeman and MCVEA is that there has to be equality amongst the stakeholders. Not all stakeholders are interested solely in the business aspect. Some are concerned with the economy or the environment. This approach in my opinion works best because the organization is not only concerned with the profits, but they are also concerned in making their stakeholders’ concerns, the company’s concerns. The down side to this approach is that the company cannot really be great at one aspect. if they are considering the environment and the company’s impact on it, or if they are concerned with the economy and hiring the unemployed, then the company cannot be the greatest at making a profit. Every aspect has a cost to the organization. The cost of focusing solely on money is the bad reputation that comes along with being negligent to the economy and the environment. The cost to the organization when being economically and environmentally friendly is less profit.

While Freidman’s article may have been relevant in 1970, I think much of its relevancy has gone the way of the dinosaur. And, I suspect in another 50 years the way in which companies do business will look very different than they do today. just think of all the ways in which U.S. business has evolved and improved in the last 100-150 years; no more child labor, hourly workers now receive overtime pay, working conditions have improved, the occupational health and safety act (OSHA) protects workers who are injured on the job, and many workers receive benefits such as vacation and sick time, as well as health insurance. of course, in some areas we still have a long way to go. I agree with Friedman in that the corporate executive has a direct responsibility to his employers to conduct the business in accordance with their desires while following the rules of society and the law. however, he seems to assume that unless owners are operating a charitable business that they would not want to support social or environmental issues. that in itself is a flaw in his position because many business owners want to give back to their communities or to support social and environmental causes. According to Forbes, dell ranked, third on its list of largest private companies in America in 2015. Michael dell, the founder, supports a myriad of social and environmental initiatives through the dell 2020 legacy of good plan. initiatives include education, community service, disaster relief, and children’s health care. The company’s objective is to achieve all the current CSR goals by 2020. I disagree with Friedman’s assessment that the main responsibility is to make as much money as possible for the stockholders. perhaps this was true 50 years ago, but these days corporations are considered evil empires if they do not consider other stakeholders in their quest for profits, especially if their earnings seem “excessive” to the general public. Profits alone will not keep a company in business.

I agree with freeman’s and MCVEA’S assertion that the stakeholder approach makes more sense, as in the long run I think supporting social and environmental responsibilities creates public goodwill and loyalty, which is hard to put a price on (freeman & MCVEA, 2001). with the internet and social media corporate backlash by customers and other stakeholders is now immediate and can be quite intense, even ruining a company’s reputation.

Post a response about the above discussion.