Write an at least two paragraph response In yo-ur re-ply, state why you agree or disagree with your classmate's post. To support your reasoning, link to a new article not contained in your and your classmate's initial post.

 

Both of the above articles support companies having corporate social responsibility (CSR). In fact, they seem to indicate that it is the "new and improved" way of doing business. Milton Friedman's view that companies need only "increase profits" for the shareholders seems to be an antiquated, obsolete way of thinking about business.

"Consumers, governments and cultures are looking for more from corporate entities. It is still essential to maintain a profit... It is equally necessary for businesses to shepherd social and environmental resources... [there is] a triune obligation toward profits, people, and the planet" (Bartel, 2022). Doing business in the new millennium means including some corporate social responsibility in the business model. "Though CSR programs are often the result of pressure from within the community, research shows that, once instilled, these programs often receive broad support from within the company, too" (Edmondson, 2022). Companies need to realize that they are part of the community where they do business and, therefore, need to help that community whenever and however they can. It may be something as simple as sponsoring a day of adoption at the local humane society or letting their employees have a day off with pay to go volunteer at the charity of the employee's choosing. Companies also need to set aside funds for social responsibility purposes such as donating to the local school fundraiser.

I agree that a company must have some social responsibility. But, it only extends so far as to make sure they reduce their carbon footprint, clean up the environment, and donate to/volunteer for noncontroversial causes. If a company were to donate money to a cause such as abortion rights, then they are saying that everyone in their company is pro-abortion which might not be the case. The company is, in effect, alienating those employees who might hold a different belief. This would seem to coincide with Friedman's beliefs when he suggests that the corporate executive is a person in his own right and may personally practice social responsibility, but not as a representative of the company (Friedman, 1970). By only supporting causes of a noncontroversial nature, and there are plenty of those, big corporations can still practice social responsibility without fear of backlash from some employees. Smaller, private companies would not need to factor their employees' beliefs into where to put their charitable resources because, presumably, they know every employee and their belief systems; so, they would know where the potential "landmines" lie.