How Friedman intertwines CSR with political processes?
Despite this, Friedman counters his own claim that any CSR acts are undemocratic due to it being a ‘taxation without representation’. Hypothetically, in a society, where political processes are held open, fair and democratically conducted with integrity with the exclusion of bribery and corruption then, Friedman`s argument would seem to be consistent for it is the government`s job. However, it is a theoretical ideal which is not likely to be found in practice. Large-private donations that have bought and influenced political decisions and the policy-making process would seem to suggest that Friedman`s view would have to adapt for the rules of the game are not necessarily in accordance to ethical standards. Furthermore, the idea of CSR being undemocratic can be undermined with companies remaining transparent with its products, pricing, and relations to CSR then customers purchasing those products or services are simply exercising a democratic right.
Seen in Fairtrade, with products being more expensive than competitors; however, is economically viable enough with its foundation`s income rising over the years which suggests that consumers are socially and environmentally concerned. Getting companies to voluntarily do these, practices the free market Friedman supports and can maintain or increase profits by keeping CSR in the voluntary sphere which can also lead to the anticipation and shaping of legislation, that has already taken place with climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. The practice of being proactive than reacting to the government`s laws with strongly emphasising minimal government intervention thus, his support on the free market, Friedman would have presumably settled, so as to keep the government`s actions to a minimum and keep the economic freedom of the markets by allowing companies to adapt and profit by themselves.