Social and environmental awareness are ideas that concern the world today. With that, more companies are increasingly pledging and practicing corporate social responsibility (CSR). Though CSR can be difficult to define with various definitions present, common features emphasize on businesses` responsibility towards the society with its stakeholders. However, the ethical and philanthropic areas not mentioned in all definitions and the different motivations can lead to a varied evaluation of the compatibility of Friedman`s view. Therefore,...
Social and environmental awareness are ideas that concern the world today. With that, more companies are increasingly pledging and practicing corporate social responsibility (CSR). Though CSR can be difficult to define with various definitions present, common features emphasize on businesses` responsibility towards the society with its stakeholders. However, the ethical and philanthropic areas not mentioned in all definitions and the different motivations can lead to a varied evaluation of the compatibility of Friedman`s view. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, CSR will be dependent on Carroll`s definition synthesized into 4 dimensions: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropy. Though Friedman`s view on businesses and profits appears straightforwardly appropriate, his views require a re-evaluation in light of changing social and business trends. This essay will argue that Friedman`s view can be seen as partially-compatible based on the analyzis of Carroll`s dimensions and Fredericksen`s motivational approaches to social responsibility and profits, the stockholder`s theory and the rules of the game.
