Description
There are TWO posts and reply each if them. Each response needs to be substantive, meaning it should add something new to the original comment, including a level of depth that enriches the discussion (i.e. reflecting on their response, applying their comment to the workplace, the literature, etc.).
Each reply needs at least one reference.
Each reply needs at least 130 words.
Post #1
As the article refereed, business never has responsibilities. Only people have responsibilities. People create the business and business always represent the related people someone like management, government, and shareholders. Business is the media to trasnfer the responsibilities.
Friedman distinguish business and individuals responsibilities. He said people have other responsibilities to conscience, family, church, and country. These responsibilities is individuals responsibilities not business responsibilities even they are businessmen. I agree with him in this point. It is depend on how to use their money on performing responsibilities. Company spend business money on performing business responsibilities and this should be on business balance sheet. People spend personal money on performing individuals responsibilities and the money is from personal salary.
I didn’t agree with the point that business spend stockholders’ or customers’ or employees’ money on performing business responsibilities. Although people performing the business responsibilities, it is represent businesses. There is no sense that customer, stockholder, or employee pay the money. I believe the money is from profit not from anyone else. Company spend their profit to performing business responsibilities. We never heard any company spend their customer, stockholder, or employee’s money to performing business responsibilities. This is the one point that I disagree with Friedman.
Reference:
About the author(s) Thomas Malnight is a professor of strategy and general management at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD). (n.d.). Making the most of corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/making-the-most-of-corporate-social-responsibility.
Post #2
I agree that “social responsibility” has a different meaning to different people. There are three kinds of a part to the corporate executive concerning his social responsibility. To the employee, a corporate executive has to think about how to thrive in their business or how to make more money; while for the shareholder, a corporate executive has to change their mind to think about “serving the interests”. For society, a corporate executive may think about how to reduce air pollution to improve the environment.
Each decision that a corporate executive makes, he has to think about all different parts of people and balance the pros and cons in different parts of people. It is impossible to make everyone happy each time. Thus, a corporate has to listen but not be affected by those complaining and holds his own opinion to make a choice.
I disagree that the corporate executive is like a civil servant. The most purpose of the business is to make money, which is different from a politician. When people vote for those “civil servants”, their main purpose is to do something for residents, while for the corporate executive that chooses by shareholders (a small group of people), their purpose is to make profits for them. Although the corporate executive’s decision still considers for social responsibility, the ultimate goal is to gain customers, to gain long-run profitability, to have a good reputation which is a benefit for their business, not for general people.
Reference
Chitakornkijsil, Pranee (2012). BUSINESS PERFORMING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACTIVITIES AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ISSUES