This paper critically examines Milton Friedman's 1970 essay, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," in which Friedman argues that corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder returns rather than pursuing social objectives. The paper surveys definitions of corporate social responsibility (CSR), evaluates Friedman's core claims — including his contentions that CSR constitutes unjust taxation, is undemocratic, and resembles socialist doctrine — and presents counter-arguments drawn from scholars such as Drucker, McWilliams, and Siegel. It also reviews empirical studies on the relationship between CSR and financial performance, concluding that businesses can and should engage in socially responsible practices while remaining profitable.
The definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not clear-cut. McWilliams and Siegel (2001) define CSR as "actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interest of the firm and that which is required by law" (p. 117). An important point to note, however, is that CSR is more than just the observation of the law, as McWilliams and Siegel (2001) themselves acknowledge. A more precise definition is offered by Frooman (1997), who describes CSR as "an action by a firm, which the firm chooses to take, that substantially affects an identifiable social stakeholder's welfare" (p. 227). It is therefore crucial for a socially responsible firm to initiate steps, adopt policies, and embrace business practices that move beyond minimum legal requirements while effectively contributing to key stakeholders' welfare. CSR is thus viewed as a comprehensive set of policies, programs, and practices integrated into core business operations, decision-making processes, and supply chains. It typically encompasses issues related to business ethics, governance, community investment, human rights, environmental concerns, the general marketplace, and the workplace.
This paper evaluates Milton Friedman's essay, "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," written in 1970. In most books and articles examining social responsibility, Friedman's Efficiency Perspective is centrally placed. Friedman is frequently criticized for being excessively classical in his outlook. He strongly believes that the primary objective of a manager — and the manager's moral role to the firm — is to maximize profits. However, one condition complicates his perspective: according to Friedman, the obligations of the manager ought to be carried out in compliance with the vital rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embedded in moral tradition. This raises the central question this paper seeks to answer: to what degree does Friedman's Efficiency Perspective provide a basis for moral and responsible international management behavior? And should there be concern if it fails to do so?
To answer these questions fully, it is necessary to first explain the two distinct components of responsible and moral global management behavior. In contemporary business discourse, these two components are joined under the umbrella of social responsibility in global management. The secondary question concerns which alternative models and theories ought to be considered when the Efficiency Perspective does not provide a sufficient basis for social responsibility in international management.
In his well-known essay, Milton Friedman argues that business executives should not apply social responsibility in their capacity as company executives but should instead focus on maximizing their companies' profits. He further argues that the policy of social responsibility is a communist principle. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the merit of Friedman's arguments, summarize his main claims, critically assess several lines of reasoning, and develop a counter-argument.
In arguing that corporate executives should not exercise social responsibility, Friedman presents five main objections. First, he states that such practice is unfair because it constitutes taxation without representation. Second, he describes it as undemocratic because it invests governmental power in an individual who has no universal authorization to govern. Third, he describes it as unwise because there are no checks and balances over the wide collection of governmental power transferred to that individual's judgment. Fourth, he identifies an infringement of trust, since the executive is an employee of the corporation's owners. Fifth, he argues that such practice is futile, because the executive is unlikely to be capable of anticipating the social effects of his actions, and because when he imposes costs on customers, stockholders, or employees, he risks losing their support and thereby his own power.
These conclusions are interconnected. The second point (that the process is undemocratic) and the third point (that it is unwise) both depend on the first argument (that it is unfair) — specifically on the view that the burden of taxation and the disposition of tax proceeds are functions of government. The fourth point (violation of trust) also depends on the first. The fifth point (futility) depends in part on the fourth, since it is the executive's failure to serve his principals' interests that leads to the withdrawal of their support. The claim of unfairness is therefore the foundation of the entire argument. If that foundational claim is false, Friedman's subsequent conclusions largely collapse.
Is it actually true that an executive who acts in a socially responsible manner is effectively imposing taxes and deciding how those tax proceeds are spent? Friedman argues this point by presenting examples: refraining from a price increase to help prevent inflation, or reducing pollution beyond what is in the firm's immediate financial interest. To establish that such actions constitute taxation, he argues that when an executive takes such action, he is spending someone else's money — that of customers, stockholders, or employees. Rather than acting as an agent for those parties, the manager spends the money in ways they would not themselves have chosen. Friedman's argument draws an analogy between these expenditures and tax revenues on the basis of their origins and their purposes. However, an expense does not constitute a tax merely because it is directed toward a contributor regardless of that contributor's willingness to pay. Friedman's third argument assumes this key element of unwillingness, and it is this assumption that reveals the most critical feature of the model on which Friedman bases his entire case.
Throughout his essay, Friedman portrays the corporate executive engaging in socially responsible action as a Lone Ranger — making decisions entirely on his own about what good to do, when to do it, and how much to spend. In his depiction, the executive acts as legislator, judge, and administrator simultaneously, deciding who to tax, how much, and for what purpose — all without the participation or guidance of the firm's stakeholders. This is the foundation of Friedman's assertion that the executive acts undemocratically, unfairly, unwisely, and in violation of trust.
Yet does Friedman's example accurately depict the morally responsible executive? A counter-paradigm is instructive here. Friedman is correct that it is possible for a corporate executive to attempt to apply social responsibility without the guidance or input of other business stakeholders, and he is correct to characterize such behavior as unfair and likely to result in the withdrawal of stakeholder support. However, his insistence that a socially responsible manager must act in isolation and against the interests of other stakeholders is unwarranted. There is no good reason why a manager and his employers cannot understand their shared interest to include a proactive social role and collaborate in fulfilling it. The practice of social responsibility in large businesses loses neither merit nor meaning if the manager and his employers recognize common interests and pursue them jointly.
Some of Friedman's most emphatic language is reserved for his claim that advocates of social responsibility within a free-enterprise system are effectively promoting socialism. He asserts that the doctrine of social responsibility does not differ in substance from the most explicit communist doctrine. This argument rests on his model of the socially responsible manager as a de facto public servant imposing taxes on others. Three objections can be raised against this line of reasoning.
First, the argument depends on the model that has already been called into question. If the counter-paradigm — in which the socially responsible manager acts collaboratively rather than unilaterally — is closer to reality, then there is no basis for claiming that such a person imposes taxes or becomes a civil servant. Second, it is not clear how the proposal that a corporate manager is effectively imposing taxes under a policy of social responsibility demonstrates that such a policy endorses the use of political instruments to determine the allocation of scarce resources. In fact, as Friedman himself notes, his exemplary manager is never a true political actor precisely because he is not elected and his taxation-and-expenditure program is not implemented through a political process. Ironically, it is Friedman who finds it unacceptable that the agent allocating limited resources operates outside the political mechanism — yet he does not show that acceptance of such a political mechanism is inherent to the views of those who support social responsibility.
Third, to demonstrate that the policy of social responsibility constitutes a communist doctrine, Friedman must invoke a standard for what comprises socialism. The policy of social responsibility, as he characterizes it, is then said to meet that standard. But the standard he implicitly applies is far too broad: it would encompass virtually any politically authoritarian arrangement, including feudal dominions and right-wing totalitarianism. In short, Friedman's argument is unsound on three grounds: it rests on a suspect and unrepresentative model; some of his premises do not entail their stated conclusions; and a crucial premise — his criterion for what constitutes socialism — is demonstrably false. Despite criticizing the analytical looseness of his opponents, Friedman's own argument, on close examination, is itself guilty of the looseness and lack of rigor he attributes to others.
There is evidently a conflict between the concept of corporate social responsibility and the objectives of many firms. This is clear in the work of Friedman (1970), who declared that any attempt to utilize corporate social responsibility for altruistic purposes may constitute part of socialism. Friedman (1970) recommended that corporate law be modified so as to discourage corporate social responsibility (Manne, 2006). Existing empirical research does, however, indicate positive, neutral, as well as negative influences of CSR on a firm's financial performance.
"Classical vs. socioeconomic CSR views contrasted"
"Empirical studies on CSR and financial performance reviewed"
"Scholars and Nike case challenge Friedman's narrow view"
The use of corporate resources in engaging in elements of social responsibility is never an abuse of any sort. Many authors hold views that differ from those of Friedman (1970). The existing perspectives that are more persuasive support the role of firms in doing good and giving back to society. Corporate social responsibility can therefore be effectively employed for social objectives while simultaneously serving the primary aim of business: profit maximization. Rather than viewing CSR and profitability as mutually exclusive, the evidence and reasoning presented in this paper suggest they can and often do reinforce each other when managed strategically and transparently.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.