Corporate Social Responsibility: Friedman, Handy, and Porter Compared
This essay examines the evolving social contract between business and society, focusing on three major perspectives on corporate social responsibility (CSR). It contrasts Milton Friedman's shareholder-primacy view—that profit maximization is a firm's sole ethical obligation—with Charles Handy's critique of short-termism and Porter and Kramer's strategic CSR framework, which argues that a healthy society ultimately benefits business. The paper also addresses how interactive stakeholder relationships support issues management, how ethical foundations enable collaboration, and how globalization complicates regulatory environments and reshapes the concept of community. The Enron scandal is used as a case study illustrating the consequences of prioritizing short-term profit over ethical accountability.
- The Classical View: Friedman's Shareholder Primacy: Friedman argues profit is the firm's sole duty
- Handy and Porter & Kramer: A Broader Purpose for Business: Broader CSR frameworks challenge Friedman's narrow view
- Stakeholder Engagement and Issues Management: Interactive stakeholder relations enable effective issue scanning
- Ethics, Advertising, and Collaborative Relationships: Ethics and advertising shape collaborative business strategy
- Government Regulation, Globalization, and Corporate Accountability: Enron illustrates limits of pure market self-regulation
- Globalization and the Changing Concept of Community: Globalization reshapes community and corporate obligations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Anchors each section in a real-world prompt or quotation (Business Week, Peter Drucker, Jeffrey Skilling), giving the analysis concrete rhetorical grounding.
- Moves logically from a theoretical debate (Friedman vs. Handy vs. Porter & Kramer) through applied issues management to a broader geopolitical discussion of globalization, showing range across levels of analysis.
- Uses the Enron case as a pointed counter-example to Friedman's pure market logic, demonstrating that extreme short-termism can destroy the very shareholder value it claims to protect.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: it places three named thinkers (Friedman, Handy, Porter & Kramer) in dialogue, identifying where they agree, where they diverge, and what practical implications follow. Rather than simply summarizing each view, the essay uses each theorist as a lens to evaluate the others, which is a hallmark of graduate-level argumentation.
Structure breakdown
The essay is organized around three question prompts. The first addresses the social contract and CSR theory. The second applies CSR to stakeholder and issues management. The third uses the Enron anecdote to pivot into government regulation and globalization. Each section builds on the conceptual vocabulary established in the one before it, creating cumulative analytical depth rather than three disconnected answers.
The Classical View: Friedman's Shareholder Primacy
As an editorial in Business Week once observed, "the terms of the contract between society and business are, in fact, changing in substantial and important ways. Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before, and to serve a wider range of human values … In as much as business exists to serve society, its future will depend on the quality of management's response to the changing expectations of the public."
The classical concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethics, as articulated by Milton Friedman, held that the sole responsibility of the firm was to generate profits for its shareholders. Any other activities were viewed as unethical by Friedman, including pursuing an agenda to do good in the world at the expense of making a profit. If a businessman wishes to act in ways he deems ethical, he should do so on his own time — not while advancing the interests of the firm. There is nothing about a CEO that makes him or her an expert on macroeconomic policy, much less ethics, although Friedman concedes that a firm may unintentionally do good as a byproduct of pursuing its own self-interest (Friedman 234).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.