Critiquing Friedman's View on Corporate Social Responsibility
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.
- Introduction and Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: CSR definitions and Friedman's thesis introduced
- Friedman's Arguments and Their Weaknesses: Five Friedman arguments dissected and countered
- The Source of Conflict Between CSR and Profit: Classical vs. socioeconomic CSR views contrasted
- CSR and Its Relationship with Profitability: Empirical studies on CSR and financial performance reviewed
- Opposing Friedman: The Views of Others: Scholars and Nike case challenge Friedman's narrow view
- Conclusion: CSR and profitability affirmed as compatible goals
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically dismantles Friedman's five main arguments — unfairness, undemocratic nature, unwisdom, breach of trust, and futility — showing how each depends on the "unfairness" premise and how undermining that premise weakens the entire chain of reasoning.
- It balances theoretical critique with empirical evidence, citing multiple studies on the CSR–financial performance relationship to ground abstract arguments in research findings.
- The Nike case study provides a concrete, real-world illustration of how CSR failures and subsequent CSR campaigns directly affect a firm's profitability and public image, making the argument accessible and persuasive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a counter-paradigm technique: rather than simply denying Friedman's conclusions, it challenges the foundational model he uses — the image of a corporate executive acting unilaterally as a "Lone Ranger" — and replaces it with a more collaborative model of socially responsible management. This approach shows how a flawed premise can invalidate an otherwise logically structured argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with definitions of CSR from multiple scholars before introducing Friedman's thesis. It then dissects his five sub-arguments in sequence, identifies the logical dependencies among them, and proposes a counter-paradigm. A dedicated section addresses the source of tension between CSR and profit motives, followed by a review of empirical studies. A final section consolidates opposing scholarly views before a brief conclusion affirming that CSR and profitability are compatible.
Introduction and Defining Corporate Social Responsibility
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.