Economy is a main component is of having a healthy society not suffering from unemployment and inflation. How is it possible to have social responsible executives acting as agents and not as political officials? (Freidman, 1970). •The role of the government is to set a balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Thus, there must be a set of regulations on corporate executives in order not play the role of an elected political official and by not having the complete control in navigating the economy through inflation or deflation. •Thus, as indicated by Freidman (1970), this is the basic reason why the doctrine of “social responsibility” involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.(p.3) •Therefore, Friedman shares this concept with Cohen in relation to managers and critical leadership of executives. •In relation to which aligns best with green environment? Friedman, Cohen and Drucker concepts align with the current business climate promoting a safe environment. What differs is in relation to how far the balance is applied between the social responsibility of a corporate executive and by taking the role of government officials in controlling the economy.
•Drucker explained the role which must be played by the businessmen in relation to public good, knowing the fact that governments are incapable of completing all obligations. Thus, the question arises: how far is the limit set on corporate executives? The question is crucial in order to avoid the consequences of what Freidman (1975) indicates: ”He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of a private enterprise.”(p.3) •The problem arises when benefits and profits conflicts with the environmental protection. •The negligence towards the environment is justified by the reliance on the technological advancement of the future which will heal any damage committed nowadays by companies. Thus, is it justifiable to increase the benefits of a company even though its profits are aimed at supporting ecofriendly technological advancements? •Furthermore, statements such as indicated by (Freeman, York and Stewart, 2008), “Maybe global warming is a simple weather pattern that will reverse in five years.” (p.5) could be justified through scientific evidence conducted by companies having interest in neglecting the environment and increasing its profits. Thus, the critical leadership as indicated above by Drucker in relation to corporate executives is being fulfilled towards the companies interests as well the environment. •In addition, lobbying plays a huge role in political campaigns and elections which can surpass the socialist view of freidman by having leaders of private enterprise supporting candidates solely for their economic advantages and neglecting environmental protective policies whether through the national or international level.
Cohen, W. A. (2009). What Drucker taught us about social responsibility. Leader To Leader 51, 29-34 http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35755461&site=ehost-live Beebe, G. (2012). Character formation. Leadership Excellence, 29, (6), 20 http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=76463146&site=ehost-live Drucker, P.(1981). What is business ethics? Public Interest, 63, 18-36 http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1981632whatisbusinessethicspeterfdrucker.pdf Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business to increase its profits. New York Times 32-33, 122-124, 126 http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX