If the expenses would lessen the wages and benefits of its employee, then, social responsibility was shouldered by the employees. If the price of the business service and/or commodities increases due to the said act, then the social responsibility had been shouldered to the customers. And if the cost would be at the expense of the executive himself, still it does not mean that it has become the responsibility of the business but rather the responsibility of the executive because it was deducted to his profit as an owner of the business. What Friedman wants to imply in his article is that there is already the government who has the responsibility to implement laws and policy that could attend to the social need of its people and that business sectors had already contributed by the tax being imposed to them. Also, the government has already a system to check itself as to whether they are functioning well in their part of sustaining their people’s need under their governance. In this sense we could see in a cost-benefit analysis that business is doing redundancy on their obligation on social aspect if their mindset would be the pragmatic status quo because “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (Friedman, 1970). . Social Responsibility of Business.
Friedman, Milton. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. 1970. The New York Times Magazine. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples