Milton Friedman’s goal of the firm is viewed by many people as one of the most senseless ideas that have ever been made in the business world. The idea, which made its first appearance in a New York Times’ article in 1970, would raise a lot of controversy as many entrepreneurs refuted it for various reasons.
In this popular statement, Milton Friedman had expressed his controversial stand that the only purpose behind business activities is to bring profit to shareholders (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Many people viewed this as a provocative statement that can be translated as a greedy perception.
Myriad discussions were constantly raised as people in the business world continued to express their criticism on the matter, with majority of them arguing that there is more in business than just generating revenue for the shareholders.
As a matter of fact, Milton Friedman’s goal of the firm does not apply to our understanding of the role of business in society. The truth of the matter, however, is that businesses have a large responsibility of taking care of employees, customers, and the society at large.
Employees, who happen to be one of the most reliable assets that companies can ever have, deserve to be recognized and taken care of by the businesses they serve. Businesses also have the responsibility of paying tax to relevant government bodies, thus enabling the government to provide public services to the citizens.
Companies also have the responsibility of ensuring that certain business essentials and requirements are fulfilled in order for them to thrive and survive in the market. This would have the meaning that the society today expects businesses to offer more than just focusing on maximizing profits and revenues for the shareholders.
For example, consumers will always expect to see the best in terms of quality and value in everything that they purchase, and it is therefore the responsibility of businesses to ensure that these attributes are fully met.
More importantly, it is also the responsibility of businesses to keep their working environments safe and clean. Some of the most effective ways through which this goal can be achieved is by manufacturing eco-friendly products and by ensuring that factory waste is properly managed.
As a matter of fact, governments have a role to play in expanding the Friedman discussion. This way, people will get to understand that businesses do have numerous social responsibilities apart from just making profits for the shareholders (Hammond, 2005).
If the sole role of business was to make profits for shareholders as Friedman points out, entrepreneurs will not find purpose in focusing on any other social responsibility apart from maximizing revenues for their businesses. This, however, would bring serious implications on societies who have always benefitted greatly from the vast social responsibilities offered by businesses in the contemporary world.
For example, businesses are arguably the largest source of government revenue, which in turn is used to support communities in various ways. Considering the importance of all these social responsibilities that tend to have a direct impact on people’s lives, there is a need for governments to expand the Friedman discussion.
This, however, would serve as a platform to convince people that, unlike Friedman’s idea that profits are the sole purpose of all businesses, there are diverse social responsibilities that are played by businesses in today’s world.
References
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Hammond, J. D. (2005). Theory and measurement: causality issues in Milton Friedman’s monetary economics. England: Cambridge University Press.