The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical CritiquePhilip R. P. Coelho, James E. McClure and John Arthur Spry () American Journal of Business, 2003, vol. 18, issue 1, pages 15-24 Abstract: Calls for corporate social responsibility are widespread, yet there is no consensus about what it means; this may be its charm. However, it is possible to distinguish the fiduciary obligations owed to shareholders, as expressed by Milton Friedman, from all other paradigms of corporate responsibility. Friedman maintains that: ÒÉ there is one and only one social responsibility of businessÑto use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.Ó All other paradigms argue that corporations have social responsibilities that extend beyond the pursuit of shareholder benefits to stakeholders. The list of cited stakeholders is ill-defined and expanding, including non-human animals and non-sentient things. This paper defends the intellectual and ethical merits of fiduciary duties, and compares and contrasts it to the stakeholder paradigm. The fiduciary duty to firmsÕ owners is the bedrock of capitalism, and capitalism will wither without it. Keywords: Economics; social responsibility (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Access Statistics for this article More articles in American Journal of Business from American Journal of Business (Formerly Named "Mid-American Journal of Business") |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
Econpapers is hosted by the
Swedish Business School at Örebro University.