Friedman vs. Drucker

2449 Words10 Pages
Friedman Vs Drucker Social Responsibility Social responsibility can be termed either ethical or ideological. Kaliski, (2001) gives the definition that, “social responsibility can have a negative impact where it is a responsibility to refrain from acting (resistant stance) or there is a positive impact where it is a responsibility to act (proactive stance)” (Kaliski, 2001). Now in the business aspect of things, I personally wouldn’t use the term social responsibility but I would include what the Corporate Social Responsibility is. Carroll & Buchholtz (2006), give two definitions to corporate social responsibility which are “ considering the impact of the company’s actions on society” and “the individual to consider his acts in terms of a whole social system, and holds himself responsible for the effects of his acts anywhere in that system. (Carrol & Buchholz, 2006).” These two definitions are complete opposites but do tie in social responsibility. The first definition of course describes what social responsibility means in a business world, while the second definition ties into what social responbilities main purpose is towards society. In today’s society businesses must maintain ethical practices to be successful. In (Kaliski, 2001) explanation on Social Responsibility and Organizational Ethics, the author states that businesses can use ethical decisions or responsibilities to strengthen their business in three ways. The first way is stated by increasing businesses productivity. “This can be done through programs that employees feel directly enhance their benefits given by the corporation, like better health care or a better pension program. One thing that all companies must keep in mind is that employees are stakeholders in the business. They have a vested interest in what the company does and how it is run. When the company is perceived to feel that their

More about Friedman vs. Drucker

Open Document