social responsibility and business operating

悉尼Assignment代写范文:“social responsibility and business operating”，这篇论文主要描述的是美国经济学家米尔顿·弗里德曼认为企业的社会责任就是创造利润，他的这一观点受到了许多经济学者的关注，弗里德曼认为政府应该降低对市场的干预，自由的资本主义市场发展环境才能够更好地促进经济、政治和文化的发展。

Since Milton Friedman had published the article the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, many academics were extremely interested in the points and perspectives that Friedman expressed, whether they agreed or disagreed. Many subsequent academic articles have been written by experts in the fields of social responsibility and business. Thereinto, Lawson and Clark agreed Friedman’s perspective about the importance of economic freedom. They tried to show evidence to his hypothesis about economic freedom. Some other Friedmanistes thought that abandoning his perspective is to destroy values. However, someone devoted to promoting corporate social responsibilities, such as BP company. In brief, Friedman’s article leaded to a extensive discussion about the corporate social responsibility, no matter positive or negative.

As one of the most famous representatives of neoliberalism, Friedman believed that the free market system could guarantee the optimal allocation of social resources and he resolutely resisted all opinions which would shake the foundation of free market system. In the article, he pointed out that the government had established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to perform these functions, such as controlling the price and eliminating poverty and so on. Therefore, Friedman suspected that whether social resources could be allocated optimally under the circumstance that part of the functions of governments was replaced by the corporation (Friedman, 1970). Friedman rejected the use of fiscal policy as a tool of demand management and he believed that the roles of government in the guidance of economy should be restricted severely. On the other hand, Friedman was agreed with the idea that the corporate executive had individual moral values to shoulder personal responsibilities. But as the agent of the individuals who own the corporation, the corporate executive’s primary responsibility was to them, that is to say, to make the greatest profits for them. If someone spent other’s money for a general social interest---social responsibility, he violated the right and interest of other shareholders. In general, in his opinion, there was one and only one social responsibility of business---to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which was to say, engaged in open and free competition without deception or fraud (Friedman, 1970).

Friedman’s opinion was acknowledged by many economists and academics, such as Robert A.Lawson, J.R.Clark. They cited Friedman’s original 1970 magazine article and they discussed or analyzed the points and perspectives that Friedman expressed. In the article  Examining the Hayek-Friedman hypothesis on economic and political freedom, Lawson and Clark examined empirically the hypothesis made by Milton Friedman that societies with high levels of political freedom must also have high levels of economic freedom. The measure of economic freedom was the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) which attempted to measure the consistency of a nation's economic institutions and policies with economic freedom( Lawson and Clark, 2010). They used both examples and charts to provide evidence for their opinions. Both they and Friedman admitted the importance of economic freedom. However, there are some differences between their views. What Friedman emphasized in the social responsibility not only included politics, but also contained other aspects, such as charity and social stability. Lawson and Clark paid much attention on the relation between economic freedom and political freedom. In the survey Milton Friedman goes on tour; Attitudes to business, what was clearly shown is that many of the world’s biggest companies have embraced the notion of promoting corporate social responsibility, including BP and the now defunct Enron. Now more and  more countries are tired of Friedman’s model after two decades of stagnation. The world’s striving nations tend to show contempt to Friedman’s perspective in corporate social responsibilities. But at the same time , the world’s Friedmanistes have waged a relentless guerrilla war against the idea. They denounce it as a farrago of value-destroying nonsense(Edelman, 2011).

The above content focuses on the perspective on the whole. Hence, now take the New Zealand as an example. The corporate responsibility in New Zealand becomes the key point in this part. In the article Corporate Responsibility in New Zealand, Juliet Roper pointed out that New Zealand has moved from being a country dependent on Britain as its principal market for primary produce to one that embraced the neoliberal view of a global free market more radically, more rapidly and in a form more ‘pure’than in any other country(Roper, 2004). But as New Zealand’s industry became export-driven and many industry did not survive, or moved offshore, New Zealand-based business have had to rethink their role in society in order to retain their legitimacy. Now, the debate of the role of business in society is not finished and will continue at least in the near future . The strongly neoliberal New Zealand business claimed that subscribing to the corporate society responsibility could result in more harm than good. Many companies even encouraged the government not to conform to the Kyoto Protocol because of profit concerns to show little regard for the responsibilities of business toward the environment on a global scale(Roper, 2004). This is the current situation  and idea of corporate social responsibility within a general New Zealand context.

From the analysis above, the author arrives at the conclusion. Milton Friedman’s 1970 opinions about corporate social responsibility are still appropriate for business operating today in New Zealand. Under the backgroud of society, economy and environment, Friedman’s perspective was acknowledged by many economists and people who pursue free market system. In the past  decades, people from all walks of life in New Zealand enrich the connotation of  market economic system. The corporation has greater influence on traditional people’s livelihood industry. New Zealand remains depend on a global free market for maintaining its current economic structure(Roper, 2004). People call for the “small government, big market”, hoping the government can transfer some of its functions to the corporation which can allocate social resources effectively. The enterprization of social functions is beneficial to the effective allocation of social resources, which is in accordance with the core idea of Friedman. Friedman is in favor of the corporate executives have their personal moral values to family, community and country to fulfill personal responsibility. But, as the agent of a corporation, his responsibility is to create maximum value for shareholders(Friedman, 1970). In New Zealand, the engagement of large business is the greater pressure on large firms to adopt environmental activities and they are more likely to feel pressure from parent companies, shareholders and employees(Roper, 2004). This is another reason why his opinion is appropriate for business operating today in  New Zealand. 

In addition, Friedman is "against" the point that corporate social responsibility is based on the assumption of "maximize shareholder monetary gains"(Friedman, 1970). In the 21st century, many investors are no longer regard the monetary income as the only evaluation criteria. In the future competition era on responsibility, the corporation not only create economic value for shareholders, but to satisfy shareholders' demands for comprehensive value. The New Zealand business are increasingly acknowledging their responsibilities to the corporation and the environment, or they are responding to pressures to do so. The next ten years should have rapid development in this direction(Roper, 2004).there are no mistakes in Friedman's view, only because now the market rules are widely different from those in the past. Both the government and the corporations need to change their concept. Only  the  corporation conforms to modern business rules can it gain supports from the investors and consumers  in order to achieve sustainable development. Therefore,  there is no doubt that Milton Friedman’s 1970 opinions about corporate social responsibility are appropriate for business operating today in New Zealand.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创留学生作业代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。

51due为留学生提供最好的悉尼Assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供美国作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-xz