Discussion Board Forum One: Milton Friedman
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
In the article, The Age of Milton Friedman, Shleifer (2009) provides the context of the
economic growth that served as the backdrop to the writings of the researcher. The global
economy was underscored by increases in access to education, life expectancy, income,
reduction in absolute poverty, and democracy (Shleifer, 2009, p. 123). The author notes the
economic growth was initiated by global leaders in China, Great Britain, and the United States
that embraced “economic reforms and free-market policies” (p. 123).
Jahn and Bruhl (2018) analyze the arguments against and in support of Milton’s
landmark statements on business ethics for corporate managers. Researchers who reject
Friedman’s statements accuse the economist of blatant falsehoods, narrow mindedness, and “low
ethical standards for business” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 41). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) note the
economist, Friedman, has never offered a “proper and systematic summary of his view on
corporate social responsibility…or the moral obligations he assigns to managers” (p. 41). This
seeming omission is one possible reason for the varying points of dissent or interpretations of
Friedman’s work.
Scholars in support of Friedman’s emphasis on profit maximization focus of Friedman’s
views on individual freedom (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018). Jahn and Bruhl (2018) assert Friedman’s
notion of individual freedom as “the central and most important value in a stable and democratic
society” (p. 42). Under this ideology individual freedom encompasses the right to choose what to
do with your own money; without interference. Specifically, if a shareholder invests with a firm
to maximize their own wealth, the decision of a corporation to use these investments for
“philanthropic contributions, to be the theft of the shareholders’ money” (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p.
48).
After reading the available current literature, I disagree with the statements of Milton
Friedman. The point of conjecture is on the basis that proper governance of corporate social
responsibility does not reduce long-term benefits to shareholders. Scripture shares, “if anyone
does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, English Standard Version). As Christians
in the boardroom, shareholders and stakeholders should be treated with care as they are the
firm’s relatives and family. In this example, the Bible supports the corporate behaviors that lead
to more social responsibility.
Additional research shows that the necessary financial actions required to be socially
responsible do not take away from the benefits to shareholders or stakeholders. Through
established management practices, firms can strategically create value for stakeholders. Along
with financial strategies, long-term plans should include the development and care of employee
benefits and the “inclusion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria” in all
business decisions (Kline, 2019, p.1).
References
Jahn, J., & Brühl, R. (2018). How Friedman’s view on individual freedom relates to stakeholder
theory and social contract theory: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 41-52.
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2131581738?
pq-origsite=summon
Kline, M. (2019). Why the debate over stakeholder value versus shareholder value is all wrong.
Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholder-
valuevs-shareholder-value-is-all-wrong.html
Shleifer, A. (2009). The age of milton friedman. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 123-
135. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/213177842?pqorigsite=summon
Discussion Board Forum One: Response
Hello Elizabeth,
Thank you so much for your discussion board post. The article by Jahn and Bruhl (2018)
served as one of the focus studies for my post as well. What I love about peer interaction, is the
realization that one study, or one statement as in Milton Friedman’s case, can result in varying
viewpoints.
In the article, Jahn and Bruhl (2018) present Friedman’s viewpoint, or emphasis, on
“individual freedoms…and corporate entities as self-interested agents” (p. 42-43). As an
economic researcher, Friedman aligns himself with Adam Smith’s famous butcher analogy and
the invisible hand (Jahn & Bruhl, 2018, p. 43). These tenets propel Smith’s theory of pure
economic self-interest as the true source of maximized societal benefits. While Jahn and Bruhl
(2018) cite Friedman, as having acknowledged that self-interests can extend beyond profits, they
also point out the researcher defines corporate giving as theft of shareholders’ investments (p.
44). Negative reaction, under Friedman’s theory, to the latter can be erased by communicating to
shareholders the intent of philanthropic contributions and receiving approval.
However, the point of conjecture is the assumption that all managers want to be socially
responsible and will therefore meet certain requirements to get permission from shareholders to
do just that. If social responsibility is only necessary with permission, then a business or manager
with loose ethics will simply not ask. The goal of global corporations, some with more per capita
income than small countries, should be underscored by the way they strategize business to
conserve resources and consider external stakeholders as well as shareholders.
References
