preview

Friedma Friedman's Argument Analysis

Decent Essays

In this paper, I show that Friedman’s argument that it is immoral for managers to act on social responsibilities, fails. He relies on that assertion that shareholders expect a maximal return on their investment and if managers spend corporate funds on “social responsibilities,” they are in turn taking profits away from shareholders and using their money for an unintended purpose. However, this claim is false, as shareholders cannot expect maximal profits and cannot dictate exactly what company funds are spent on.
Friedman’s argument is as follows:
(i) If a manager spends shareholders money in a way other than they want it spent, she acts immorally
(ii) Shareholders invest their money into firms to maximise profits, not to act on “social responsibilities”
(C) “It is immoral for managers to act on “social responsibilities”” (Friedman) …show more content…

To spend the firm’s money on matters of social responsibility, such as “reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law” (Friedman) equates to spending the shareholders’ money, as it reduces the return on their investment. Thus, they make less of a profit than they maximally could. He argues that managers must prioritise their fiduciary obligations to shareholders – such as turning over a profit on their investment – over altruistic endeavors. Thus, he claims that failure to obey shareholders’ wishes by not maximises profits is to behave

Get Access