How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory
- 922 Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
Friedman’s view on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often accused of being incoherent and of setting rather low ethical standards for managers. This paper outlines Friedman’s ethical expectations for corporate executives against the backdrop of the strong emphasis he puts on individual freedom. Doing so reveals that the ethical standards he imposes on managers can be strictly deduced from individual freedom and that these standards involve both deontological norms and the fulfillment of particular stakeholder expectations. These insights illustrate the necessity to reconsider how Friedman’s approach relates to other important normative theories of business ethics. Contrasting Friedman’s approach with stakeholder theory and integrative social contract theory—when considering the importance he assigns to individual freedom—shows how and why these approaches differ. Still, the comparison also highlights striking similarities. This paper contributes to a better understanding of Friedman’s position—which is still one of the most influential approaches in business ethics research—because it enables a differentiated look at its strengths and weaknesses.
Keywords
Individual freedom Integrative social contracts theory Milton Friedman Profit maximization Stakeholder theoryAbbreviations
- CSR
Corporate social responsibility
- ISCT
Integrative social contracts theory
Notes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Melanie Eichhorn for her helpful and constructive feedback on the various earlier versions of the manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to thank the editor, Alejo José G. Sison, and the four anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments throughout the review process.
References
- Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Aune, J. A. (2007). How to read Milton Friedman. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 207–218). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bagha, J., & Laczniak, E. R. (2015). Seeking the real Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. Philosophy of Management, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bosch-Badia, M. T., Montllor-Serrats, J., & Tarrazon, M. A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility from Friedman to Porter and Kramer. Theoretical Economics Letters, 3(03), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carson, T. (1993). Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cosans, C. (2009). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Danley, J. R. (1991). Polestar refined: Business ethics and political economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T. (1989). The ethics of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1995). Integrative social contracts theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics. Economics and philosophy, 11(1), 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999a). Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999b). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dunfee, T. W., & Donaldson, T. (1995). Contractarian business ethics: Current status and next steps. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Ferrero, I., Hoffman, M. W., & McNulty, R. E. (2014). Must Milton Friedman embrace stakeholder theory? Business and Society Review, 119(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fort, T. L. (2000). A review of Donaldson and Dunfee’s ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (2008). Ending the so-called ‘Friedman-Freeman’ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 162–166.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1956). The basic principles of liberalism. Lecture. Crawfordsville, IN: Wabash College.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 122–124.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1972). Milton Friedman responds. Business and Society Review, 1, 5–16.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1974a). Free markets for free man. Selected Papers, University of Chicago, 45.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1974b). An interview with Milton Friedman. Reason, 1974(December), 4–14.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (2006). Free to choose: A conversation with Milton Friedman. Imprimis, 35(7), 1–7.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grant, C. (1991). Friedman fallacies. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 907–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(01), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heath, J. (2006). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(04), 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hobbes, T. (1965/1651). Hobbes’ Leviathan. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- James, H. S., & Rassekh, F. (2000). Smith, Friedman, and self-interest in ethical society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson, W. (1989). Freedom and philanthropy: An interview with Milton Friedman. Business and Society Review, 71, 11–18.Google Scholar
- Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). The link between self- and societal interests in theory and practice. European Management Review, 9(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Locke, J. (1980/1690). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
- Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mulligan, T. (1986). A critique of Milton Friedman’s essay ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Orlitzky, M. (2015). The politics of corporate social responsibility or: Why Milton Friedman has been right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rowan, J. R. (2001). How binding the ties? Business ethics as Integrative Social Contracts. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics Thomas Donaldson and Thomas W. Dunfee Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Russo, J. E., Metcalf, B. L., & Stephens, D. (1981). Identifying misleading advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz, M. S., & Saiia, D. (2012). Should firms go “beyond profits”? Milton Friedman versus broad CSR. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Silver, D. (2005). Corporate codes of conduct and the value of autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smith, A. (1981/1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.Google Scholar
- Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Buren, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar