Mr. Vickers Humanities 19115 December 2004″HOW SHOULD I MAKE MONEY?” Businesses nowadays do what they have to do to get the job done, as far as making profit and succeeding in their goals. They complete these goals by any means necessary and in my opinion they should be held responsible for their actions. Sure what they do can sometime bring in profit, but looking ahead, they ” re doing things against public interest and in the long run it will ruin their companies. They should allow us as a people to know what’s going on so we can better informed.
In their eyes what we don’t know won’t hurt us, but in actuality it does In Friedman “The social responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” Friedman argues that the manager is an agent of the shareholders, responsible mainly for the profit they seek, and for following the rules of society, being both legal and ethical, meaning they there is no fraud or coercion and there is free competition. He considers the talk of “social responsibility of business” to be misguided, indicative of a trend toward socialism. He argues that to decide to sacrifice profit for some collective social good is to, in effort, collect taxes and decide how they are to be spent, which is reserved for the political process. Non-elected company managers should not be doing this. In business, Friedman believes, people do what they choose to do, while in politics the majority rules. But that political process should be kept to a minimum and kept out of business.
The Business plan on Business Analysis Of Harley Davidson Motor Company
A comparison of two direct competitors in the motorcycle market, Harley Davidson (a fortune 500 company) and Honda, a producer of cars and motorized vehicles, reveals through the analysis of the businesses that investment into Harley Davidson would benefit the investing person or group. The American company, based out of Milwaukee Wisconsin raised its profits by 44% to $170.2 million in the first ...
Friedman believes this applies also to “the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility.” This is just one group trying to get some other people to do what that group considers important. He does allow, though, that a proprietor not a corporation is free to spend his money on good causes, even though it may affect customers, etc. , because he has not monopoly. (If it is too costly he will cease to be competitive. ) Finally, Friedman believes that some of the “social responsibility ” that is talked about is just “window-dressing” and serves the interests of the company by enhancing profit. He finds this dishonest but on his own principles he cannot disagree with it, since it is done in the interests of profit.
In Christopher D. Stone’s: “Why Shouldn’t Corporation Be Socially Responsible?” It’s Stone’s theory that it’s not that despite what many persons believe, corporations are by nature irresponsible. The main reason for that is because no one, not government officials, not public-interest groups, not employees of corporations, has a fundamental concept of what corporate responsibility is or should be. Stone’s conception of corporate and social responsibility as any concept of responsibility requires, involves identifiable individuals who are a vital part of the corporate structure and who have decision-making powers. These individuals are board members, members of public directorships, and a corporations’ top management. Recognition of the special role individuals in these positions have in corporate responsibility is not enough, however.
As Stone stresses, corporations have to make relevant information on what they are doing and how decisions are made available to the public. He’s concerned about in honing in on the subject of information, its preservation, and its availability is preventing practices which allow corporations to so easily appear to be acting responsibility when in fact they are acting against the public interest, and while doing so actually working against their own interests and purposes as corporations.
The Essay on The Roles And Responsibilities Of Public And Private Policing
Private security personnel differ from police officers in a number of ways. Private security personnel work for clients who pay them for services rendered, while police officers are responsible for serving and protecting the public. Minimum requirements and trainingare considerably less for private security than for police officer. Public and private policing are major components in the criminal ...
