Choose two of the statements below:
●“Social responsibility is pure rhetoric because businesses are unable to accomplish social
goals anyway.”
●“Social Responsibility is anti-business"
●“Corporate social responsibility harms a free society where business must serve a more
general social interest of the majority and is a slippery slope towards collectivism"
After choosing two statemetns from the above list:
● Take a position on whether you agree or disagree
● Present the logical rationale for your position (i.e. defend your position)
● Submit your written response through Blackboard by Friday September 13 at 11:55 p.m. Word
count: at least 200 words per statement.
The statement “Social responsibility is pure rhetoric because businesses are unable to
accomplish social goals anyway” suggests that companies are unable to make an impact on
social issues. Many businesses however act on social issues not just for the profit but for the
difference it would make in society. So in this case a business would not be serving its
immediate interests and would be focused more on their social responsibility. For example,
companies like Microsoft and Patagonia show that focusing on social issues can be beneficial
for a business. Both companies make decisions that do not benefit them right away but build
their reputation as a brand, which can strengthen trust with their customers. Microsoft invests in
sustainability and ethical practices and Patagonia invests in environmental activism and
promotes recycling through its different programs. These companies prove that social
responsibility is a practical approach and can be used to achieve business goals while also
making a real social impact. So, rather than being more rhetoric, social responsibility can be a
genuine and effective strategy for businesses and companies. Proving that they can make a
difference while also doing well financially, balancing social goals and business goals.
The statement “Corporate social responsibility harms a free society where business must serve a more
general social interest of the majority and is a slippery slope towards collectivism" raises important
concerns. This claim suggests that CSR could negatively impact the principles of a free market, where the
businesses would focus on their own interests and goals and not be pressured into social goals. The text
“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits by Milton Friedman” points out that CSR
can be used insincerely where business leaders promote social issues that might not align with thier
businesses goals. This can lead to businesses starting to focus more on social issues than on making
profit. In a free market, all interactions should be voluntary and mutually beneficial, without anyone being
forced to follow social issues or needs. When a company engages in CSR that doesnt align with their
main goals, it can mess up their market dynamics. For example, businesses might prioritize social issues
over their own interests as a business. This can cause them to be less competitive or disrupt how the
market functions. CSR could be seen as a threat to the free market because it may push businesses
towards collective goals rather than letting the businesses focus on their own goals. Therefore, CSR
might be a more collectivist approach, which can potentially harm the principles of a free society.
