Conjuring-Up a Bad Guy: The Academy’s Straw-Manning of Milton Friedman’s Perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility and its Consequences

Abstract

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the idea that business stewards have a broader range of societal obligations than maximizing shareholder value, is a mainstream theme in contemporary management research, education, and practice. Carroll points to one of its controversial aspects when he describes a clash between management scholars (who are generally pro-CSR) and their neoclassical economic contrarians. This has become an increasingly one-sided conflict with the pro-CSR side prevailing in both business and academia. CSR proponents have generally viewed Milton Friedman as an opponent of CSR. However, we argue that Friedman’s purported opposition to CSR is something of a caricature. We reveal that Friedman was concerned that his advocacy for free market operation would promote pro-social outcomes. Indeed, through his emphasis on creating value for consumers, being good stewards of scarce resources, and avoiding rent-seeking’s inefficiencies, Friedman has more in common with CSR proponents than is sometimes acknowledged.

Sizzle without the steak: the emerging strategic implications of receiving a free offering in the digital age

“…This phenomenon has strategic and ethical consequences, particularly for at least two debates pursued by management historians. First, there is the question of the underlying motivation for corporate social responsibility (Muldoon et al , 2022). The issue here is that “apparently” gifting an offering is prima facie an act of generosity.…”

“…First, there is the central and unanswered question that inevitably comes when discussing corporate social responsibility: are these kinds of initiatives pursued by firms as a genuine attempt to improve society (even if they entail forfeiting private wealth creation) or are they a means to mislead? (Muldoon et al, 2022;Muldoon, Novicevic, Deal and Buckley, 2023). Indeed, to appreciate something of the motivation for why corporations do things for free provides an opportunity for abductive reasoning (reasoning by analogy) (Bruce, 2020).…”

‘Plundering the Liberal Philosophical Tradition’? The Use or Abuse of Adam Smith in Parliament, 1919–2023

“…Rhetoricians who study legislators classify speech on the floor as 'ornamental' and 'argumentative' (e.g. Muldoon et al, 2022). A characteristic of ornamental discourse often is 'strawmanning' or invoking a person or their thoughts to make their case without really understanding their ideas.…”

Criminal Liability for Corporate Crime in Indonesia

“…Ross described that criminoloids enjoyed immunity from their sins due to their respectable appearance, showing the public that they were social people, obedient to religion, and at home, they appeared as exemplary fathers. But behind it all, these corporate leaders are actually immoral people who at some point are not hesitant to bribe bureaucrats in the government, evade taxes, in short: wolves in sheep's clothing (Muldoon et al, 2022).…”