|← SCID Worldwide Company||International Business Law →|
To begin with, it is crucial to note that the three scholars and ardent business men have had one of the most critical reasoning debates that have summarized business motives in the contemporary society. Despite the fact that they champion different business view point, the bottom line of their argument is that every business has to prioritize profit maximization as its major objective. Indeed, this is the essence of every business venture as no business would stay afloat if it misses this fact. The major difference between them is solely on who should be prioritized in the distribution of accrued profits. This mode of profit distribution forms the basis of the other related readings, which clearly analyses the damage facing the earth as people and companies compete extensively to maximize profits for the business owners.
The cornerstone of the debate of the three influential economic thinkers can be divided into three pertinent areas: Putting Customers a head of Investors, Making Philanthropy out of Obscenity and Putting Profits First. John Mackey strongly believes that the duty of each business entity should not only be to create profit for investors, but it should as well reflect on the other stakeholders involved for that profit to be realized. This point in itself has great weight in light of the current environmental disasters facing the world. If businesses only pursue the goal of making profits, it is likely that they will pay little or no attention to all other factors they don’t think are crucial in meeting their basic goals. This fact has a closer relation to what Alan Durning in “How much is enough?” talks about. Such irrational desire is likely to lay a lot of emphasis on consumerism just for such companies to continue swimming in profits. For instance, he empirically denotes that, “Only population growth rivals consumption as a cause of ecological decline”. A business that is responsible for its customers would pay a lot of attention to their ecological surrounding, something not feasible according to Milton Friedman and Rodgers.
Mackey’s ideology of putting customers first is a phenomenon in analyzing Jacques Leslie’s article “The Last Empire: China's Pollution Problem Goes Global”. It is evident enough based on the statistics by Leslie, that China’s industrial growth is posing a serious challenge to human sustainability in the long run. This is particularly based on the kinds of emissions coming from its factories that are so massive. For instance, 2.5 billion tons consumption of coal is not only massive but also dreadful in nature. To help to solve this situation, China together with its industries must have very strong social responsibilities for its customers and their ecological environment. But, if the world fully bases its business operations on ideologies espoused by Milton Friedman and Rodgers, then all human races should prepare for the worst.
Milton Friedman has one unique view, which perfectly would be translated to mean “Soulless corporations”. He arguably uses Adams Smith classical-economic knowledge to rationalize his ideology of profit first, nothing besides. Adams Smith might have been relevant at his time when there were no serious environmental degradations caused by business operations; things have changed and it would be foolhardy for Friedman to succumb to that school of thought. How well then does he expect industrial nations emitting high amounts of toxic wastes, to take responsibility for their actions by compensating the developing nations suffering for something they never caused? More so, an assumption that when an individual benefits, the whole society stands to gain is farfetched. In developing nations for instance, there is a high level of income inequality, with some nations 80% GDP concentrated in the hands of 20% of its population. It would therefore be impossible to believe that when an individual rocks in profits, then the whole society stands to gain, in fact, the rest of the society will suffer the more.
The different arguments poised by the three influential business figures is what leads to the cornerstone of the prompt; impacts of business social responsibility to nature. Nature is everything, as noble laureate Professor Wangari Maathai coins it, “You destroy nature, and it will destroy you back”. That statement sums up the role of business social responsibility to nature. It’s common knowledge to everybody that in order for the future generation to also find the very environment the present population is enjoying, then a lot of conservations have to be done by every person, every business, and every country. This will not be possible in case businesses lean towards arguments made by Friedman and Rodgers. It is logical enough that businesses must devote a considerable proportion of their profits towards protecting the very nature in which they operate. Failing to uphold this fact, empirically will lead to what Professor Maathai said, nature will destroy you.
In conclusion, analysis of various stand points espoused by the three scholars and astonished business people creates an eye opener on the sustainability of businesses in connection to the Mother Nature. Although the two, that is, Friedman and Rodgers seems to be off the hook as far as business social responsibility is concerned, it is beyond doubt that the other readings are enough to convince them of its importance. For businesses to develop trusts among all its stakeholders such as employees, customers, and investors then it has to be involved in activities affecting them in which it doesn’t earn any profit. Protection of the environment should therefore form part of every business goals.