Course Project: A New Era of Social Responsibility

Brian Fung, a journalist for the infamous The Washington Post, shares his insights on
what he terms a new wave of corporate responsibility, in his article Apples Smack down of
Climate Skeptics is the Latest in a New Wave of Corporate Social Responsibility. In his article,
Fung makes a point to highlight that a new era has begun in the world of business in relation to
corporate social responsibility, or the belief that a firm needs to give something back to the
individuals who make its success a possibility (Marcoux, 2014). Fung believes that this new era
reigns in a time when corporate social responsibility isnt simply an act to give back to
shareholders, but to simply give back to the community despite shareholders urges to not do so,
as was the case for the Apple Corporation. In March 2014, Apple held an investors conference in
which Apples CEO, Tim Cook, got unexpectedly angry with a few of his shareholders in
particular. A massively conservative group known as the NCPPR, National Center for Public
Policy Research based in D.C., was pushing Apple hard to only partake in projects that allowed
the company to meet its bottom line. This arose after Apples strong interest and investment into
the use of renewable energy. In response to these urges, CEO Cook came back with a very
pointed statement that in consideration of his projects that assist the community and the general
good he doesnt consider the bloody ROI (Fung, 2014). Cook furthered his statements by
stating that if the NCPPR does not like the way that Apple goes farther than to simply meet its
bottom line, then it should consider getting out of its stock, immediately. These are very strong
statements from a very large publically held corporation, such as Apple. Fung illustrates that the
dawn of corporate orthodoxy espousing shareholder welfare may be easier to avoid and not
partake in than ever before (Fung, 2014). He goes on to state the moonshot projects, or
projects that seem very out of reach yet would be supremely beneficial to the general populous,

are popular these days. With Google as the front runner in attempting projects in making
driverless cars or to provide low cost internet to underdeveloped countries; or Facebook
attempting to provide free internet in the form of hovering web connectivity drones to provide
global connectivity for the world. While all of these projects seem very heartwarming, Fung is
not naive to exclude that companies still have to consider their own welfare and in Google and
Facebooks projects the creation of a greater domain of individuals being connected their
companies in turn will strive. He concedes that Milton Friedman has set up a stage in the 1970s
of a corporates only social responsibility to build profit; however, maximizing shareholder profit
has only just become increasingly catching in todays business world. Having stated this, Fung
mentions that a pure devotion to profit without future term investment in social responsible
actions can result in a self-defeating impulse (Fung, 2014).This impulse was primarily pointed
at Wall Street. Fung believes that with more actions being undertaken by corporations to better
society may be a key to their success as well, leading to the possible recovery of the last
recessions. These recessions also bearing fruit in the form of allowing corporate executives to
make corporate social responsibility decisions more readily now than in previous years due to a
much needed change of pace and the popularity of helping the community.
While Fung hits on some very interesting topics, such as that of the growing popularity of
corporate social responsibility projects as well as growing executive decisions to neglect
conservative shareholder concerns; I do believe he neglects to mention some very pungent points
such as all of the responsibilities of a corporation, the mechanisms behind corporate social
responsibility, as well as the guise of corporate social responsibility.

First and foremost it is important to state that a corporation is an artificial being or

person, one that has artificial responsibilities; however, those individuals that comprise the
corporation have real responsibilities and cane be considered responsible or irresponsible.
Having said this, what are the responsibilities of a corporation? The responsibilities of a
corporation like Apple, would be provide nourishment for this artificial organism, which in this
case would be money and thus the primary social responsibility of business is to increase its
profits (Friedman, 2014). The individuals within an organization such as Tim Cook, would be
the individuals to assist in a corporation increasing its profits; however, the corporate executives
are not the only individuals who make up an organization, if they were they would be the sole
individuals to gain the profits from the companys growth (despite the grossly large executive
earnings, there is more money made by the company.) This means that these executives are
bound to the company and the other individuals who comprise the corporation and thus are held
accountable or responsible for serving the company and not their individual desires. Now if the
primary responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits and in compliance with the
corporations goals and needs, executive leaders of that same corporation should conduct
themselves and their business actions in accordance with this goal. This would tend to mean that
any action outside of working towards this goal would be opposing the company and physically
harming its wellbeing. In taking a step further , the shareholders of the corporation monetarily
feed the corporation as well as profits and this would equate to having a say in the corporation;
Meaning that their interests are either upheld or neglected in accordance with the support and
increasing of profits made by the corporation. When Apples CEO Tim Cook neglected the urges
or concerns of the NCPPR, this action was in direct opposition to the increasing of the
companys profits and furthermore contradictory because as a stockholder, NCPPR chose Cook

as an executive to represent them within the company, and Cook thus is not servicing them in his
position (Friedman, 2014).
Having said this, it is important to note that in the past ten years or so the
development of technology and advancement in science as a whole has led to the decreasing
costs related to partaking in moonshot projects as opposed to many years ago when the green
movement was vastly more costly. While being able to neglect some more conservative
stockholder views may be a popular tactic today, it does not elicit a responsible corporate
platform. The main objective of business is to make money and the bottom line is a large concern
for many individuals who support the growth of business and who have the right and the
responsibility to press the issue of increasing profits even if it means shutting down a green
movement project. However, if a part of Apples platform as a business is to incorporate such
projects or to support the environment as a part of their business then it is completely ethical to
use the resources made by the company to contribute to such projects. Many companies do this
to help in attracting new employees, lessen losses, or increase deductions.
To expand upon the popularity of corporate social responsibility in the modern era
as something socially acceptable and often expected, it is important to delve into the mechanisms
behind this new trend or corporate social responsibility. Milton Friedman, one of the prominent
figures in economics, states that social responsibility is a socialist view and ultimately leads to an
economic demise for several reasons. One, when undertaking a project that is termed socially
responsible by a corporation, it is undertaking a task that is in the best interest of others and not
itself and ultimately something done for another is not efficient or of the highest quality. This
follows the concept of why many individuals start their own business because they work under
the concept that they would work harder for themselves then they would for another individual.

This is not done out of malice, but rather human nature. Two, when undertaking a a project that
is deemed socially responsible it is done so by the urging of one activist at the rest of the groups
cost. For example: one individual desires to undertake a green project, yet the rest of the group is
not interested, rather than everyone in the group having a similar goal/ interest as is with
business and the common interest to make money, a political mechanism is put into place. This
political mechanism promotes conformity instead of unanimity (Friedman, 2014). Three, when a
political mechanism is put into place as opposed to relying upon the market mechanisms, scarce
resources are not allocated appropriately and thus are used for alternative things and the market
system essentially is unhinged because the invisible hand is no longer invisible, it is being
directed by individuals such as Tim Cook who partake in specialty projects that may or may not
assist Apple in achieving greater profits.
Lastly, corporate social responsibility runs a strong risk of being used as a guise for
one of two reasons. One, using corporate social responsibility as a way to gain acceptance in the
publics eyes, to either take the attention away from something bad they have done in the past.
This can be seen when companies like BP who dumped thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean
take on projects that will help the environment. I do not take that as an act to give back but rather
something they needed to do. Two, promoting self-interested acts, as acts of justice, or goodwill
for the public which can harm the companies who truly are self-interested in assisting the
community and the world. This can also be done by disguising investments in the companys
future as a good deed done for the public; despite known future increases in the companys
profits (which is simply the operation of business) (Friedman, 2014). This particular case can be
applied to Google and Facebook, where their projects seem like pure interests to help the
community, they also know that if these projects are met with success that their own profits will

soar and they will gain. These projects are done in their own self-interest and in this regard if it is
a part of their core values as a company, then in this regard I do believe that this is an action a
company should partake in. However, classifying a project as something a company is doing
above and beyond themselves would mean that they are partitioning profits, time, and effort to
put into these projects and are taking away from their shareholders and their company etc
Which in and of itself seems unethical because those profits are meant to be shared with those
who contribute to the company.
Overall, in regards to Apples, or any other companies, I believe that if the extension
of a corporations goals and efforts to ascertain a profit , they partake in socially acceptable and
praised projects then that is great, but it should be seen for what it is. It is the goal of the
company to make a profit and projects should not be undertaken if it jeopardizes that ultimate
goal, nor should it be undertaken if the shareholders are completely opposed. If while working
for a profit , a moonshot project arises and a company has the means and ability to strive
towards great goals and break ground with those goals and projects then yes, it is in the best
interest of the company to do so. However, if political mechanisms such as conformity are the
driving factors for such projects then the corporation needs to assess who it is truly trying to
assist and needs to remember that its nourishment is the primary concern, with its effects on the
environment or society as a whole being background noise. Ultimately if a company works for
its own good, then it will assist society by placing goods/services in the right place at the right
time, an invisible hand that has been running the economy since its beginning.

Works Cited
Friedman, M. (2014). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. In C. M.
Joanne B. Ciulla, Honest Work: A Business Ethics Reader (pp. 249-253). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Fung, B. (2014, March 5). Apples smackdown of climate skeptics is the latest in a new wave of
corporate responsibility. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/05/apples-smackdown-of-climateskeptics-is-the-latest-in-a-new-wave-of-corporate-responsibility/

Marcoux, A. M. (2014). Business Ethics Gone Wrong. In C. M. Joanne B. Ciulla, Honest Work:
A Business Ethics Reader (pp. 275-279). New York: Oxford University Press.