Abstract
Though corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on the agenda of most major corporations, corporate executives still largely support the view that corporations should maximize the returns to their owners. There are two lines of defence for this position. One is the Friedmanian view that maximizing owner returns is the social responsibility of corporations. The other is a position voiced by many executives, that CSR and profits go together. This article argues that the first position is ethically untenable, while the latter is not supported by empirical evidence. The implication is that there may be good reason for firms to deviate from a maxim of profit maximization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow K. J. (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc
Bakan J. (2004) The Corporations – The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. London: Constable
Bowie N. E. (1999) Business Ethics – A Kantian Perspective. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers
Cappelen, A.: 2004, ‹Two Approaches to Stakeholder Identification’, Journal for Business, Economics and Ethics,␣5(3), 319–325
Cappelen, A. and I. Kolstad: 2006, When Is Profit Maximization Ethically Defensible (Chr. Michelsen Institute, mimeo, Bergen, Norway)
Darnall, N., G. J. Jolley, B. Ytterhus and N. Johnstone: 2004, Environmental Policy Tools & Firm-level Management Practices: Does Environmental Performance Predict a Facility’s Financial Performance, OECD
Donaldson T., Dunfee T. W. (1999) Ties that Bind – A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press
Elsayed, K. and D. Paton: 2005, ‹The Impact of Environmental Performance on Firm Performance: Static and Dynamic Panel Data Evidence’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16(3), 395–412
Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine September 13, 1970
Gauthier D. (1985) Morals by Agreement. London: Clarendon Press
Goodin R. E. (1985) Protecting the Vulnerable – A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Goodin R. E. (1988) What is So Special About Our Fellow Countrymen? Ethics 98: 663–686
Griffin J. J., Mahon J. F. (1997) The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate. Business & Society 36(1): 5–31
Hillman A., Keim G. (2001), Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line. Strategic Management Journal 22: 125–139
Hume D. (1986) Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press
McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2000) Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification. Strategic Management Journal 21: 603–609
Miller D. (1988) The Ethical Significance of Nationality. Ethics 98: 647–662
Nozick R. (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell
Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. (2003) Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies. 24(3): 403–441
Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press
Shue H. (1988) Mediating Duties. Ethics 98: 687–704
Williams B. (1993) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Ivar Kolstad is Senior Researcher at the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI). He is the head of the CMI Human Rights Programme, and the coordinator of the institute programme Business Ethics for Multinational Corporations in Developing Countries. He has published internationally on the topics of social norms and development economics.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kolstad, I. Why Firms Should Not Always Maximize Profits. J Bus Ethics 76, 137–145 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9262-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9262-7