What it is

In 1970, Milton Friedman published a piece in the New York Times Magazine entitled "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits". He argued vociferously that the exclusive role of the modern corporation was to make money. He believed that businessmen arguing in favor of internalizing and pursuing a social mission were "preach­ing pure and unadulterated socialism". He quotes himself, ending with this excerpt from his book: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." To prioritize social responsibility ahead of profits was to lose sight of the very reason corporations came to be.

But, I want to understand whether today the two - making money and doing good - are perhaps inextricably linked? And is that okay? Do we accept when the brands we love do good because they benefit from it, or do we hope they'll do good simply because its the "right" thing? When do they do the latter, and when the former? The modern consumer is increasingly anthropomorphizing brands - projecting onto them human characteristics and emotions. Has that contributed to a sense that companies - like people - should do what is "right" rather than acting only in their own self-interest? And what is the prevailing opinion around what makes for "right"? In Friedman's day, it included conceding to labor union demands. Today, it's ethical labor and environmental practices, cause marketing, pro bono work, community outreach, sustainable development, "accessibility" and a host of other terms already or yet to be coined that I haven't encountered yet.

This blog will log my circuitous musings on all of those topics. It's one woman's study of corporate benevolence.