The argument of Milton Friedman’s about the social responsibility that is within the corporate world has the perspective that greatly suggest that most businesses care more about profits and their growth rather than social safety and responsibility (Friedman, 1970). More of the organizations tend to carry out social responsibility with the sole purpose of increasing profits. The philosophy of Milton Friedman’s has played the main role in the management of the oil rigs explosion and the actions of the BP (Verschoor, 2010). The company has displayed several social responsibilities in order to come up with appropriate methods of determining the best way to allocate scarce resources that can be used for other projects (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). The doctrine of social responsibility has also brought up the relief to the trade unions by a way of justifying the wage restraint due to the fact that the conflicts revolving around are resolved to a more general purpose (Lange & Washburn, 2012).

The oil spill is hazardous to the environment, therefore, the company had to come up with other ethical frameworks to the people so that the company could remain relevant and is able to maximize its profits and address the conflict between the people and the common good of justice (Micewski & Troy, 2007). Other than the free market the company established a long run interest of being the major employer in the community by a way of devoting resources that provide the community with the amenities that will improve the community welfare (Schaefer, 2008). It made it easier to attract desirable employees that reduced the overall wage bill and sabotage from the employees and saving of some amount that could have been paid as corporate taxes.

 

Reference

Friedman, M. (1970, Sept. 13) The Social Responsibly of Business it to Increase its Profits.  New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2008). Law & ethics in the business environment. (6th ed ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Pub. Chapter One.

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding Attributions Of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Academy Of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0522. Available in University library. Also via the course eReserve at http://apus.libguides.com/index.php.

Micewski, E. R., & Troy, C. (2007). Business ethics - deontologically revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1), 17-25. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9152-z.  Available in University library. Also via the course eReserve at http://apus.libguides.com/index.php.

Schaefer, B. P. (2008). Shareholders and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 297-312. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9495-0. Available in University library. Also via the course eReserve at http://apus.libguides.com/index.php.

Verschoor, C. C. (2010). BP Still Hasn't Learned Ethical Lessons. Strategic Finance, 92(2), 13-15. Available in University Library. Also via the course eReserve at http://apus.libguides.com/index.php.