Skip to main content

Paul Godfrey and Milton Friedman

A New Rigor is Found In Arguments for Corporate Social Responsibility

The most lasting rebuke of corporate social responsibility came from Milton Friedman, the small of stature economist who even in death continues to cast a huge intellectual shadow.

In September 1970 Friedman wrote “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profit,” for the New York Times Magazine. In it, he argued persuasively that corporate social responsibility was just so much twaddle, socialism in a corporate wrapper that undermines a free society. Businesses that practiced corporate responsibility were playing Robin Hood with someone else’s money.

“The discussions of the ‘social responsibilities of business,’” Friedman wrote,
“are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean
to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Only people have responsibilities.”

Instead, companies should maximize their profits and return capital to shareholders so that individuals could then donate to whatever cause they wished to, or not. For companies to do anything besides maximize profits was simply immoral, Friedman wrote.

When Friedman wrote that in 1970, corporate giving to charities was only a few decades old and basically amounted to a pittance. While it was permitted as early as 1917 in the State of Texas (a number that grew to 26 States by the early 1950s), it was a court ruling in New Jersey in 1952 that set the stage for modern corporate philanthropy. In 1950 New Jersey passed a law permitting companies to donate to educational institutions. But it was unclear whether the law permitted companies chartered before 1950 to make donations to nonprofits. In a test case a New Jersey manufacturer of valves and fire hydrants named A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company made a $1,500 donation to Princeton University. A group of shareholders challenged the gift in the New Jersey courts.

The court ruled that the statute was legal, and that it applied retroactively. The court opined that institutions of higher learning were essential to the democracy and the free-enterprise system. Companies increasingly realized this fact and had therefore a part to play to ensure the continued existence of such institutions as a matter not only of continued survival but to enhance the conditions of business in the present.

The case, called A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company vs. Barlow, changed the landscape of corporate giving in America forever.

But a sorry sort of intellectual stalemate was the result. Friedman and other Hayek-followers maintained that corporate social responsibility undermined free institutions. And the counter argument from the A.P. Smith ruling and others was that it improved the conditions necessary for business. In effect the later argument carried the day. Giving USA reports that companies in America gave $12.72 billion to charity in 2006.

But to see how much force Friedman’s article still has, Google the title. In the first page all that will come up are pdfs of the article posted by the nation’s business schools!

Increasingly academics have taken up the question and they’re finding that corporate social responsibility DOES make business sense. I’ve highlighted before the research of Raymond Fisman and Geoffrey Heal of Columbia Graduate School of Business and Vinay Nair of the Wharton School which suggests that for businesses that advertise a lot corporate philanthropy acts as a signal to consumers that a company’s products or services are reliable. They found a positive relationship between corporate philanthropy and profitability in industries with high advertising. But in industries with low advertising the reverse was true.

On Monday I caught a presentation from Professor Paul Godfrey and afterwards we spoke briefly about his 2006 paper in the Academy of Management Review, “The Relationship Between Corporate Philanthropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective.” Godfrey teaches at Brigham Young University but like yours truly is a University of Utah alumnus.

The paper presents an ingenious theoretical underpinning which suggests that companies can use philanthropy to bank goodwill and, in effect, draw on it when the mine caves in.
His theory has 14 propositions and math that I couldn’t begin to explain. But his hypothesis goes like this:

Corporate philanthropy can generate positive moral capital among communities
and stakeholders.

Moral capital can provide shareholders with insurance-like protection for a
firm’s relationship-based intangible assets.

This protection contributes to shareholder wealth.

What he told me Monday is that the early data bears out the theory and the hypothesis. Of course Godfrey’s theories require further testing by himself and others. But clearly Friedman’s complaint that there is no rigor among those who argue for corporate social responsibility is no longer the case.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Wouldn't it make more sense for business simply to pay appropriate taxes?

Scenario 1: Business pays appropriate taxes which benefit society. Philanthropy is an additional option.

Sccenario 2: Business has the option to volunteer to donate funds to charities set up to fill the gaps left by governments which get elected by promising to cut taxes (which actually only affect corporations and the top 1%) and services (which mostly affect the bottom x%).

In scenario 2, we simply privatize the tax system and make it optional for business. If business choses to contribute, they turn it into a PR campaign about how generous they are.

This issue leaves the same acrid taste in the mouth as talk of encouraging the phenomenon of the super rich donating to charity rather than paying higher taxes. If corporations enjoy all the benefits of an individual, why wouldn't they enjoy the responsibilities of an individual? If privatizing social services via optional gifts to charities is a good system, why don't we apply it to all citizens?

Ironically, it seems that in scenario 2, the positive PR for business turns into negative PR for any charity whose mission overlaps with what might be considered the responsibilities of government. Charities become reluctant, un-elected implementers of their own private social policies, and face serious issues of accountability. Are they accountable to taxpayers or donors? In scenario 2, business benefits, society loses, and charities are put in an impossible position.

(We can kill this point simply by saying corporations already pay appropriate taxes, but it seems every year we hear of many corporations who don't pay any at all, due to investments, incentives, loopholes, charitable contributions, etc.)

Popular posts from this blog

Three Ways to Be Charitable

I’ve spent a big chunk of my career working with or for charities. Many of my dearest and ablest friends are in the charity ‘space.’ And the creativity and problem-solving coming out of the nonprofit sector has never been greater.  Although I’ve had numerous nonprofit clients over the last decade or so, I haven’t worked in a charity for about 12 years now, which gives me a certain distance. Distance lends perspective and consequently, I get a lot of people asking me which charities I recommend for donations of money or time. My usual answer is, “it depends.” “On what?” they respond. “On what you want from your charitable activities,” I reply. It sounds like a weaselly consultant kind of an answer, but bear with me for a moment. The English word charity comes from the Latin word caritas and means “from the heart,” implying a voluntary act. Caritas is the same root word for cherish. The Jews come at charity from a different direction. The Hebrew word that is usually rendered as charity is t…

Five Steps To Nurture a 30-Year Cause Marketing Relationship

Last Monday, July 22, 2013, March of Dimes released the annual results of its campaign with Kmart... now in its thirtieth year... and thereby begged the question, what does it takes to have a multi-decade cause marketing relationship between a cause and a sponsor?

In the most recent year, Kmart,the discount retailer, donated $7.4 million to the March of Dimes, bringing the 30-year total to nearly $114 million. March of Dimes works to improve the health of mothers and babies.

Too many cause marketing relationships, in my estimation, resemble speed-dating more than long-term marriage. There can be good reasons for short-term cause marketing relationships. But most causes and sponsors benefit more from long-term marriages than short-term hookups, the main benefit being continuity. Cause marketing trades on the trust that people, usually consumers, put in the cause and the sponsor. The longer the relationship lasts the more trust is evidenced.

There's also a sponsor finding cost that…

Top Eight Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns of 2007

Yeah, You Read it Right. It's a Top 8 List.

More cause-related marketing campaigns are unveiled every day across the world than I review in a year at the cause-related marketing blog. And, frankly, I don’t see very many campaigns from outside North America. So I won’t pretend that my annual list of the top cause-related marketing campaigns is exhaustive.

But, like any other self-respecting blogger, I won’t let my superficial purview stop me from drawing my own tortured conclusions!

So… cue the drumroll (and the dismissive snickers)… without further ado, here is my list of the eight best cause-related marketing campaigns of 2007.

My list of the worst cause-related marketing campaigns of 2007 follows on Thursday.


Chilis and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
I was delighted by the scope of Chilis’ campaign for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. As you walked in you saw the servers adorned in black co-branded shirts. Other elements included message points on the Chilis beverage coas…