Berle-Dodd Debate

Berle argued for what is now called "shareholder primacy"—the view that the
corporation exists only to make money for its shareholders. According to
Berle, "all powers granted to a corporation or to the management of a
corporation, or to any group within the corporation. . . [are] at all times
exercisable only for the ratable benefit of all the shareholders as their
interest appears."
Dodd disagreed vehemently with Berle's shareholder primacy thesis. He
argued for "a view of the business corporation as an economic institution
which has a social service as well as a profit-making function." Dodd claimed
that the proper purpose of the corporation (and the proper goal of corporate
managers) was not confined to making money for shareholders. It also
included more secure jobs for employees, better quality products for
consumers, and greater contributions to the welfare of the community as a
whole.
Both Berle and Dodd agreed that the corporation should pursue the public interest, but
were initially at odds in how this was achieved.

Howard Bowen
As Bowen refers to the actions of businessmen “which are desirable in terms of
objectives and values of our society”, he just mentions the actions that refer on society
and doesn’t highlight the responsible actions on the environment. This definition also
leaves out the stakeholders and their expectations, which can not only be defined to
values and objectives. Without their expectation, CSR would not have the same impact.
ork proceeded from the belief that the several hundred largest businesses were vital centers of
power and decision making and that the actions of these firms touched the lives of citizens at
many points.

I think that CSR is not only responsible for obligations of our society as it is mentioned
in the definition. Environmental and ecological issues are missing in my opinion in this
definition and are as important as social concerns.
The definition is precise and accurately describes the role of CSR, however I would not
say that it is “the obligation of businessmen”. More likely I would refer to it as the
obligation of all individuals.
Frederick
And this means in turn that the economy’s means of production should be employed in such
a way that production and distribution should enhance total socio-economic welfare.

Walton
emphasized that ‘the essential ingredient of the corporation’s social responsibilities includes a
degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion’
Walton elaborated to emphasize that the essential ingredient of the corporation's social
responsibilities include a degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion, an indirect linkage of
certain other voluntary organizations to the corporation, and the acceptance that costs are
involved for which it may not be possible to gauge any direct measurable economic returns
(p.18).
Davis

defines corporate social responsibility as business men’s decisions and actions for
purposes that are beyond the normal activities of the business.
Davis became well known for his views on the relation between social responsibility and

business power .
He asserted, "The substance of social responsibility arises from concern for the ethical
consequences of one's acts as they might affect the interests of others"(Davis, 1967, p. 46). He
suggests how social responsibility gets one beyond the limited application of person-to-person
contacts: "Social responsibility moves one large step further by emphasizing institutional actions
and their effect on the whole social system. Social responsibility, therefore, broadens a person's
view to the total social system" (p. 46).
Critics
CSR’s critics argue that the main responsibility of businesses is to maximize return to their
shareholders. They point to the corporate legal system as the proper place for regulating
businesses’ conduct with society. And besides, businesses are already fulfilling a key public
service by providing jobs and services that society needs.

Friedman
Socially responsible activities conducted by a corporation are, according to Friedman, distorting
economic freedom because shareholders are not able to decide how their money will be spent.
Friedman thus argues that corporations should focus on those activities that are causally related
to company profit, effectively excluding charitable activities that do not directly generate
revenue:3

A good corporation in Milton Friedman's view is not one that undertakes activities only because
they are ethically sound, but because they are economically viable.

Friedman argued that returning value to shareholders was the primary responsibility of business and
suggested that “Greed is Good.” Shareholders, of course, could invest their money in whatever causes
they desired, but Friedman believed companies should focus their own efforts on creating value for
shareholders. By returning value to shareholders, the shareholders could then make their own decisions
about how to uphold their own social values.
Corporate spending on social matters, Friedman argued, was essentially simply spending someone else’s
money

Harold Johnson

It is worth noting that Johnson is hinting at the possibility of a stakeholder approach as he

references a "multiplicity of interests"

Corporate social responsibility could also be defined as business commitment to

contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their
families, the local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life. It is
also described as operating a business in a manner that that meets or exceeds the
ethical, legal, commercial, and public expectations that society has of business. This
definition encompasses the decision making of the company relating to ethical
values, legal requirements, as well as respect for people, communities, and the
environment.