How interesting it is to understand the misconceptions on what represents true ‘Social Responsibility’ from a Businesses standpoint. One would tend to believe that in order to be Socially Responsible, a Corporation would have to align its intentions to giving back to society. As outlined by Friedman, however, it is very clear that in order to be most efficiently Socially Responsible a company must in fact aim to be more profitable, rather than intentionally Socially Responsible.

Reebok’s standpoint on sweatshops offers an interesting perspective to the matter of ‘Social Responsibility.’ Having employees that worked more than 72 hours/ week in Thailand, they took it upon themselves to terminate business with said supplier because of possible repercussions over the long hours. They allowed a decision based on Social Responsibility to reduce their profits, when having higher profits in the first place is the sole ‘Social Responsibility’ of Corporations. Terminating business with this supplier inevitably: reduced profits, reduced returns for stakeholders, raised prices for customers, and lowered the wages of employees.

The bright side of this decision is that it potentially saved them criticism from the media, and that it may have been ‘Socially Responsible’ of them.

Understanding that the Government taxes corporations, and with this money can support any social cause the people choose, is fundamental to understanding why corporations are not expected to bring about social change. Plus, is it fair for any Corporate Executive to draw from business revenue to support an arbitrary social cause he chooses?

Although Reebok made a sound social decision, It is for the government to decide what Social guideline should be followed, and for the corporations to maximize profits based on the structure the Government provides.