The two viewpoints expressed in an excerpt from this book by Milton Friedman and in this video interview with R. Edward Freeman don’t necessarily oppose one another.
Friedman argues that for a corporate executive to take up “social responsibility”, meant taxing others’ money to do things that may not be in the interests of those who gave him the executive position (stockholders, employers, etc). In other words, it’s “taxation without representation”.
Second, when companies take action for “social responsibility”, it’s often merely a disguise for self-interest.
These ideas seem to clash with Freeman’s Theory, which states that a thriving business sees the interests of all its stakeholders, including society, as equally important.
I think there’s a natural symbiosis between the self-interests of business and society. It’s unlikely that actions taken by a company is completely in social responsibility. However, a company needs to keep up its brand image, and it can achieve that by contributing socially.
This blog lists two “genuine” examples of how a company can “promote the interests of society as a whole”. I agree that they are more genuine; however if a company decides to pursue them, it would still gain benefits such as a better reputation.