Pathological Pursuit Of Profit And Power Analysis

The corporation is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “large business or organization that under the law has the rights and duties of an individual and follows a specific purpose”. That specific purpose being the relentless pursuit of profit. All companies are motivated by the idea of profit maximization; corporations are no different. They strive to earn more and more profit. They are not guided by charitable ideals, a moral compass, or the need to help the community. Governed and owned by shareholders, corporations are instructed to seek out profit. They are responsible to them and them alone. Thus, this inherent quality in corporations prohibits them from being socially responsible. That does not mean that corporations do not produce external …show more content…
It aims to serve its own self-interest. With that being said, it does not mean that corporations do no produce any external benefits or does not help the community in any way. Rather, it means that corporations only produce external benefits when it serves its own purpose in the process. Joel Bakan, the author of the famous book “The Corporation the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power”, acknowledges the contributions a corporation makes to the community. However, Bakan realizes that these contributions are either an indirect result of a company’s actions or is done to facilitate the company’s goal in the long run. A corporation would never make a decision unless the corporation stands to benefit from it. In his writings, Bakan admits that some corporations do produce substantial social benefits, but understands that there is an ulterior motive behind it – profit maximization in the long …show more content…
This unquenchable thirst for profits precludes it from acting solely in the interests of public. However, that does not mean that corporations are evil and that they do not provide any social benefits to the community. Corporations just follow their instinctual nature. Bakan in his writings mentions a notable businessman Robert Monks who compares the corporation to a shark. Essentially, Monks discusses how a corporation is prone to make externalities because it is built and set up to do so, just like a shark is a killing machine. It is in both the corporation and the shark’s nature to do what it is intended to do, there is nothing wrong with either of the two actions. It is basically a law of the land. Thus, it can be said that corporations cannot be said to act socially responsible. A socially responsible corporation is an oxymoron. This point is reverberated by both Friedman and Bakan. Friedman points how corporations cannot be socially responsible as their distinct structure and operations prohibits them from doing so. While, Bakan gives specific examples of how corporations choose profits over acting in the socially responsible manner. Both give an interesting overall depiction of the