Freeman vs Friedman

Edward Freemans Managing for stakeholders was an interesting endurance which clearly defined several(prenominal) possible stakeholders for a argumentation, primary and secondary, and how important each one is to the excerption of the business as is the survival of the business to their survival. Customers, bankers, financiers, employees, and suppliers are all stakeholders. The selection stressed how important it was for the executive of a given corporation to deem the skill set to manage the relationship between the stakeholders and the corporation to require value for all over time.My personal reaction to the article was a positive one in the sense that it was a clear sum and made sense. However, I feel the article was repetitive and a diminutive too drawn place. I realize the importance of the examples and the different perspectives of managing stakeholders and displace yourself in their position. I learned a lot from this article, but it became sluggish in the last seven pages. Milton Friedmans article went into grave flesh out the social responsibilities of an individual vs. he social responsibilities of a business. He also explained the duties of the businessman legislator, executive, and the jurist. He couldnt understand how some businessman could be so clear headed regarding matters internal to their business but so make headed in matters outside their business in matters critical to their businesss survival. According to Friedman, there is one social responsibility for a business engage in open and free competition without deception or fraud. My personal reaction to this article was that it was very difficult to read and comprehend. I had to reread the article and several sections of it several times to figure out what Friedman was trying to convey. I agree with Friedmans one social responsibility for a business. However, when compared to Freemans article, his message was much clearer and defined go against than Friedmans.