D e l Va l l e | 1

Alexes Del Valle

Professor Deadrick
ENGL 101 20452
9 December 2015
Freedom
To be an American means to be free. Free to choose to do, or not to do, what one wills
(within lawful guidelines). However, there exists an indiscernible line at which moral values
intercept those very choices. Where this line lies is debatable, for one man's good is another's
evil, as Milton Friedman says in an article written for the New York Time on the topic of the
social responsibility of businessmen. It is my belief that Friedman makes valid, and agreeable,
points in his article indicating that corporations do not hold a social responsibility for its
employees, nor its consumers (outside of the basic, clearly defined, lawful requirements).
In his article, Friedman states that in a free-enterprise, private-property system, a
corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility is
to his employers. In other words, the CEO is not the highest figure in the corporation. Instead,
the duty of the CEO is to serve as the hand of the stockholders/owners, and take on the heavier
portion of the responsibility in running the company. Essentially, his job is to execute and
deliver. Failing to fulfill his requirements would make him vulnerable to termination.
This information is frequently overlooked when people are presented with surprising,
negative insight to the way a company has been functioning. When something goes wrong,
people tend to look towards the person who runs the company (the CEO). It is often assumed that
the he is the one to blame because he holds the highest position in the corporation, however that
is usually not the case. An example of this is the Nike sweatshop scandals that broke out in the

D e l Va l l e | 2

late 1990s. The company suffered a fall in stock, and was nationally embarrassed as the scandals
were the subject of more than 1,500 news articles and opinion columns (No Logo, John Fahy)
It began with Jim Keady, an educator and activist, who started a wildfire when he exposed the
multibillion dollar company for the traitorous conditions under which their factory employees
lived and worked.
Keady was a soccer coach at St. Johns University, in New York, when he began
investigating Nike, and discovered the unfair wages that the factory employees outside of the
U.S. received. Around the same time, the University wanted to sign a contract with Nike for the
team, and Keady, to wear and promote their products. However, Jim was so greatly appalled that
he willingly accepted the consequence of being relieved of his position because he did not want
to wear or promote Nike products. He continued his investigation, and eventually decided that he
himself wanted to travel to Indonesia to work in one of Nikes factories for a month, and attempt
to live on the wage of the average employee. He documented his mission, and the discovery of
just how poor and deplorable the conditions were was eye opening not only for himself, but all
who viewed his film (the short documentary can be found on YouTube and Vimeo titled as Nike
Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh). Upon viewing the twenty minute production myself, I was
taken aback by the shocking footage of the less than humane living conditions, and the dismal
wages which pinned the workers in their poverty. It is that same emotional and mental shock in
thousands, and likely even millions, of other people that motivated them to spread awareness,
and come together to protest Nike.
Though the purpose behind the cause is certainly commendable and riotous, the person of
interest at which the attention was faced was a bit misdirected. In the documentary, Keady is
shown speaking to the CEO of Nike (Phil Knight) in an attempt to address the situation in

D e l Va l l e | 3

Indonesia, however, Knight is very dismissive. A possible reasoning behind his attempt to evade
Keadys questions is the fact that he did not have all of the answers. Though it so happens to be
that Knight, in fact, does own part of Nike, he was not the sole owner; he and his old track
coach Bill Bowerman each put up $500 to start a company called Blue Ribbon Sports. Knight
changed the name to Nike in 1978. (Forbes 400). As the CEO, he only has so much control over
what goes on in the company without the permission of the owners. And as Friedman explains,
if he makes any efforts beyond those that are required of him for example if he was to attempt
to alter economic variables he would be overstepping his bounds; [he would] be spending
someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his
"social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his
actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions
lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.
After considering these factors, the question shifts from What is the CEO doing for his
employees? to How can the owners of the corporation unanimously allow such horrific things
to take place in there company? How can they sleep at night in their multimillion dollar
mansions, while people who work for them live in slums? The blame is to be placed on the
owners, not the CEO he is just doing his job.
However, as most things in life, this subject is not as simple as it may initially seem,
though we have pinpointed the issue at hand, and narrowed down the target(s) of the blame.
Though it may seem clear that the solution to such an issue is to simply get the owners to
distribute the money more fairly, the question of fairness presents itself to us. Who is to
determine what is fair? Freidman makes another undeniable argument that attempting to force
the owners to give up a portion of their profit would be like imposing taxes. So here the question

D e l Va l l e | 4

is altered from How can we force corporate owners to be fair? to How can we appeal to the
emotions, and consciences of the corporate owners to force them to realize that they are being
unfair? That they have enough money to spear, and it would not severely deficit them to allow
their employees to make enough wages to live a dignified life In the end, it all comes down to
trying to figure out how to lessen the gap between legal minimum requirements and moral justice
without imposing on the rights of individuals. After all, altruism must come from within, it
cannot be forced. Therefore, the ultimate question becomes How do we make mankind more
human, more compassionate? How do we reduce the greed and selfishness in society?

D e l Va l l e | 5

Sources
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits; Milton Freidman; The
New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
"No Logo." Journal of Marketing; New York; Jul 2000; John Fahy [University of
Limerick, Ireland]
#17 Phil Knight; Forbes 400; Forbes.com; updated daily