"A characteristic of this standpoint is the notion that economic autonomy isn’t aclose in itself but leads to political liberty i.e. “capital makes you free” (Fourcade &Healy, 2007). Actual and unhindered economic rivalry is the finest guard tocounter to the government and the concentration of economic power in the handsof a few (Fourcade & Healy, 2007) i.e. to say underprivileged with an access to cashcan begin to grow rich while rich would remain rich only if they are competitiveand remain in the game.Adam Smith further argued that the economy, amends and corrects itself, whenactually free, gets conscious of an impartial distribution by generating a steadygrowth in demand and supplyand promises a continuous development in thequality of the products and services benefiting society as a whole(Smith, 1776).Though the notion of ethical principles need not be necessary or required tocorrect the market flaws, or make a just dissemination of the benefits iscontestable (Knippenberg & De Jong, 2010).THE CRITICAL FACTORSIt can be seen that Friedman was in favor of ‘maximizing’ the profits than merelymaking a profit though being ‘within the game of rules’ i.e. to say businesses canpollute legally as much they want presuming it to be money minting alternative(Friedman, 1962).PAGE 5 Further, he assumed that the stakeholders’ desires in general would be to make asmuch money as possible (Friedman, 1970), which in today’s world might not holdtrue as the business’ priority might not be to maximize profits but focus on qualityetc. resulting into long term sustainability. But he argues that since the managersare the ones paid and hired as the financial agents by the stakeholders (Principal)in order to maximize the wealth of stakeholders and thus, spending their moneywhich does not serve this purpose is, according to him, a kind of ‘unauthorized tax’on them (Friedman, 1962). Further, stakeholders and/or managers are entitled tospend on charity out of their own money rather than that of firms’. Example: Itwould be acceptable if Bill Gates decide to spend millions of his dollars from hispersonal wealth rather than from the company (Microsoft) he owns.Additionally, he restricts the profit maximization goal by placing limits such as tofollow the laws, avoid fraud and deception etc. which are inherent in any business.None would argue for making profits by breaking the law etc.Further, even if thelegal system doesn’t capture the deception and fraud, it still wouldn’t beconsidered to be acceptable given that firms have a responsibility to operate in anhonest manner (Fleming, 2008). Further, he argues that the firm can spend on the CSR initiatives only if it creates afinancial value of the firm and increase the wealth of his shareholders. But, if anycompany engages itself and resources to feed its own self-interest while showingitself to be socially responsible, then this cloak may violate the his prevention forPAGE 6 fraud and deception. Margolis et al, have established a small but positivecorrelation between CSR and corporate financial performance (Margolis, et al.,2007).Thus the efforts to define and implement CSR have been hampered by thisperspective, further aggravated by the issue of defining the precise nature andlimits of the theoretical ethical conventions. PAGE 7 "