"ConclusionThe above essay has attempted to discuss perspectives of the ongoing debate ontwo schools of thought of CSR and attempts to answer the broad question i.e.which one is preferable over the other. Supporting Friedman’s view the most captivating notion is the principal-agentrelationship between shareholders and managers i.e. philanthropy can be doneonly based on economic or ethical reasons. But, he can be probed over themagnitude of ethical obligation i.e. avoidance of deception and fraud isunquestionably essential however, inadequate to match their critical part insociety. The above case study reveals the perils intricate with such a viewpoint andthe damage that might be consequent to such a narrow perspective.Thus, neo-classical perspective on corporate philanthropy (accompanied withoutthe shareholders’ approval) has strength, though ethical constrictions, althoughindispensable, are inadequate for firms to appropriately satisfy its duties towardthe society. This is to say businesses can be called “socially responsible” only whenthey are fulfilling legal, economic and ethical obligations (i.e., beyond Friedman’sethical restrictions).Therefore,an approach with a rational synthesis between thetwo perspectives is recommended.This debate is an ongoing and an important one as each one i.e. manager, CEO etc.should be aware of their own CSR perspective for the reason it would shape andPAGE 14 influence the firms’ policies etc. affecting the shareholder in narrow sense and thesociety at large.BibliographyBarrett, D. & Ballou, D., 2003. Heineken NV: Workplace HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. HarvardBusiness School Case, pp. 09-63.Buchholz, R., 1991. Corporate responsibility and the good society:From economics to ecology.Business Horizons, Issue July/August, pp. 19-31.Davis, K., 1975. Five propositions for social responsibility. Business Horizons, 18(3), pp. 19-24.Fleming, P. Z. S., 2008. The escalation of deception in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,Volume 81, pp. 837-850.Fourcade, M. & Healy, K., 2007. Moral Views of Market Society. Annual Review of Sociology, Volume33, pp. 285-311.Freeman, I. & Hasnaoui, A., 2011. The Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Vision ofFour Nations. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 420-443.Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Friedman, M., 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York TimesMagazine, p. 126.Gioia, D., 1992. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 11(5), pp. 379-390.International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2004. Perceptions and definitions of socialresponsibility. [Online] Available at: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/standards_definitions.pdf[Accessed 25 03 2016].International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2004. Perceptions and definitions of socialresponsibility. [Online] Available at: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/standards_definitions.pdf[Accessed 28 03 2016].Kirkton, J. J. & Trebilcock, M., 2004. Hard choices, soft law: Voluntary standards in global trade,environment and social governance. Burlington: Ashgate.Knippenberg, L. & De Jong, E., 2010. Moralising the Market by Moralising the Firm. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Issue 96, pp. 17-31.Levitt, T., 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5), pp. 41-50.PAGE 15 Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A. & Walsh, J. P., 2007. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis andredirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance.Cambridge: Harvard Business School.Mulligan, T., 1986. A critique of Milton Friedman’s essay 'The social responsibility of business is toincrease its profits'. Journal of Business, 5(4), pp. 265-269.Oberholzer-Gee, F., 2007. UBS and climate change: Warming up to global action. Harvard BusinessSchool Case, pp. 511-525.Schwartz, M., 2005. Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,59(1), pp. 27-44.Smith, A., 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen& Co. Ltd.Waddock, S., 2004. Creating Corporate Accountability:Foundational Principles to Make CorporateCitizenship Real. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), pp. 1-15.Wells, C., 2013. ‘Corporations Law is Dead’: Heroic managerialism, the cold war, and the puzzle ofcorporation law at the height of the American Century. Journal Business Law Review, 15(2), pp. 234- 258.PAGE 16 "