Comparing Social Welfare Systems: UK and Germany

Comparing tender Welf atomic play 18 Systems UK and Ger m slightly(prenominal) a nonher(prenominal)This composing volition search to comp argon the mixer well up-disposed offbeat arrangements of England and Ger galore(postnominal) with regard to how they cater for the fourth dimension-honored. The w al geniuspaper pass oning approach the issue by firstly discussing the theoretical at a lower placepinnings of the upbeat enounce in both England and Germany. This initial theoretical analysis is important because it sets the origination to understand the charge in which mixer wellbeing indemnity policy in both countries approach shell out of the senior(a). The paper leave alone then give a comparative analysis of the good issues affecting the old such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as national insurance, antique attending, reward provisions, wellness sustentation and forgeer(a) pertinent vari fitteds. This comparison ordain then s eek to establish defining characteristics of distri onlyively vex towards gray flush. whizz of the nearly prolific academic expositions on benefit arrangements and their ideological frame go aways father from Epsing-Anderson1 who impaleulated that there argon trinity distinct regimes of wel furtherthermoste formations. These he identified as Liberal, Corporatist and Social Democratic. deep down this model, he located Germany as a Corporatist- Conservative regime and the linked kingdom as a Liberal welf ar regime. Nevertheless(prenominal), despite lay out how wel furthergon demesnes perk up developed and set up be characterized under these deuce-ace trajectories, Epsing-Anderson maintains that the welfare state lav non be regarded as the sum total of neighborly policies, it is much than a numerical cumulation of discrete programmes.2 With this in mind, the paper allow for now consider the theoretical underpinnings of Germany as a Corporatist-Conservative reg ime.Germany maintains a welfare system that is usu wholey classified as the classical Bismarckian welfare state. This intimates that the welfare system in Germany is structured among class and occupational lines and after a high storey of stratification, along the lines of market recrudesceicipation exists. The state, kinda than the market, is the most important agency in the delivery of welfare and benefits are nominated through a network of reality, quasi exoteric, orphic and voluntary organisations.3 The German welfare state is characterized by a dominance of mandatory genial insurance schemes such as health, unemployment, subsidys, disability and long care. These schemes are preponderantly contri stillion based benefits with the state partly contributing to public bounty schemes, unemployment insurance and tender help oneselfer.An a nonher(prenominal) feature of the German conservative welfare system is that it ascribes the male breadwinner model with significant cor rections. It is steeped in the tender policy dictates of Catholicism and this is demonstrated by a commitment to the preservation of stipulation distinguishableials4 by emphasising self-help and to the preservation of a traditional family model. Womens benefits are inextricably linked to their spouse, which in modern twenty-four hour period fraternity, places women at a harm because they whitethorn build spent years caring for elderly relatives, or childrearing and widows pensions are inherently low.5However, the German welfare state has had to adapt to the untested realties of modern society where more women are remaining single, divorce judge are higher and individuals grant to work for much longer. The oft exercise early retirement feature of the German welfare state has in any case seen adjustments as families, curiously women now need to reconcile salaried work commitments along with duties towards their loved ones in order to ensure a level-headed well-worn of financial support in todays market direct economy.6 These changes throw off had an effect on how elderly care is administered and ordered inside the German welfare sate. Before the issue of care for the elderly with the German welfare state model is explored, the paper will now realize the characteristics of the UK welfare state.Converse to the German corporatist-conservative welfare state model, the United Kingdom is largely been historically characterized as an example of a liberal welfare model. However as Epsing-Anderson express earlier, no one regime is a pure typology, instead they are usually a hybrid drop a penny albeit with an overarching ideology. Modern day societies demand that so called welfare regimes undergo virtual(a) shifts to adjust to social, political and sparing shifts. In light of these changes the UK welfare system is viewed as a liberal socialist welfare system.Firstly, the welfare system in the UK places a distinct emphasis on market-based social in surance and it uses of means-testing for the fair distribution of benefits. It regards as fair the distribution of more benefits to the scant(p) or under attack(predicate) who are viewed as more deserving. In this regard, welfare is point towards a class of the poor dependent or what is called the oddment welfare state. The consequence of this is that, there is a low stage of de-commodification, meaning, benefits are limited and stigmatised by the general populace as the model assumes that high levels of benefit will reduce incentives to work. A high degree of stratification exists at bottom the UK welfare state, wherein, the state plays an combat-ready role in social relations.One of the factors regarding the classification of the UK as a liberal social democratic welfare state regime is the existence of in-kind go such as unload health care which is delivered through the subject field wellness Service (NHS) and the prevalence of subsidised social housing to vulnerable r adicals, such as the elderly, single parents and the homeless.One of the most impacting changes within the liberal social democratic social welfare regime of the UK was pension reform in the 1980s. These reforms saw the government caterpillar trackting back on contributions that were earnings desire to retirement incomes and the heightened encouragement of private schemes as a obligatory supplement. many employers took advantage of the newborn low regulations on pension schemes and did not stand sufficient coverage comely for a decent retirement standard of living and quality of life.7 Subsequently, the UK government has not been able to negotiate adequate pension conditions with private employers on behalf of workers. All these changes within the liberal oriented UK welfare state model necessitates the discussion on how the elderly is affected.The aforementioned(prenominal) discussion on the typology of the welfare state in both Germany and the UK was necessary to this paper , as it sets the stage to understand how the elderly are treated within these two ideological frameworks. It overly allows for an analysis on how modern day society has altered or shifted these ideological welfare state positions. To this end, the paper will now consider the comparative analysis with a revolve about on the various(a) modes of care and policies towards the elderly in both Germany and the UK.One of the most important modes of care for the elderly is the provision of good health care. In societies where younger children absorb had to buy into active participation in a market based economy, the elderly begets a particularly vulnerable group. Wegner explains this aptly when he statesThe absence of supportive health and social services con aids to several(prenominal) important problems (1) the quality of care whitethorn fall swindle of adequate standards, resulting in instances neglect or abuse (2) the strain of care giving places caregivers themselves at insecurit y for many health problems and (3) the heavy lode falling on a single caregiver sluicetually results in a spaciouser reliance on innovational care than may be necessary.8Germanys historically conservative welfare state ideology, hardened that the family should be the main care-giver and support system for the elderly. However, with the elderly population living alone in Germany is the highest in the OECD and the European Union. Sensing that this tend would gift been inevitable, Germany launched a long term care insurance scheme in 1994 which targeted the elderly. This scheme functions on a afford as you go stand and is strictly aimed at those in need of social assistance.9 It is financed through earmarked social insurance contributions and organized as a separate branch of social insurance.10 Some features of the scheme are community based care, requital to caregivers and nursing homes, home modifications, soulfulnessal assistance and general household assistance. In seve ral(prenominal) instance, the elderly are also covered under the states accident and pension insurance schemes.Interestingly, Taylor-Gooby11 notes that space was still chip in to nurse conservative time values with the introduction of the long-term care assistance as legislation such as cash reimbursement without any form of monitoring to encourage family supported care giving formulas.In contrast, the elderly in the UK receive completely free health care under the statutory National Health Service which is free to all citizens post World War II. However, as previously discussed, the UK underwent serious cutbacks in pension provisions in the 1980s and this has placed a significant number of retirement age pensioners at risk of poverty. furthermore, the government also cut back in the number of public beds available for care in hospitals. This has in more or less(a) ways encouraged caregiving from family members for the elderly, but like Germany, may younger family members have to reconcile paid employment with their desire to care for their loved ones. This has placed considerable strain on the NHS as the elderly suffer many injuries from largely having to care for themselves. The strain on the NHS reached such a crescendo that some doctors even recommended not treating the very old.12 The NHS has come under great criticism for its treatment of the elderly,13 consequently the government, is trying to carry through the goals of its 10 year plan to reform care of the elderly in the UK which is documented in the National Service Framework for Older People. The reexamination report life-time Well into Later Life14 recommended that the NHS needed to do more to encourage wellbeing and active ageing among the elderly. Specifically, while the NHS system is fraught with irregularities, vulnerable persons such as the elderly are progressively being given more attention within the UK welfare state, with appeals for more state intervention, as opposed to the clo sed family oriented model of Germany. lodgement is an early(a) important issue for the elderly. In Germany, the tradition of home care has affected the number of elderly persons who leave the home environment for care. notwithstanding 4% of the over 65 year old age group live in a nursing home or other forms of institutional care, despite the high number of elderly Germans living alone.15 oft of these attitudes towards institutional care are grounded in German legislation as the constitution is based on the principle of subsidiarity whereby indebtedness for welfare needs rests squarely with families, then local or federal authorities, that order.16The German long term care insurance pays for personal care, medical help and social care17 in a nursing institution for the elderly save when familial help is no longer possible. It repeals paying for accommodation and subsistence termss and the total payment does not exceed 75 share of the total terms.. Dallinger maintains that h ousing for the elderly in Germany is usually pick upd along social class lines.18 She makes this assertion because the higher and middle class are usually financially able to employ paid care or help for their elderly family members and hence institutional care is usually exclusively sought by those who cannot afford such care. Nonetheless, Dallinger points out that the annex of German women entering the labour market has necessitated a greater demand on the need for the elderly to rely on the welfare state for care assistance, since younger women were the traditional caregivers.Housing for the elderly in the UK suffers similar challenges as younger family members do not have the time to care for their elderly relatives because of the gradual individualization of the society. This places the elderly at risk of social animadversion and being marginalized within modern day Britain. Consequently, the government has reduced the cost of housing council tax for the elderly and has g ived them additionally benefits such as free transportation to encourage them to remain at home, while fostering active lives. Additionally, the Living Well into Later Life inspection report run aground a renewed push by the government to encourage elderly persons to stay in their own homes by providing them with paid personal caregivers. Furthermore an outreach group called Supporting People was actively advocating for the building of more provide housing facilities for the elderly.19 However, it is appropriate to say that the issue of elderly housing in the UK receives more state intervention and welfare services than it does in Germany.This paper previously discussed how state cutbacks on pensions in the UK have placed the elderly in a particularly vulnerable retirement position. The UK now sees a pension scenario where those who are better off financially are able to buy into private pension schemes, and those who cannot afford have to rely on what is now a diminishing pensio n re let gos at retirement via the state. Furthermore, many individuals who were advised by pension salesmen, bought into private schemes yet saw their constitutional pension investments diminish in the mid to late 90s when many private companies went bust because of being unregulated.20Taylor-Gooby asserts that in Germany, retirement income which traditionally came from public pensions, has seen a shift since a 2001 pension reform opening move in the state.21 The German state has moved towards provision of a garland of public-private pension scheme, along with great encouragement to citizens that public pensions will not suffice pre-retirement standard of living, thus plugging supplementary private schemes. Noting the failure of such schemes in the UK in the 90s, Germany has sought to have stricter regulations on private pension providers. Furthermore, in line with its conservative ideology, women are given pension credits under the German welfare scheme for time interpreted off work for childrearing.It is therefore conclusive to say that while the UK and Germany have ideologically divers(prenominal) perspectives on how their welfare state is structured, both countries have had to adapt to socio-stinting changes within their societies and aim to provide better care for the elderly. The pressures of a rapidly aging population, the individualization of both societies has ca apply the elderly population to plump increasingly isolated and at risk of being severely socially excluded and marginalized. Consequently social policies that inform traditional welfare states have become more pragmatic in their approaches while still trying to retain their ideological perspectives.BibliographyAlber, J. (1996) The Debate about Long Term Care renew in Germany, in OECD (ed.) Caring for Frail remote People Policies in Evolution. Social Policy Studies, No. 19, pp. 261-278.Dallinger, U. (2002) Elderly Care in the Family in Germany. Paper contributed to COST 13A Meeting in Copenhagen, Friday 19. April 2002. Accessed on October 20, 2008 at http//www.socsci.auc.dk/cost/gender/Workingpapers/UrsulaDallinger.pdfDonnelly, L., (September. 26, 2008) Dont Treat the Old and Unhealthy says Doctors. The Telegraph. London. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.htmlEsping-Andersen, G. (1994) Welfare States and the Economy, in N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds) The Handbook of sparing Sociology, pp. 71132. new York Princeton University PressEsping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Oxford Polity Press.Goode commissioning (1994) Pensions practice of law Reform. Cm 2342-1, HMSO.Laurance, J. (March 27, 2006) The Great Betrayal How the NHS Fails the Elderly. The Independent. London. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at http//www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-great-betrayal-how-the-nhs-fails-the-elderly-471635.htmlLiving Well into Later Life A Review of Progress Against the National Service Framework for Older People. Audit Commission. Audit Commission. UK. Accessed on October 21, 2008 at http//www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/4C4C40BE-6383-40E0-8B26-48D7FAF39A56/HCC_older%20PeopleREP.pdfSolsten, E. ed. (1995) Germany A Country Study. Washington GPO for the Library of Congress. Accessed on October 19, 2008 at http//countrystudies.us/germany/111.htmTaylor-Gooby, P. (2004) New Risks, New Welfare The Transformation of the European Welfare State. Oxford Oxford University Press.Wegner, E. (2001) Restructuring Care for the Elderly in Germany. Current Sociology. Vol. 49(3) pp. 175-1881Footnotes1 Epsing-Anderson, G. (1990)2 Epsing-Anderson, G. (1994) pp. 711-323 Solsten, E. (1995) Accessed at http//countrystudies.us/germany/111.htm4 Epsing-Anderson, G. (1990)5 Solsten, E. (1995) Accessed at http//countrystudies.us/germany/111.htm6 Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 317 Goode Committee (1994)8 Wegner , Eldon. (2001) p.29 ibid.10 Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 4211 Ibid., p.4012 Donelly, The Telegraph (Sept 26, 2008) Accessed at http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.html13 Laurance, J. The Independent (March 27, 2006) Accessed at http//www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-great-betrayal-how-the-nhs-fails-the-elderly-471635.html14 Living Well Into Later Life. Accessed at http//www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/4C4C40BE-6383-40E0-8B26-48D7FAF39A56/HCC_older%20PeopleREP.pdf15 Dallinger, U. (2002) p.216 Alber. J (1996) p.26417 Wegner, E. (2001) p. clxxx18 Dallinger, U. (2002) p. 319 Living Well Into Later Life. Op. cit. p. 6820 Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004) p. 6121 Ibid. p.35Social duty, maximising internet?Social tariff, maximising meshings?In his article The Social Responsibility of calling is to Increase its Profits (1970), Milton Friedman, the Nobel laureate in economics, argued f or what was summed up in the title of his article the social accountability of byplayes is simply and bushelly to maximise gain groundsIn the following, different arguments for and against Milton Friedmans avowal will be devoteed and criticized. The inherent theories and principles will be presented as far as needed in order to discuss the extent to which this line is true.Milton Freidman starts his famous article by describing the claim for a social debt instrument of tune by a pure and unadulterated socialism. For him, stating that backing has a office is looseness and drops rigour. A accompany is only an artificial person and can not have responsibilities like an individual can.In this regard, only people in an organization, which means only the individual proprietors or the corporeal executives, can have any social or moral righteousness.The buss of a company have a legal responsibility to manage the company in the best interests of the stockholders. As those sha reholders first interest in expend their funds in a blood organisation is to increase their wealth, then the managers sole responsibility is to maximize the profits for their shareholders. It is the legal and moral obligation of the managers to thin out solely on serving their employers best interest, which means increasing profit.If the managers or the shareholders feel the need to fulfil any moral, social or good duties, they may very well devote some of their incomes or time to such activities. They are in doing so acting as a principal, not an agent. They are spending their own money and time, not those of the potentiometer they are working for and those of its shareholders.If an executive or a manager is fulfilling any social responsibility, this means that he will act in a way that is not in the primary interest of his employer, or worse, that is violating his duty of maximizing the profit.Any money or time that is spent by an executive in any kind of social action wil l not be spent to increase the shareholders wealth, to reduce prices or to increase take. therefore, this executive is spending someone elses money, the shareholders, the customers or the employees.Furthermore, in doing so, the manager is really imposing a tax to the shareholders, the customers and the employees. He is also deciding on how those tax proceeds are to be spent.This is for Freidman a governmental function.In doing so, executives are, as per Freidman, simultaneously legislators, executives and, jurists. They become what Freidman calls public employees, civil servants even though they are employees of a private corporation.It is therefore the governments responsibility to apply taxes and determine the expenditures to be spent by any and all disdaines in social activities.Freidman also recognizes that some businesses tycoon act socially, contribute to charities or provide amenities. This can be described hypocritically by social responsibility or social actions. The real and hidden reason for businesses in doing so is to gain a long-term profit from such actions, like attracting desirable employees, reduction wage bill or tax proceeds.To summarize his thoughts and in his tribute to an humorl free-market, Freidman look ats that no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no social responsibilities in any feel other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. Some others do believe, all the akin way, that the sole responsibility of a company is to compete to maximize profit. Adam Smith (As account by The Economist, 2005) believes that benevolence is not necessary to distribute the public interest. Rather, opportunism and profit-seeking is what brings humans to accomplish things, produce goods and services and thus benefit eac h others. It is false to think that profit-seeking fails to serve and advance the public interest, and that something else needs to be given back to the society to compensate for this profit-seeking.Keith Davis (1973) advances several arguments against the so called integrated Social Responsibility. First of all, as per Freidman, the business function is an economic one, and the manager is the agent of the stockholders and has thus to maximize their profits.The second argument given by Davis is the costs of the social involvement. Indeed, many social goals do not have any economic outcome. Any business mustiness spend with great caution its scarce resources, although sometimes very substantial, or it will rather or later cause financial distress. Indeed, scarce resources will never self-renew, and must thus be spent in a way that guarantees at the minimum their recovery, if not gaining some premium.The author here cites some example metal pitchries which could not meet the high costs of new pollution equipment and closed their doors.Another argument advanced by Davis is the lack of social skills of many businessmen. The author questions whether those businessmen, who are experts at generating profit, are well qualified to deal with social and public interests.Keith Davis also presents the argument of the dilution of the business primary purpose. A business involvement in social activities might dilute its primary focus on economic productivity, divide the interests of its leaders, and neutralize business in the market place, with the results that it would accomplish poorly both its economic and its social roles.Furthermore, if a business spends resources in social programs, then these resources must be recovered, generally by increasing prices to the final consumer. In the same manner, if spending in social activities reduces the business productivity, this leads to higher production costs. If the business is operating in international markets with other firms that do not have to support such additional costs, the socially trustworthy ones will have a competitive disadvantage.Another argument is that the businesses that would support social activities will have additional social power. Davis states that business is one of the two or three most powerful institutions in society at the present time, giving extra social responsibilities to the business would result in an lush concentration of power which will reduce the viability of our free society.In addition, Davis believes that although some people want businesses to be more responsible and socially involved, some dont. This lack of agreement among the public may result in a lack of broad support for the businesses and thus social frictions and disagreements.Finally, one of the most relevant arguments given by Keith Davis is probably the fact that businessmen are not accountable to people, but only to their stockholders. It should therefore be unwise to give them responsibility in areas where they are not accountableThis idea of non-accountability of businessmen and managers is also used by Michael C. Jensen (2002). Jensen criticizes the stakeholder guess as say by Freeman (1984), Clarkson Principles (1999) and others because it contains no conceptual specification of how to make the tradeoffs among stakeholders that must be make. This makes the theory damaging to firms and to social welfare. According to Freedman, as stated by Jensen (p. 254), The definition of stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organizations purpose. This includes shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers, but also the people who might be affected directly or indirectly by the companys business, through for example the damages to the environment, the layoffs, the corruption etc. Adopting the stakeholder theory brings businesses to be socially responsible.Jensen states that the managers who adopt this stakeholder theory wi ll do what they want, spend the business money in social or other activities which are of no interest to the business or to the stakeholders, and will not be accountable for that.He thinks that the stakeholder theory must be inline with the long-term documentary of value maximization. Only by keeping in mind that the value needs to be maximized that managers will find the good trade-offs between the different stakeholders.In a less extreme position than Freidman and the other authors cited above, Patrick Primeaux and commode Stieber (1994), as well as Josie fisher (2004) believe that social responsibility and long-term profit are not incompatible, and that being socially responsible could be converted into business opportunities. Orlitzky (2003), Russo and Fouts (1997) and Waddock and Graves (1997) (as cited by Husted and Salazar, 2006, p. 75) even give that corporate social performance has a positive impact on the firms financial performanceHowever, several different researches employed a garland of theories and methodologies to study the potential relationship between corporate social responsibility activities and other traditional placards of a firms success (Mahoney and Roberts, 2007). The results are confusing.Rim Makni, Claude Francoeur and Franois Bellavance (2009) found in their study that socially responsible firms experience lower profits and reduced shareholder wealth, which in turn limits the socially responsible investments.Bryan W. Husted and Jos de deliverer Salazar (2006) state on their side, that a business can not make maximum profit while investing in social responsibility activities. Rather, great overall social and financial output can be achieved only when businesses adopt a strategic approach, than an altruistic approach.Kant would have argued that even if the outcomes of such businesses actions might be beneficial to the society, the intention of those businesses is bad in the first place. As far as people are used as a means for t hose businesses to maximize their own profit, they are not ethical.All of the above are arguments that tend to support Freidmans theory, which in turn states that a business must concentrate on maximizing profit. The less extreme approaches suppose that it is possible to conciliate social activities and profit maximization, but the latter must remain the primary goal of any business.Keith Davis, in his call for a social responsibility of businesses, puts forward the arguments that acting socially would serve the long-run self-interest of the business, enhance the public image and the viability of the business, avoid any government regulation, serve the stockholders interest and prevent any in store(predicate) social problems, thus before all maximizing the long-term profit for the shareholders.The whole issue of morals and business morality is a composite plant one. Companies are made up of people. Multinationals are made up of many different nationalities. Several opponents to Freidmans theory do believe that businesses are part of society and as such they should reflect society averages. Companies, especially transnational ones, do have responsibilities in the world and have to be a positive influence. If a company is not ethical, then it will not survive as a company.Marjorie Kelly believes that maximizing profit and returns to shareholders isnt a allow mandate. Indeed, she argues that the shareholders are in effect not financing the public corporations. The money that a shareholder invests in a public company does not go to the company itself but rather to other speculators. Such investments go to the public corporation only when new common stock is sold, which is a rare event. Actually only the founders, entrepreneurs and initial investors are bearing the risk associated with a business. 99% of the money which is invested further on in those companies goes to the pilot burner investors and not to the company. So in effect, an established business is not acquire any money from the shareholders, who are rather exchanging their stocks and gambling on several fields. They are thus not the legitimate owners or funders of the business which in turn does not have to care about their desires more than those of other stakeholders and the community in general.Freidman, in his argumentation, states that only individuals in a business can have moral responsibility, but every business is made up of the decisions freely taken and approved collectively. The responsibility in such a decision process is thus not reduced to an individual, but rather it is a collective and shared responsibility among all the individuals who develop a business. As soon as the decisions are freely chosen and approved by the collection of individuals who run the business, they are all responsible for the outcomes of those decisions and are subject to moral evaluation.Furthermore, by seeking solely the profit maximization, some managers might allow or induce acti ons which may be illegal but are for sure immoral, like aggressive merchandising techniques or untrue publicity. They are, for this, acting in an immoral way and are responsible for that.Social responsibility refers to the obligations businesses have toward society. These are obligations that ought to be action which indicates a normative use of the term (Josie Fisher, 2004). The author opposes to the classical economic view of Freidman and Levitt, the socioeconomic view that offers a broader account of social responsibility. Business has obligations that go beyond pursuing profits and include protecting and meliorate society. Boatright (2000), as cited by Fisher (2004, p.396), goes on to say that by price reduction businesses must be willing to forgo a certain measure of profit in order to achieve noneconomic ends. Backman, also cited by Fisher (2004, p396), identified some examples of corporate social responsibility Employment of nonage groups, reduction in pollution, greater participation in programs to improve the community, meliorate medical care, improved industrial health and safety.The social responsibility of a business is then to comply with the behaviours and norms that society expects business to follow. This focus on the socioeconomic view is a normative talk over, as it emphasizes how society believes business ought to behave.Several studies and researches have been conducted in the last decades on the business ethics and on how companies ought to behave. Those studies concentrate on three main subjects inherent to todays business The globalization, the sustainability and the stakeholder theory presented earlier.Indeed, in upstart times, multinational companies have grown rapidly and are yielding an excessive power. Those firms have also invaded multiple countries and cultures and are having an excessive economic and political power especially in little and poorer countries. They therefore are now responsible for their actions that might greatly impact such countries. Taking benefit of the poorness of local population to practice low wages or employ children is for sure a socially irresponsible action of those businesses.The second concept that has been studied in the recent ethics researches is sustainability. The sustainability is about the long-term effect of any business (or other) unconscious process on any external factor like environment. As a matter of intergenerational equity, it is the businesses responsibility to consider the effects of their activities on the natural resources and the society and to repair any damages that can affect the future generations rights and equity. It is therefore the businesses responsibility to act sustainably.The third concept is the stakeholder theory, which has been presented earlier. The normative discourse of business ethics states that businesses ought to take into account the interests of all stakeholder groups.The different arguments presented so far range from those supporting Freidmans statement that any business social responsibility is to solely maximize the profits to the shareholders, those who support that a business can and has the duty to be socially responsible and try to advance the public good as far as this will have a beneficial impact on the long-run value and profits of the company, and lastly those arguments supporting that any business ought to act socially, sustainably, invest in programmes that benefit the public interest, and be morally responsible for the outcomes of its operations. The supporters of this last view believe that businesses have to adapt their objectives, from solely financial, to a higher level which is all of the stakeholders, the public, the environment and the future generations interest.The latter arguments are therefore normative, and do provide a view about what business ought to be. This is the aim of the business ethics philosophy.From a more practical point of view, and considering how the companie s are acting in todays world, it is true that many of them are advocates and practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility. Many CEOs, especially in Europe, are convinced that basic capitalism fails to serve the public interest, and are promoting moral and socially responsible actions in their companies, like treating employees well, advance loyalty among customers and suppliers, avoiding any investment in unethical markets or countries that pay low wages and employ children, saving energy and recycling.However, no one doubts that this is not a standard yet. Social responsibility is not the norm today, and although some practitioners of Corporate Social Responsibility are getting some benefit, like a good public image, many of them are disfavour because of such social investments that some competitors do not support.Also, in the style of social responsibility, some multinational companies stopped their investments in poor countries where wages are very low. This is having a ne gative impact on those countries interested that would have benefited from those investments.It is the aim of the business ethics discipline to study and appoint what businesses ought to do and how they ought to behave. But I do think that it is the role of the governments to impose some basic moral principles and behaviours that must be respected by each and every business. Businessmen ought to behave morally but they will never all do so. A critical morality of moralities or a Metaethics has to be imposed by a higher institution governments- in order to guarantee the basis for equity.ConclusionIn this work, different arguments for and against the 40-year old but still so famous statement of Milton Friedman that The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits have been presented and discussed. The normative discourse stating how business ought to behave is for sure morally and ethically against this statement and its arguments will sound both moral and logical fo r any mind.However, reality is far from the moral ideal. In my opinion, it is the governments responsibility to impose a minimum ethical code to be respected by businesses and individuals to guarantee the equity of rights and advance the public interest.