"Outline the arguments for and against businesses having social responsibilities beyond that of profit. In light of this, do you think businesses should make charitable donations for tsunami appeal? Justify your answer." April 26, 2005 To better understand the nature of the question asked, I propose the detailed observation of the widespread acceptance that cooperative officials and union leaders have a "social responsibility" which extends beyond the scope of service to shareholders and its members (Friedman 1962, p. 133). The following essay aims to highlight the role of businesses, whether they should have interests other than mere profit, and if so, which groups should benefit from a company's success. According to Wilson (2004, Vol.23, p. 23 ), the nature of the existence of businesses or corporations should have “everything to do with service to society and only secondarily with profitability.” But this is entirely contrary to the seemingly antediluvian view advanced by business executives Friedman and Levitt (quoted in Wilson, 2004, Vol.23, p. 23) who emphasize that “the business of business is to make money, not sweet music.” ' So why is there discrepancy between the ideal vision of the business and the one that should have the highest priority on the shareholders or stakeholders (society). To understand both points of view we must identify the parties involved and the relationship they have with the company and business operations. A stockholder (shareholder) is one who owns or holds one or more shares of stock in a corporation, business, or organization (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition, 2005). Shareholders constitute the financial support of the organization, they are generally people interested in making a profit (in the form of dividends) and provide capital to the organization. In contrast, stakeholders are seen as any party that has an interest in an organization. A company's stakeholders include shareholders, bondholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and so on (Scott, 2003). Given the definition of both parties involved, it is clear that the company's success in making a profit will satisfy shareholders however, achieving long-term profits also requires compatibility and compliance on the part of the revenue source; the interested parties. This calls for the need for a company driven by a mission and vision that must be truly responsive to stakeholders and not just its shareholders (Wilson, 2004, Vol.23, p.23). These “social responsibilities” must however be addressed directly to the stakeholders involved with business relationships in order to fairly serve shareholders. A clear example of misdirected social contribution resulting in strong shareholder opposition was outlined when a number of Australian companies pledged to fund tsunami relief efforts in