What Are the Best Tips for Maximizing Profits?

Every economic subject has to maximize something, but because of the different entities, what is required to maximize is different. And maximizing means making the best choice within the range allowed by budget constraints.

Each

At present, domestic and foreign researchers of corporate social responsibility theory believe that companies should not pursue the pursuit of profit maximization ^[2] as the core or sole goal. Enterprises must also assume the responsibility of improving social welfare, that is, consider their customers, employees, creditors, Rights of stakeholders such as companies, financial institutions, and communities. In 1953, Howard R. Bowen proposed in his book "Social Responsibilities of Lhe Businessman" that "hundreds of large-scale enterprises in society are the core of power and decision-making. The behavior of these enterprises affects people's lives. In all aspects, then what kind of responsibility should the businessman bear to the society? And pointed out that "the businessman has the obligation to move closer to relevant policies, make corresponding decisions, and take the desired concrete actions in accordance with the goals and values expected by the society. Davis Keith (1960) was the first person to point out the relationship between social responsibility and commercial power. His definition of social responsibility is "Entrepreneurs also consider the direct economic and technical benefits of enterprises at least to a certain extent when making decisions and actions. "Extraordinary interests." Joseph W. McGuire introduced a new perspective in 1963: "The idea of social responsibility holds that companies have not only economic and legal obligations, but also social obligations beyond these obligations." Later, he pointed out that the social obligations beyond economics and laws are: companies consider policies, community welfare , Education, employee happiness, etc. of the entire society. In 1971, the United States Economic Development Commission (CED) proposed the CSR concentric circle theory, forming a three-tier concentric circle of social responsibility definition. Traditional corporate social responsibility is concentrated only in the first circle The growth of interests, and the new perspective has produced an extension. The fulfillment of social responsibility relationships does not mean a decrease in profits, but instead falls within the self-interests of enterprises. In 1975, Davis and Blomslrom in "Economy and Society: Environment and Responsibility" In the scriptures, a more clear definition of social responsibility is provided. They claim that "social responsibility refers to the obligation of policy makers to take measures to protect and promote the overall interests of society while promoting their own interests." Provided a comprehensive definition and published the "Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Responsibility", he believes that corporate social responsibility refers to: society's expectations of the economic, legal, moral and charitable responsibilities of an enterprise within a certain period of time Jones Thomas (1980) defines corporate social responsibility as the Body bears responsibility than laws and union contracts described. Chinese scholars study of corporate social responsibility started late, not a lot of theoretical research, definition of corporate social responsibility basically followed the idea of foreign social responsibility theory.

In the development of the theory of "corporate social responsibility", there are many voices of opposition. Scholars have launched extensive debates and discussions around corporate social responsibility. Opponents may clearly point out that corporate social responsibility is contrary to the essence of corporate pursuit of profit maximization, and also violates the tradition of corporate law. Representatives in this regard are Gunness and Smith; or they equate corporate social responsibility with corporate profit maximization goals. The most prominent of them is Friedman (1962), who pointed out that in a free society, enterprises have one and only one social responsibility, which is within the limits permitted by the rules of the game. Control resources, engage in various activities aimed at increasing profits, or participate in open and free economic competition without fraud.

Based on the above, we can see that corporate social responsibility theory can be divided into two main viewpoints based on the difference in the core goals or essence of the enterprise. The prevailing view is that a company should not pursue the pursuit of profit maximization as its core or sole goal. It must also consider the rights and interests of its customers, employees, creditors, suppliers, financial institutions, communities and other stakeholders; another view It is believed that the essence of an enterprise is to pursue profit maximization, and the enterprise should not bear other responsibilities. The former view caters to the changes in social development's expectations of enterprises. It believes that enterprises are the main body pursuing diversified interests, but it has a tendency to negate or weaken the nature of capital profit-seeking, especially the concept of 'corporate citizenship' and the 'corporate citizenship' Excessive personification of the business. Although corporate responsibility for social responsibility has been widely recognized, such a diversified goal is contrary to the nature of capital for profit, and it will make it difficult for companies to form clear goals and affect the formulation of corporate strategies. However, with the development of the economy and society, human rights protection is increasingly strengthened, and the negative impact of enterprises on society is increasingly apparent and serious. Therefore, it is obviously against historical development trends to blindly pursue the maximization of profits. Of course, there are some scholars who avoid the essential issues of enterprises and only focus on how enterprises should bear social responsibility.

At different stages of development, factors such as the material richness of the environment, the carrying capacity of the environment, the awareness of human rights of residents, the status of industry and commerce in society, the degree of government restraint on enterprises through laws and regulations, and the degree of market competition They are all different. In general, the products provided by enterprises are becoming more and more abundant, and some products are already buyers 'markets: the global global resources are gradually depleted and the environmental carrying capacity is deteriorating; residents' awareness of human rights is increasing; laws require more and more enterprises; The social influence of NGOs is getting bigger and bigger; the status of enterprises in society is getting higher and higher. These trends make companies have to continuously adjust their implementation strategies according to changes in their external environment when they are pursuing maximum value. Otherwise, the appreciation of corporate value will be greatly affected.