However, I do not believe that a company adhering to social responsibility in any way is bad and that it should not do so. I understand and respect that shareholders invest in a company for the primary purpose of making more money, and that the issue of spending shareholder money on things that don't directly generate profits can get a little dicey. But I think this falls somewhat along the lines of the saying “You have to spend money to make money”, arguing that any contribution to social responsibility made by the company is aimed at benefiting the company, and who gets to decide this, you may ask? Thomas Mulligan states that "if socially responsible action is on the agenda of corporate executives, then it is there because the company's mission, objectives and goals developed by key stakeholders have given them the license to put them there and have provided the parameters for his program" is not exactly the clearest statement, but essentially what he is looking for today is for that executive to be elected into his position by shareholders, and if social responsibility is in his job description that he has the knowledge and 'authority to do this kind of