When Wal-Mart tried to establish one of its Superstores in Rosemead, CA, its Corporate social responsibilities are questioned when the company is met with heavy opposition. With the opening of the new Wal-Mart in Rosemead there are groups of people that will gain and groups of people that will lose. This paper will analyze, using John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian reasoning of “the greatest good for the greatest number” and theory of social responsibility by Milton Friedman, whether providing low cost merchandise to the masses outweigh consequences of the expansion of Wal-Mart into the residential city of Rosemead.
The groups that stand to lose the most with the introduction of the Wal-Mart store in It could be seen as a “tax” if the company raised prices to give benefits to employees and would not be responsible to its shareholders if it were to reduce profits for employee benefits. Friedman states that the responsibly of business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profit so long as it stays within the rules of the game”.
Another major complaint for the introduction of Wal-Mart was traffic, noise and pollution. Lillian Sacco explained “traffic gridlock, diesel delivery trucks, noise pollution, air pollution threatening sensitive receptors of the school children, elderly citizens, et cetra”. The Environmental Impact Review (EIR) is a piece of tool that determines the impact of business on the environment and community. Wal-Mart has been in accordance with the EIR, installing sound wall and traffic lights as deemed necessary. Though the impact of Wal-Mart was significant to the residential community of Rosemead, the benefits of low cost to its demographics and revenue to the city of Rosemead far outweigh the worries and complaints of few residents.
So as we can see, there is a clear divide of people who will benefit and people who will lose with the introduction of Wal-Mart in Rosemead. Jobs will be created, city revenue will be created, low income shoppers will benefit from
