Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Business Analysis of Dayton Hudson Corporation Case Analysis of Dayton Hudson Corporation Case In the case of Dayton Hudson Corporation, the company fell into a situation of a hostile takeover attempted by the Dart Group in 1987. At that time, Kenneth Macke was the CEO of the Dayton Hudson Corporation and sternly disagreed with letting the company fall into the hands of the Haft’s. Macke’s decision on what could be done to terminate the takeover turned the circumstances over to the hands of the state of Minnesota where Dayton Hudson’s headquarters resided. Macke requested a special session of the legislature to revisit the Minnesota corporate takeovers statute. This proved to work in Dayton Hudson’s favor and a statute was enacted that left the decision of a takeover up to the Board of Directors of the company. The actions that were taken by Kenneth Macke to assist the company with the their takeover situation were an example of how business relies on the government to be responsible for social issues. When pleading their (DHC) case to the governor, Dayton Hudson made sure to make know all of the contributions that they have made to the community and how they have provided safe and secure jobs for its residents. They claimed that if they were to be taken over, the Haft’s would probably break up the company and sell it off to pay for the expenses incurred from the takeover. Jobs would be lost and there would most likely be no social contributions made by the Hafts. Out of the thinkers that we have studied regarding business’ responsibility, I think that the two that would agree with Macke’s decision to look to the government would be both Freeman and Friedman. In the readings that we have covered, we have seen that they are believers in that the government is who should be responsible for social issues in some way or another. I think that Freeman may feel a lot more strongly about Macke’s decision than Friedman because he argues that government is the sole caretaker when it comes to taking responsibility for social issues while Freeman argues that it is mainly government’s job, but that business plays a huge role in that responsibility. Friedman’s views are that business’ main responsibility is to maximize shareholders wealth and that in doing so, they are being socially responsible. He also contends that corporations are not people and therefore they cannot be responsible for social issues. On the other hand, Freeman believes that there should be a balance of all stakeholders including employees, customers, the community, and managers as well as the stockholders. He states that companies do not have a choice in the matter of social responsibility. The government forces them to be concerned with shareholders, employees, customers, etc. through laws. Drucker is the thinker that would not be in support of Macke’s decision to go to the government and ask for their assistance. Drucker believes that it is both business and government’s responsibility to be socially responsible. He argues that government does not have the time to be solving every problem that arises and that it is the responsibility of business. He has the idea that if managers do “good” they will do “well” and that corporations need to turn problems into business opportunities. I think that Drucker may say that Macke and the DHC depended too much on the government and didn’t let things run their course. They should have stepped up to the plate and defended the company. Government does not have the time to be interfering with these kinds of dealings. In my opinion, I think that DHC was right to look to the government for assistance. After all, this is something that would affect many people under the government if the takeover were to occur. The state of Minnesota, along with many other states, could have been devastated if their residents were to lose their jobs and the income of the cities and towns that host Dayton Hudson stores could diminish. At some point or another, I feel that it is government’s responsibility to take care of the businesses that have taken care of their people. When I think about the way that I would respond in a situation such as the DHC takeover one, I can clearly see that I would fall into the category of being a Freeman thinker. I believe that it is a partnership between business and government when it comes to social responsibility, but that government does play the key role. They are ultimately responsible for the people. While corporations should do their part and give back to the community the employees and the stakeholders, I do feel that government is the “end all be all.” I think that business’ major stakeholders are the employees, the communities, the managers and the stockholder because they all play a significant roll in the existence of the business and should be treated with the loyalty that they have given to the company. Bibliography: Word Count: 847
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.