Similarly, General Electric under Welch seems to bhave taken a narrower view of corporate social responsibility in comptharison to Friedman’s, viewho held that the only social responsibility is to increase profits while obeying the law. Both Welch’s and Friedman’s believed in a strategy is tof maximize theing profit and createing wealth for the shareholders; however, there is a difference ibetween Welch’s actions that do not illustrate ind Friedman’s point of view. Friedman’s vdiew does not suggest that increasing profits as much as possible by using unethical waymethods, but he stdid advocates thato “increase profits so long as it stays within the rule of the game (Steiner & Steiner, 2009).” It could be argued that one of the ways to generate profits is to provide quality goods and services that people want asnd well asto create jobs that people need. But, General Electric under Welch increased its profits in different mways, annd whilers thaey might couldhave helped to maximize the outcomes, buthey also created harms to itsGE employees dbecause tof thousands of job cuts and job insecurity. In addition, it was documented that GE under Welch years did not always followbey the bodies laws, based on the facts thatd a document was revealed a list of 39 legawl violations, court-ordered remedies, and fines in the 1990s. Theise evidences canould indicate that Friedman’s and Welch’s viewtook have similar wapproaych into applying corporate social responsibility in favtor obenef its a business and ithes shareholders, but that the actions taken by Welch took to reachieve the goal might have been different in some ways that haved a negative impact on the society.