Dayton Hudson Corporation Case Analysis :: GCSE Business Marketing Coursework

Analysis of Dayton Hudson Corporation CaseIn the case of Dayton Hudson Corporation, the company fell into a situation of a foreign coup 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 transfer of the Hafts. Mackes decision on what could be done to wind up the takeover turned the circumstances over to the hands of the state of manganese where Dayton Hudsons headquarters resided. Macke requested a special session of the legislature to revisit the Minnesota corporate takeovers statute. This proved to work in Dayton Hudsons 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 regime to be accountable for cordial issues. When pleading their (DHC) ca se to the governor, Dayton Hudson made sure to make hunch over all of the contributions that they have made to the community and how they have provided safe and stop jobs for its residents. They claimed that if they were to be taken over, the Hafts would probably break up the company and sell it off to pay for the expenses incurred from the takeover. Jobs would be lost and in that location 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 Mackes decision to look to the political relation 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 destiny more strongly about Mackes decision than Friedman because he argues that government is the sole caretaker when it com es to taking responsibility for social issues while Freeman argues that it is in the first place governments job, but that business plays a huge use in that responsibility. Friedmans views are that business main responsibility is to increase shareholders wealth and that in doing so, they are being socially responsible. He besides contends that corporations are not people and therefore they cannot be responsible for social issues.