Is Microsoft’s decision to go carbon negative by 2030 in the best interests of Microsoft’s stockholders? What about other stakeholders such as the company’s customers, employees, suppliers, and the communities in which it does business? What would the Friedman doctrine suggest about Microsoft’s decision to go carbon negative by 2030? Viewed through the lens of “rights theories,” is Microsoft’s decision to go carbon negative by 2030 ethical? Apply John Rawls’ concept of the veil of ignorance to Microsoft’s decision. What conclusion do you reach about Microsoft’s decision? 1.JPG