Read the paragraph here:

$"$In a free$-$enterprise, private$-$property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business.

He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom."

$1.$ According to Friedman, can a corporate executive do something for social responsibilities such as fighting climate change or enhancing diversity?

$2.$ Business profit can go with the social interest in the long run. But what is the problem for the short run? Why does it make the Friedman doctrine problematic? Use an example.