-
clawhammer
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:08 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
Please rate, and also let me know if I should try shorter writings as it almost left me no time for review. I had one mroe example that I couldn't add. This is my first practice, my exam is in 5 days. Any tips would be helpful.
"If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge
a duty to serve society."
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own
experience, observations, or reading
To choose between revenue and corporate social responsibility has been a tough decision for corporations around the world. Companies have shown to go out and work for the good of society even when it affects their profits, while many organiations in most countries still take decisions that ensures financial benefits more than anything. I however, support that the a company primarily focused on revenues and profits does not need to be in a conflict when it requires to acknowledge a duty to serve society. My reasoning is based on two major elements, image and building new dimensions to business, that help resolve the idea presented in the topic.
The short term factors should be overlooked with the greater long term advantages that any organization can have from serving socity. I woudl primarily focus on the image of an organization, that can be enhanced when such an organization shows it cares for teh socity. For example, Nike has been one of the strongest global brands, but certain rumors involving child labor in some of Nike's off-shore factories had created havoc in its image. The company however quickly addressed this, by ensuring new laws and regulations that ensured such practices can never take place in any of its factories. Cadburry has been working similarly in projects that ensures that the fields in which coco is harvested, strict monitoring measures are taken (through a certificate program) that ensures child labor is not used. Such programs empower companies to provide strong image that miay initially take some budget to implement, but benefits all aspects of business in the long term.
New dimensions in business can actually open when corporations start working to server the society. the idea of free internet services was redefined when search engine giant Google started giving unlimited amount of email storage to its customers for free. Did it hit its revenue or made the business unstable? The answer is clearly no. This new model changed the entire industry, and the competitors actually had to react to the idea by implementing similar facilities in their products. Similarly, one of the leading auto-mobile companies, Toyota changed the world by introducing Prius, the truly economical vehicle that not only serves society by giving better mileage, but addresses one of the most difficult issues of global warming. Sharp has been doing similar works by pioneering the solar energy. Of course, such products took these industries billions of dollars for R&D and marketing, but in the process of acknowledging a duty to serve society, not only did they made more revenue, but transformed the whole indutry in which they operate.
To sum it up, I clearly believe that conflict can be easily avoided by a company that primarily focuses on making money, even when it starts taking massive steps to serve socity. In fact, not only can such steps benefit companies revenues, but it can lleave a lasting impression to its consumers that's more powerful than many other marketing efforts.
"If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge
a duty to serve society."
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own
experience, observations, or reading
To choose between revenue and corporate social responsibility has been a tough decision for corporations around the world. Companies have shown to go out and work for the good of society even when it affects their profits, while many organiations in most countries still take decisions that ensures financial benefits more than anything. I however, support that the a company primarily focused on revenues and profits does not need to be in a conflict when it requires to acknowledge a duty to serve society. My reasoning is based on two major elements, image and building new dimensions to business, that help resolve the idea presented in the topic.
The short term factors should be overlooked with the greater long term advantages that any organization can have from serving socity. I woudl primarily focus on the image of an organization, that can be enhanced when such an organization shows it cares for teh socity. For example, Nike has been one of the strongest global brands, but certain rumors involving child labor in some of Nike's off-shore factories had created havoc in its image. The company however quickly addressed this, by ensuring new laws and regulations that ensured such practices can never take place in any of its factories. Cadburry has been working similarly in projects that ensures that the fields in which coco is harvested, strict monitoring measures are taken (through a certificate program) that ensures child labor is not used. Such programs empower companies to provide strong image that miay initially take some budget to implement, but benefits all aspects of business in the long term.
New dimensions in business can actually open when corporations start working to server the society. the idea of free internet services was redefined when search engine giant Google started giving unlimited amount of email storage to its customers for free. Did it hit its revenue or made the business unstable? The answer is clearly no. This new model changed the entire industry, and the competitors actually had to react to the idea by implementing similar facilities in their products. Similarly, one of the leading auto-mobile companies, Toyota changed the world by introducing Prius, the truly economical vehicle that not only serves society by giving better mileage, but addresses one of the most difficult issues of global warming. Sharp has been doing similar works by pioneering the solar energy. Of course, such products took these industries billions of dollars for R&D and marketing, but in the process of acknowledging a duty to serve society, not only did they made more revenue, but transformed the whole indutry in which they operate.
To sum it up, I clearly believe that conflict can be easily avoided by a company that primarily focuses on making money, even when it starts taking massive steps to serve socity. In fact, not only can such steps benefit companies revenues, but it can lleave a lasting impression to its consumers that's more powerful than many other marketing efforts.
