Hi All,
I'm sitting my GMAT next week and am having trouble timing my essays, they always end up rough and ready. Would someone mind havng a look at this please just to give me an idea of what grade my current 'rough 'n ready' style would get? This seems to be the best I can manage in the 30 mins. I'm really trying to stay within the limits but I find it difficult to develop my arguments succintly, and leave enough time for review.
Anyways, thanks for your help, this website has been a great help so far!
CC
-
In order to force companies to improve polies and practices considered unethical or harmful, society should rely primarily on consumer action - such as refusa to buy a product - rather than legislative action.
Discuss the extent ...
-
The opinion stated above would like us to believe that society should rely solely on consumer action to compel companies to improve upon practices and policies that are unethical or harmful. The view is that government intervention, through the implementation of legislation, should be a peripheral player in this process. I find that I am strongly disagreeing with this sentiment; instead, I believe that it is government who should be the leaders in this situation, setting standards for best practice within companies, and holding companies that flaunt rules to account. In this essay I will discuss this statement and my counter points further.
The first, and I believe most obvious, issue with this statement is the underlying assumption that consumers are well briefed on the companies and organisations from which the purchase goods and services. It is my opinion that this is in fact not the case. With the exception of homes and cars, most shopping today is of a disposable nature; people do not expect products to last a life time, nor do they want them to (think of the ever updated fashion store outlets and electronics with new technologies coming out every other week). Product life-cycles or company ethics do not come into the equation when people are purchasing goods. This type of shopping pattern has seen the rise in low cost clothes chains like Primark and H&M. As a result of the little thought put into the product they are buying, many people do not know much about the company that they are buying from.
When there is market choice, like above, it is easy to find out information about companies, make a conscious decision to take your money elsewhere, and then act upon that decision. However, when there is very little, or indeed no, competition within the market for a particular product, it is much more difficult to take your money elsewhere. For example, with many pharmaceutical companies, they invest millions of dollars in researching and developing drugs which are then patented and generally then only produced by the patent holder. People relying on a particular medication will not be making decisions based on a company's ethics, or lack of them, when they are making the decision based on their own necessity. If they need a product that is not produced by anyone else, they will understandably be continuing as a loyal customer of that particular company.
Finally, even if consumer action were to work, it would not mean the introduction of industry wide standards. It would mean that different companies would be introducing their own procedures, not following any common template. Judging the worth of different company's commitments to sustainability/the environment/worker's rights would become more difficult. For example, without the intervention of the EU to ensure minimum standards for meat produced in and imported into Europe, many people would still be unaware of the use of human growth hormones in cattle, which were then sold for human consumption. Legal minimum standards for production keep dangerous products like this off the supermarket shelves and protect the health and well-being of EU citizens.
So, in conclusion, in order for consumers to be properly served and protected, governments should lead the way to ensure that companies improve unethical or harmful policies and procedures. As, legally binding standards for all companies create a level playing field for the companies, ensure equitable conditions for staff and protect both suppliers and consumers.
I'm sitting my GMAT next week and am having trouble timing my essays, they always end up rough and ready. Would someone mind havng a look at this please just to give me an idea of what grade my current 'rough 'n ready' style would get? This seems to be the best I can manage in the 30 mins. I'm really trying to stay within the limits but I find it difficult to develop my arguments succintly, and leave enough time for review.
Anyways, thanks for your help, this website has been a great help so far!
CC
-
In order to force companies to improve polies and practices considered unethical or harmful, society should rely primarily on consumer action - such as refusa to buy a product - rather than legislative action.
Discuss the extent ...
-
The opinion stated above would like us to believe that society should rely solely on consumer action to compel companies to improve upon practices and policies that are unethical or harmful. The view is that government intervention, through the implementation of legislation, should be a peripheral player in this process. I find that I am strongly disagreeing with this sentiment; instead, I believe that it is government who should be the leaders in this situation, setting standards for best practice within companies, and holding companies that flaunt rules to account. In this essay I will discuss this statement and my counter points further.
The first, and I believe most obvious, issue with this statement is the underlying assumption that consumers are well briefed on the companies and organisations from which the purchase goods and services. It is my opinion that this is in fact not the case. With the exception of homes and cars, most shopping today is of a disposable nature; people do not expect products to last a life time, nor do they want them to (think of the ever updated fashion store outlets and electronics with new technologies coming out every other week). Product life-cycles or company ethics do not come into the equation when people are purchasing goods. This type of shopping pattern has seen the rise in low cost clothes chains like Primark and H&M. As a result of the little thought put into the product they are buying, many people do not know much about the company that they are buying from.
When there is market choice, like above, it is easy to find out information about companies, make a conscious decision to take your money elsewhere, and then act upon that decision. However, when there is very little, or indeed no, competition within the market for a particular product, it is much more difficult to take your money elsewhere. For example, with many pharmaceutical companies, they invest millions of dollars in researching and developing drugs which are then patented and generally then only produced by the patent holder. People relying on a particular medication will not be making decisions based on a company's ethics, or lack of them, when they are making the decision based on their own necessity. If they need a product that is not produced by anyone else, they will understandably be continuing as a loyal customer of that particular company.
Finally, even if consumer action were to work, it would not mean the introduction of industry wide standards. It would mean that different companies would be introducing their own procedures, not following any common template. Judging the worth of different company's commitments to sustainability/the environment/worker's rights would become more difficult. For example, without the intervention of the EU to ensure minimum standards for meat produced in and imported into Europe, many people would still be unaware of the use of human growth hormones in cattle, which were then sold for human consumption. Legal minimum standards for production keep dangerous products like this off the supermarket shelves and protect the health and well-being of EU citizens.
So, in conclusion, in order for consumers to be properly served and protected, governments should lead the way to ensure that companies improve unethical or harmful policies and procedures. As, legally binding standards for all companies create a level playing field for the companies, ensure equitable conditions for staff and protect both suppliers and consumers.
