As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

It is argued that enterprises should undertake social duties in addition to making profits. I completely agree with this viewpoint since they can attract more employees and raise their public image.

The first justification for my agreement is that taking social responsibility can enable firms to entice higher-quality employees. More specifically, qualified staff tend to favor companies that are famous for being socially responsible as the way they treat society potentially reflects the way they treat their workers. In other words, they might consider that their efforts and dedication to their jobs would be appreciated. To illustrate, Vingroup, a Vietnamese corporation which often allocates huge financial resources for charity work in the community, appeals to numerous workers. According to an in-house survey, one of the main reasons behind their choice to work for it is that it is praised for caring for society.

Another reason why I agree that businesses should undertake their responsibility towards society is that this can boost their image to the public. More specifically, by willingly cooperating with local authorities and inhabitants in preserving the environment or fulfilling other civic duties, they can gain acknowledgement from the community and potentially receive greater support from local people in their commercial activities. For instance, American big-box retailer Target Corp is well known for its social responsibility programs such as donating money to local communities in the form of education grants. As a result, they are given enormous favour from local people, enabling them to increase their sales and further develop their franchise.

In conclusion, I strongly advocate the idea that corporations should be accountable to society as it can allure more people to work for them and promote their brand image. It is advisable that companies engage in social activities to ensure their sustainable growth.

Sample 2:

Today, some claim that businesses should also have social obligations. While I acknowledge that the primary purpose of any company is to generate profits, businesses should also make social contributions within their sphere of influence.

On the one hand, it seems logical that the primary objective of companies engaged in a free market should be to achieve sound financial health. Every form of organization incurs expenditures. Office space, legal costs, payroll, company credit cards, and other institutional expenditures may rise exponentially. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, the average cost to establish a micro-business is approximately $3,000, whereas the estimated cost to initiate a home-based franchise is almost $5,000. In addition to these one-time fees, utilities and other recurring expenses must also be paid periodically. Without being realistic about a startup's financial flow and debt, the owner will be unable to operate. In these situations, the societal obligations of a company become obsolete.

On the other hand, there is no distinction between individuals and businesses regarding their ethical responsibilities. Given that social evils are solvable, businesses should share equal accountability with governments for society's betterment. For instance, the Vietnamese YouTube channel "Quang Linh Vlogs" has received enthusiastic support from both Vietnamese and Angolans. In the recordings, Linh and his team instruct local Angolans on how to grow vegetables and raise livestock. Linh also launched a social project to assist 5,000 underprivileged children in school by renovating and equipping classrooms. They proved that it is more humanitarian for businesses to contribute to society than to maximize revenue.

In conclusion, although I agree that making money is the top priority for businesses, they should also make social contributions within their reasonable purview.

Sample 3:

Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I completely agree with the idea that businesses should do more for society than simply make money.

On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to cover its running costs, such as employees’ wages and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health.

On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally, instead of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society through the tax system.

In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.

Sample 4:

With the enhancement of business, many believe that the owners should contribute to the world and should adhere to corporate social responsibility, while others deny this opinion. If asked personally I would agree with the former opinion.

First and foremost, it is evident that the business owners are in a position to make a huge change, this creates a better future for the whole nation. There are many issues such as hunger that need to be addressed by these people. There is a vast population who lives under the poverty line, for them, it is difficult to even have the essentials for them. The nation will crumble, and the company will soon be affected negatively. For instance, renowned businessman Bill Gates started the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) in 1988 and we witnessed the astonishing result: it has almost eradicated the problem of polio from the whole world.

On the flip side, it should not be disregarded that reinvesting in their own business will improve business as well as generate more jobs. This will indirectly strengthen the nation's economy. It is true that the magnification of a business will result in an increased amount of tax not only through the industries but also from the companies’ newly recruited or recently promoted employees.

To conclude and to summarize, it can be observed that completing corporate social responsibility will not only serve the nation but also enhance their own company. I would suggest that all business tycoons should ethically donate significant resources for the welfare of everyone. 

Sample 5:

Many believe that proprietors of large-scale industries must incorporate corporate social responsibility in their companies, while others deny this opinion. I wholeheartedly agree with the former opinion, my stance is given in the ensuing paragraphs.

To commence with, all business owners have succeeded in their life with a direct or indirect contribution to society, so it must be obvious that they should return their favor when they have the opportunity. There are many communities that support the budding start-up through supportive ideas, finance, and proffering employees, thus, they should continue this generous cycle and give back a significant amount to society when they have enough for themselves. Furthermore, they should do this as if they are investing in their own society and thus in the near future, it will likely help them back as well.

On the contrary, the economist mindset of a huge mass is likely to push these owners towards more investment in other businesses. This would increase their chances to not only survive in the industry but also make a handsome profit for themselves. This diversification is usually considered a key to the enhancement of all the sectors in which businesses operate. 

To sum up and offer my position, I would like to put forth that if businesses help the community, they will have a huge gain in the longer run, to add, they will also gain the valuable trust of the people in general. Thus, all the owners should take it upon themselves to donate a certain amount and help the nation to grow.

Sample 6:

There is a debate whether the business should have an ethical responsibility and serve the nation, or they should put their money into something else. I bolster this perception; my position is explained further with logical reasons and examples. 

To begin with, there are many ways through which a business owner can uplift society, out of which scholarship is the most popular form of aid which can be done by them. The TATA Group has many scholarships, through which they help society to grow in a direction where they can have a secured future. These scholarships even offer positions in the TATA companies where they can use the knowledge which they have gained throughout their lives and benefit the company as well. All such activities will also help to maintain respect not only in front of the employees but also in front of the general populace.

In contrast, many say that employees who work in these companies and have to spend a long time in the betterment of these industries should get benefits if the company wants to be generous. There are many employees who work religiously with the company, their efforts should not be disregarded, they should be given a token of appreciation either through promotion or through some sort of incentive.

To conclude, it can be said that if owners have magnanimous hearts, they will put their money to good use. It is true that they have enough, and they should use a bit of this to help others in all the ways possible.

Sample 7:

It is sometimes argued that businesses have many important responsibilities towards societal issues along with making money. I completely agree with this notion that corporations should be working on tackling socio-economic problems and should not only concentrate on making money.

Corporations have always been inclined towards making money. It is true that money driven approaches are fundamentally important to gain financial success. If companies or associates do not work hard to increase profitability, they would not be able to compete in the market in terms of providing more and more employment facilities to people, and eventually to help eradicate poverty. In addition, without earning enough money, businesses cannot even invest in raising social values.

However, corporations should have a duty to fulfill societal needs instead of solely striving for more and more money. Social responsibilities mean tackling global challenges. These most pressing issues include climate change, poverty, inequity and resources or water scarcity. Take Unilever, a pharmaceutical multinational company, as an example- this high-profile organization has had a profound record of giving medical or other financial aid to the most deprived people of developing countries. As a result of these holistic and intensive social measures they are becoming increasingly successful in managing and solving poverty and health related problems in respective impoverished neighbourhoods.

To sum up, while successful and profitable businesses are fundamentally important to boost the economy by generating revenues through earning more profit, social and environmental issues should also be included into their priority list of core plans.

Sample 8:

Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I completely agree with the idea that businesses should do more for society than simply make money.

On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to cover its running costs, such as employees’ wages and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health.

On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally, instead of trying to minimize their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society through the tax system.

In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.

Sample 9:

Many socially conscious public figures have called on businesses to show greater responsibility to the societies they depend on. In my opinion, the responsibility of a business towards society extends to ethical management of their own operations but not to areas largely outside their purview.

Large and small businesses are no different from individuals and have the same obligation to be ethical. Every business, conducting themselves in a just manner, will contribute greatly to the betterment of society. A local grocery shop that pays its workers a living wage, charges fair prices, keeps accurate books, and sells quality food taken in aggregate with stores around the country, produces innumerable benefits for both staff and patrons. Large companies are no exception. If Apple pays employees well and builds quality products while adhering to environmental and economic regulations, they will make the world a better place. In contrast, companies without moral compass like Enron, Purdue and Facebook exact a heavy toll on society in exchange for their services.

However, companies should not be forced to take responsibility for greater societal ills unless they are in some way culpable. A good example of this relates to education. The education of children and adolescents is the foundation of a stable, content society. Responsibility for education lies squarely with governments and parents, notwithstanding some private enterprise schools. If a company comes in direct contact with a school, for example by selling them textbooks, then the company is responsible for the quality of their products. If they pollute nearby land and students get sick, the company should bear full responsibility as well. In all other matters not under their direct influence, parents and governments take on the sole burden of care.

In conclusion, businesses are only in contact with certain aspects of society, and they should not be asked to assume a full burden of responsibility. As free market companies become larger and supplant national governments this may require re-examination.

Sample 10:

Nowadays, it is widely argued that not only should businesses operate with the sole aim of gaining profits, but they also ought to fulfill certain social obligations. Personally, I totally agree with this belief and will present the reasons for my opinion in the following essay.

The first rationale behind my agreement with the initial statement is that socially responsible companies are more likely to attract high-quality job candidates and bolster the current workforce’s loyalty. This is because the majority of workers nowadays are highly aware of pressing social issues, such as climate change or human rights, and desire to play a part in resolving these. In other words, contemporary employees tend to prefer enterprises with constant social obligations where they can seek fulfillment in contributing to social development. For instance, via an anti-racial campaign which highlighted and condemned the injustices incurred by black people, Google, a global giant corporation, has successfully appealed to a substantial number of qualified applicants and reinforced the commitment as well as loyalty of current employees.

Another reason why I believe businesses should undertake social duties is that they can gain tremendous benefits in terms of the brand image and income. Specifically, companies which take part in important social activities, such as environmental conservation or gender equality campaigns, are likely to earn huge public support and considerably promote its brand recognition among the masses, subsequently leading to a wider range of customers and investors. To illustrate, Lego, a famous toy manufacturer, has orientated itself towards initiatives and missions that aim to help children, the environment and local communities since the very first day of its foundation. As a result, Lego is presently enjoying the status of the most reputable company in the world with significantly higher amounts of income from global customers than those of many other famous ones.

In conclusion, besides primary financial targets, I believe that businesses should also take some social responsibilities for a variety of benefits mentioned above.