PROMPT:

Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

MY RESPONSE:

I strongly agree with the idea that corporations have a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of the societies and environments in which they operate. Corporations play an integral role in modern human life. They have the power to influence which direction society moves. Corporations which have a sense of civic duty, and responsibility towards their community tend to fair better financially in the long run, as opposed to those who are only in it for the money. A company can be simultaneously mindful of their impact on society, as well as profitable.

Corporate entities that have internal social good programs have happier, more fulfilled employees. This in turn, encourages their workforce to work harder for the corporation as a whole. For example, Salesforce, the tech giant, has a paid time off to volunteer program for their employees. Employees can take up to two weeks to do good in their communities. In turn, this facilitates an energy of respect and compassion within their workforce. No doubt, workers feel good about their employment, and work hard to further the interests of the corporation’s success. People who are allowed time off to give back to the wellbeing of their community without worrying about their pay, tend to be happier and more productive at work. A company that allows them that time, even though as an internal cost, will recoup the payroll losses in the long run by reduced headcount turnover. A company can both care about their input on a social level, while reaping the rewards of a more productive workforce on their bottom line.

Large scale businesses who don’t pay attention to promoting environmental health tend to pay negatively for it. Examine the fiasco of the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Due to mismanagement of operations, they pressed upon the natural habitat one of the worst ecological disasters of the 21st century. In a quest to dominate the market and enrichen shareholders, the oil conglomerate did not hold itself to high enough standards. They inflicted terrible suffering on the local ecology while simultaneously causing extreme losses financially. The company has not yet recovered this blight in the eyes of the public either, still conjuring a sense of shame whenever brought up in conversation. Corporations who ignore their duty to the environment around them in the pursuit of short term dividends tend to pay for it in the long run.

Corporations who blend their pursuit of success with a high sense of public duty tend to fair well in their respective market. Whether it’s encouraging a sense of loyalty in their employees, or avoiding a public relations nightmare, making money does not have to come at the cost of society. Businesses who think about their impacts, not just from a business perspective, but from a humanist vantage point, have the greatest chance of a symbiotic relationship with the market in which they reside. A corporation can do both.