Role-Play Debate for course EngC 1015

You bring up a good point, Nick. It seems as though there is a double-standard that these corporations need to live up to. But there is really no way to possibly satisfy both. In a way it is kind of unfair, but people don't care. They expect the corporations to carry out whatever obstacle is thrown at them. However, even though the corporations recognize these different morals and obligations everything goes out the window, as Dain stated, once markets and profits are in the picture. Most corporations, but not all are too concerned about the competition that their in, to feel the need to abide by the societies' expectations. Even though the corporations have so many morals and obligations to try and follow, I feel that sometimes they are in their own little world where they can do whatever they want to get ahead, even if it is at the cost of society or the environment as well.

I like what you are saying and I do think that many of the corporations are between a rock and a hard place in making their decisions. On one hand they will hurt the company if they commit to many resources to morale policy. But they will hurt their public reputation if they do not place enough resources into the morale policies. I think that all we can hope for as the public is that the CEO's that run these corporations have enough business and ethical backgrounds to make the most educated decisions about business versus public opinion.

It is true that we must assume that large corporation leaders have a standard of ethics that are ok by society. Yet there are exceptions, Martha Stewart and Enron come to mind. These people made the wrong decision. They wre put in a position where they could make more money and they took it. It is the sad truth of capitalism.

I'm glad most CEOs arent like that.

Theres no hope for the masses when it comes to corporations. Corporations will always screw over who they have to in order to enlarge their profits. They'll outsource jobs to underdeveloped countries that have no labor laws. They'll cut corners around or completely ignore environmental protocols just so they don't have to spend as much loot. Padding your pockets doesn't make this a better place to live, and neither do big corporations fooling you.

The evironment, eh?
Whatever ignorance says corporations look for lax environmental laws, see my other post because that statement is lined with complete and utter bull. Even outsourced corporations in China and Taiwan DO abide by their non-lax environmental regulations whilst reaping the benefits of following their, and our rules especially those of international systems placed forth to improve poor governance because environmental instability is #1 on their list of fiscal corruption. When corporations settle into a region of any nation in the world, their first need is stability with regards to guaranteed property rights proteciton. Second on their list is actually a functioning legal system, a high supply of workers that is relatively well educated (relative to components the business function requires to stay true) and a sufficient infrastructure which therefore limits their situation techniques even further. Then major corporations have considerable cost savings associated with standardized production techniques, which prove to have operations at the highest environmental world standard rather than adopt multiple production technologies (inefficient and fuel-wasting) for use in different areas. Most foreign direct investment is used to privatize inefficient state-owned manufacturers, which lead to restructuring and becoming more environmentally friendly. Also, trade and investment speed the spread of pollution control technology and enable countries to adapt to and purchase environmentally safer services and goods. Expanding and growing economies lead to better environments and ecosystems because as economies rise (as well as wages and standards living), the demand for improved environmental quality and the abilities to pay for it also rise. I guess the only proof for that one is the fact that the environment has gotten better, not just relatively, but proportionally... disregarding population growth and many other non-human disastrous effects in the last 350 years.

Just using the word corporations to explain what they're like and how they act is a little broad. Not all corporations are bad.. but yes there is a handful of them that are only looking out for the top-dogs and screwing over the average employee. Corporations should have strict laws to abide by, just like any other business. In many cases, corporations have more laws and regulations to follow since they manufacture and pollute more substances than smaller businesses. I think the government should play a crucial role in making sure all corporations are following the guidelines since millions of people are employeed and working under them. I would have to strongly disagree with what Dain said under your post... he said "I think that all we can hope for as the public is that the CEO's that run these corporations have enough business and ethical backgrounds to make the most educated decisions about business versus public opinion." CEO's are at the top of the business ladder and I firmly believe they don't sit and worry so much about public opinion and what is environmentally safe. A CEO works for the good of the company to presumably make as much profit as possible and gain more wealth themselves. That's why I think the government should have a large say in regulating corporations even though I think our government can be corrupt as well.

I, too, found the conclustion to this article most confusing. The whole deal was about the author's criticism of the idea of CGS. All he did was outline the problems and complain. If you've ever been in an argument before, it's easy to tell when the opposition is simply clawing instead of actually opposing. In other words, criticism is great, but what do YOU suggest? If the idea really is THAT bad, how does one fix it? This happens in politics all the time in America. One party proposes something and the other tears it to shambles. No fix is provided, the idea is simply dropped and potential improvement doesn't occur. The last sentence is something like "CGS sucks right now, but it could be better." How does that help AT ALL?

The way I see it corporations are dammed either way. If corporations decide to give in and except moral, legal and other responsibilities there will always be the people who complain and say the corporations can do even more. If corporations decide not to except responsibilities then the CEO’s have mobs of angry people protesting outside their doors. The only median ground I can see is if corporation actually sit down and spell out what they think their responsibilities are and how they will follow them. However, even with that approach, some may see this as, corporations gaining to much power in deciding social and political reforms.

You are absolutly right about the double standard. People want corporations to meet all the moral standards but still want their prices down. However, it does not work that way. In order for corporations to meet that moral standard, their costs have to rise, and if costs rise, so do the prices. What we really need is an equilibrium between profit and morals. I am in total favor of companies having good morals but at the same time its a companies job to be profitable and competitive. With some countries with cheap labor, there is just no way some companies can compete with that and that is why the US is primarily a service driven economy. I believe in order to better a companies morals you need to give them incentives. For example give them extra tax breaks for polluting less. With incentives, businesses are still profitable following the moral standards and prices stay low.

A corporation has as much responsiblilty as the law requires them too. On top of that the government has a responsibility to listen to the requests of its citizens and abide by just moral laws in general to further establish these laws to bestow on corporations. Start with a common good, then on to the people, then on to the government, then on to the companies.

I think that it is right for companies to have that kind of attention. They need to be able to work with their clients and to comply with their clients wants and they are responilbe for their employees and for being able to meet their employees needs. It is morally just for them to have to be responilbe for their actions and if they are breaking moral rules then they should be made to change or shut down. Corporations today, depending on the corporation, are fairly responilbe for their actions. Unless your talking about companies like Eron who aren't able to uphold their standards for moral correctness.

However strange the author's statements may be, he does bring a valid stance to the issue. While the MNE, CSR, and NGO's get irritating to refer back to, they do strengthen his arguments about flaws in the CSR system. He makes out businesses to be wussies against the forces of the whinny NGO's and others for bringing up valid concerns regarding the general welfare of the population. I find it funny that the author would mention telling the NGOs off and stick to what business find useful and tactful in sustaining profitability. Does adopting a CSR type of system necessarily merrit a resulting higher cost and lower profitablity? Is the author suggesting that companies run their business old school? Cheese is tasty. Can't get enough of that wonderful duff. I don't really understand why CSR works to lower competition, but I guess that knowledge is not necessary.

Some cool stuff...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

Some cool stuff...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]