Role-Play Debate for course EngC 1015

Even though the first article suggests a somewhat fairy-tale approach to Corporate responsibilty, they make some very good points. I felt that there were two points that put everything into perspective. After they had finished explaining what the corporations exactly had to do, the author claimed that "The Global Compact is a voluntary initiative" and "it is not, and must not be, a mere public relations exercise" (Robinson 192). The companies need to follow these guidelines, not only to make themselves look good, but to actually help out. However, after the author claims that the companies should take the initiative and promote corporate citizenship (192) he then argues that "corporate responsibility is only part of the picture" and the government cannot rely on voluntary initiatives, but must take responsibility in their actions as well (193).

I felt that it was a good point, stating that it cannot be a single group/organizations responsibility, but instead the two of them working in different ways.

I don't think that corporations could come together if their lives depended on it. If you think about it, they are all competing against each other and probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with their competors. In the world today, it is rare to have corporations come together on something. It is all about beating your competor. The corporations' idea of responsibility is the responsibility to provide want ever the consumer wants, even at the cost of the environment. I wish it wasn't this way, but I can't see how anyone could change the core values of corporations and make them see how they affect the environment, ect. Also, if there is no profit in this coming together, most will probably stay away. It is a nice idea, but I don't think that it could ever work like we want it to. Finally, I think some corporations do care about the world and are doing a great job spreading these ideas to others. However, if some other corporations came together, they could influnce the world in other ways, ways to maximize profit and satifaction of consumers, but do even more damage to the environment and the world.

I see your point Nick, but I don't agree with your last sentence. I don't think that a corporation will ever be able to truly "maximize" profits when they are worried about the environment. The environment is like the opportunity cost to profit. Corporations cannot have both, they must choose between one or the other. If they came together, they could maybe improve upon environmental standards, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that moment. No corporation will ever put itself at risk of losing a major market share or possibly even bankruptcy for the sake of the environment. All this talk of making everyone get along and be "Civically Responsible" will go right out the window once markets and profits become involved.

I'm not sure what regulations are followed by corporations or the influence that the government has over corporations, but I do think they are somewhat trying to help out the environment by still making products and a huge profit. I agree with Dain on the fact that I doubt any corporation would take a risk of claiming bankrupt just for environmental purposes. It's sort of a back and forth argument because if corporations weren't sufficiently making products we want, consumers would be very upset. On the other hand, now days they are making what customers want but yet we complain about environmental issues. No matter what happens, people will ever be happy with corporations one way or the other. So as of now, if you don't like something you just have to suck it up and have the mentality of "Things could definitely be worse!!"

I think a lot of the association between corporations and social purpose are much rubbish with little substance. Look at Phillip Morris, the tobacco giant. There was such a backlash against them with this whole anti-smoking movement, that their website is 100% dedicated to helping the addicted. Would a farmer inform his/her customers of the dangers of pesticides unless they really had to? Of course not. Just check out the Phillip Morris website...you won't find a single immediate advertisement. This was to "win back" the enemies they had made by the nature of their product. They still makes smokes, and people still smoke 'em. Consumer friendly?

I think corporations will be forced to take the environment into consideration as the environment begins to take a larger stand in society. As fossil fuel energy diminish, the world has the opportunity to engineer a fuel that is better for the environment. As long as the world population grows, the environment will become a larger priority. So even if corporations are having to choose between industry and the environment, I believe that there will be more pressure to satisfy both requests. If something poses a threat to the environment there is a very likely chance that the problem is also causing problems and human health and the issue will not be allowed to be skipped over.

I completely agree with you. The ideals the first article talks about is not feasable, not if you still want a descent economy and the technology we have today. Also, there is just no way that all of the corporations will adhere to the moral standards unified. And if they did it would be unfair for the countries with higher labor costs. Every government has different regulations and it would be close to impossible to get every government to have the same policies on business. One of the big reasons China is a leader in manufacturing is because of the cheap labor and low regulations on moral issues. There is no way the US can compete with that. Look I believe a company should have moral standards and should be profitable at the same time. But we cannot go in either extreme. We need to find an equilibrium between morals and profit, its the only way it will work. Then with new technology we can figure out ways to better our moral standards without losing profit.

The first article gave a little light into how businesses should act. For once, businesses should stop worrying about whether or not they will make the maximum profit at others expense. I think international companies need to re-define who they want to be. Does a company really want to be known for the mistreatment of kids not old enough to work, yet are working 18 hour days? Or do they want to be known for caring about who is making their product and making sure there are healthy working conditions? I know that I would rather buy a product with safer working conditions for the emplyeees than a product that I know has unhealthy working conditions.

The first article gave a little light into how businesses should act. For once, businesses should stop worrying about whether or not they will make the maximum profit at others expense. I think international companies need to re-define who they want to be. Does a company really want to be known for the mistreatment of kids not old enough to work, yet are working 18 hour days? Or do they want to be known for caring about who is making their product and making sure there are healthy working conditions? I know that I would rather buy a product with safer working conditions for the emplyeees than a product that I know has unhealthy working conditions.

The only limiting factor in business is profit. The only way to promote corporate responsibility is to make it profitable. If you want a company that produces enviromentaly safe products everyone has to shun the environmentaly destructive goods. This, however, is unlikly since many people in the world cannot afford to purchase environmentally safe products since they barely provide for themselves and their family. The better way to do it is by providing tax breaks, and subsidies to companies that are environmentally friendly.

However, some companies are already responsibiliy limiting their impact on the environment. The Carbon Credit system based in Chicago. Many companies have volunteered to take part in the system that promotes inovations in polution reduction. A government required program that was based on the Chicago system could dramatically reduce pollution.

I agree with you that this type of thing would be rather costly, but don't you think it would be nice if corporations were more respectful of their employees and the environment? In the long run it may even be worth the large cost, but there has to be a way to have this without too large of a cost.