Businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.
Hello! This is my first debate about economics and businesses so this should be interesting for me!
The motion today is:
This house believes that businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.
Burden of Proof is on both Pro and Con. I must prove why businesses should make an effort. Con must prove why they should not. This should be relatively straight forward.
Business: For this debate, a business must have the ability to make a relatively significant impact on society, the environment, and the community. There is not a specific number, like a minimum of 150 employees or something, but I think Con should be able to understand that small companies that do not have much impact are not worth debating about.
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility. The effect that businesses have on society in an environmental, economical, and social aspect. Essentially, how much a company gives back to the community, or how much they donate to charities; things like that.
First Round: Introduction and Definitions
Second Round: Arguments
Third Round: Rebuttal and New Arguments
Fourth Round: Rebuttal Only and Conclusion
First Round: Acceptance Only
Second Round: Arguments Only
Third Round: Rebuttal and New Arguments
Fourth Round: Rebuttal Only and Conclusion
Use decent spelling and grammar. A typo here or there is allowed.
Sources are recommended.
Any deviation from rules merits an automatic 7-point loss.
Looking forward to an interesting debate!
Hello! I would like to thank DauntlessWarrior for accepting this debate! Looking forward to your interesting case!
Under economic benefits, I have several sub-points.
Similar to the economic point, I have a few sub-points for this larger heading as well.
Giving Back to the Local Community
Helping the Global Community Become A Better Place
For this round, I will talk about the economic benefits for businesses to have a practice CSR, then go into Societal Benefits in the next round.
This point is fairly straightforward. There are many ways where companies can have good CSR while saving money at the same time. Some examples could be to reduce packaging size and increasing energy efficiency. Not only do these initiatives reduce their environmental impact, but it also allows the business to increase their profit margins.
For example, GeneralMills has saved over 55 million dollars since 2005 after making numerous proactive initiatives to use renewable and efficient sources of energy.  GeneralMills is a great example of a company who encourages good CSR and has had major success with their amazing ideology. With a revenue of nearly 15 billion dollars in 2011, their promotion for healthy foods, ethical sourcing, and use of green energy has made them one of the leading corporations in food products. 
As you can see, not only has GeneralMills improved their CSR reputation, but at the same time, they saved millions of dollars. GeneralMills is just one example of a business that has become extremely successful through their CSR initiatives. There are many more, but for the sake of this debate, I will only mention the one.
Tim Hortons also makes many changes to their products so that they are very environmentally friendly. In 2012, Tim Hortons made the initiative to reduce the size of their bottles. The result was a 38% reduction in the weight of the bottle and 98, 580 kg of reduced packaging material each year.  They have also made numerous initiative to reduce their use of paper and cardboard and in 2011-2012, they saved a total of 16.2 tonnes of cardboard. 
As I have said before, the trends have changed so that consumers are now looking for ethically, socially, and environmentally responsible companies. Tim Hortons markets heavily using their CSR efforts and this has made the public aware of the amazing things they are doing, therefore attracting more consumers. If a business makes an effort to improve their CSR, in the long run, they will be able to profit more from more loyal consumers and the business will be able to establish a brand name using their CSR reputation. The company that markets their CSR will have brand differentiation. They can voice their efforts through their marketing, attracting more consumers and establishing a unique brand name.
With a goal to improve sustainiblity, companies can innovate products that are environmentally friendly and create new products. The auto industry, for example, has innovated their cars so that they are much more fuel-efficient. Before, they used to be very wasteful with gas and released lots of greenhouse gases. Today, a person can travel much farther for much less gas. Another example for innovation with respect to CSR is the company Unilever.
Unilever is the third largest consumer goods company as of 2012.  Bringing in a revenue of nearly 70 billion u.s dollars in 2013, Unilever remains as one of the most influential and powerful companies in the world.  Unilever has dedicated millions of dollars and thousands of employees towards the research and development of new innovative products. Approximately 1.3 billion u.s dollars and over 6000 employees were working on R&D (Research & Development) in 2013.  The result was over 300 international patents on new inventions. 
Some products that Unilever include: an intelligent deodorant. Unilever developped a deodarant that reacts to stressful events or other things that induce an excess amount of perspiration. This intelligent deodorant offers more protection from odours and allows consumers to constantly feel fresh. Through research, Unilever has developped an effective response system that not only protects from physical sweat, but emotional sweat as well. Micro-capsules of odour protection are activated when the body undergoes a stressful event, or any emotional change that could produce more sweat than normal.  At the same time, the production of this new deodorant is cheaper than the ordinary type of deodorant and Unilever is continuing to strive for an even more affordable deodorant.
This is just one of the more recent products that Unilever has created. Unilever has developped thousands of creative and innovative products, such as hair conditioner that uses less water. With the right goals in mind, Unilever has not only invented useful, high-quality products for the public, but also made CSR improvements as well. Its priorities to provide the best goods and services, its customer loyalty, and its environmental intiatives has led Unilever to becoming one of the most successful companies ever.
I will be elaborating the social benefits of having good CSR in the next round. I wish my opponent good luck in the next round! Looking forward to an interesting case from Con!
I see that your argument consists of six points, therefore , i shall use six as well to be fair.
"Damage to the global market place
"Interest of Potential Buyers and Investors
This round the Economical points shall be discussed.
Initially the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is supposed to be a situation in which both parties benefit, where the business makes a profit and society benefits. However in the long run do the businesses really benefit ? After a plethora of their hard earned gross profits is just consumed by the so called needs of society?
(High Costs) - Firstly, the costs demanded and gained by the CRS are towering. This sum of donations is given before the net profit is calculated. (net profit- profits earned after all expenses are paid). Due to the high amounts of money that is donated to these entities, such as Non-profit organizations, the profits (net) of the donating company significantly declines. Furthermore, there are small business who cannot afford to pay or to give to these bodies. Small businesses comprises of diminutive capital, usually less than $250,000 , a small sales turnover, simple technology , takes up relatively small land spaces. as well as the employment of 1-20 employees. As a result of the immense amounts of money demanded and required from the CRS, the businesses' profits will significantly decline. The small businesses may have to shut down because of the now little profits being made. These decline in profits will lead to a decrease in the revenue of the country , affecting the standard of living of the country and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The closure of businesses will cause an increase in the unemployment rate of the country. This will sequel in the development of the country being halted. The stagnation of the development of the country would cause it to lag behind while the rest of the word is moving forward in development.
( Damage to global market place) - Furthermore, being "socially responsible" can influence a company in the global market place. By doing acts such as cleaning up the environment, recycling, ensuring product safety as well donating time or money for welfare issues will raise the company's costs; increasing their expenses and their cost of production. These extra costs and expenses would be transferred to the consumer in the final costs of the product or service. Although some consumers may voluntary pay more for a product which is manufactured by a "socially responsible" company, most customers might not , as they look for the best quality product for a reasonable price. If the product as well as its price does not satisfy the customer then they most likely refuse to purchase the product. The company can lose valuable customers and be at an economical disadvantage.
( Interest of potential buyers and investors) - In addition to this, potential buyers and investors are not interested in how "socially responsible" an entity is when seeking to purchase or invest. They are interested in the business's cash flows, cost of sales, amounts of profits , the efficiency as well as strategic planning for marketing, economies of scale and projections for future cash flows. For example financial buyers, usually individuals or other entities, are interested in the business's cash flow . This buyer examines the financial records closely, looking for a healthy business with recorded growth and little requirement to continue successful operations. This shows that being socially responsible has little impact when it comes to business operations. Subsequently, if the business is socially responsible, the cash flows out will be greater than coming in, the cost of sales shall increase , therefore, decreasing the amounts of profits as well as it may result in diseconomies of scale. Therefore, the potential buyers and investors may lose interest as the business would not benefit them in the future.
As can be seen from the above, businesses should not make more of an effort to have good CSR because of the economic reasons such as the high cost which indirectly results in the stagnant development of the country, damage to the global market place as it puts the businesses at at economic disadvantage and the interest of potential buyers and investors as they are not concerned with this.
.high costs : http://dreadefoe.hubpages.com...
.Damage to global marketplace : http://dreadefoe.hubpages.com...- Responsibility
.Interest of Potential Buyers and Investors : http://www.thoughtstorm.com...
...i also used books .. : .Caribbean Business for Csesc by Mark Wilson with Patrice Bowen and Anthony Rogers
.Principles of Business for Caribbean Examinations by Ivan Waterman and Dave RAmsingh
i am sorry if this isn't too good ... but im looking forward for the next round :D
thank you once again for this opportunity
I would to thank my opponent for accepting this debate!
" Firstly, the costs demanded and gained by the CRS are towering."
I basically addressed with my cost savings point. I agree that for a business to practice good CSR, the costs maybe be more expensive immediately. However, in the longer-run, businesses become more profitable and quickly make up the cost. The goal is to have a sustainable company that focuses both on the short term and long term. Increasing energy efficiency for example may be slightly expensive for the installation of new systems, but the business will earn more revenue each year due to this installation and will easily become more profitable than before, even if it was relatively expensive to make such a change.
"Furthermore, there are small business who cannot afford to pay or to give to these bodies. "
If you look at my definition of "business", I clearly state that small businesses are not going to be addressed in this debate because of the little impact they actually make on society. Therefore, your entire small business point is void because it does not follow of what the definition of "business" is. Just to reiterate the definition, a business in the context of this debate is a relatively larger company that has the ability to make a significant difference in society. I recognize there is no specification, such as a minimum of 500 employees, but I believe you can understand the general concept. I apologize if you did lots of research for your small business point, but I made the definition of business quite clear in the first round I thought.
"By doing acts such as cleaning up the environment, recycling, ensuring product safety as well donating time or money for welfare issues will raise the company's costs; increasing their expenses and their cost of production."
I have already addressed this, but I will do it one more time. I agree that there are costs attached to practicing CSR. It is possible that it will affect profit margins too, but it will surely not last very long. Practicing CSR can increase efficiency and sustainability, thus save money. For example, decreasing the amount of packaging per product, or increasing energy efficiency so that there are less costs for electricity consumption. Also, cleaning up the environment, ensuring product safety, or donating can raise a businesses profits as well. Doing good things for society is very appealing to consumers. As I have said before, the trends have changed recently so that consumers are looking for products that are not harming the world. Businesses can use their CSR practices as marketing to attract more customers and increase the demand for their products.
"These extra costs and expenses would be transferred to the consumer in the final costs of the product or service."
Just because there are costs at the beginning does not mean that the final cost of the G&S (Goods and Services) will increase. As I have said twice before, there are many ways that CSR can increase profit margins (marketing, saving costs, etc.) For example, if a company decreases packaging for their product, that will increase their margins between the price of the product and the cost for manufacturing. If this margin increases, the business now has the liberty to lower the price of the product, yet still having the same or more profit than the product that had more packaging. Also, with the lower price, it will appeal to consumers who are looking for affordable products.
"they look for the best quality product for a reasonable price"
Con is presenting a very exaggerated, unrealistic depiction of how much CSR costs. For some reason, Con is assuming that the costs for practicing good CSR are enormous, so enormous that the price of the product will suddenly be raised to an unattainable amount that even the average consumer will believe that it is not a reasonable price. That is just not the case. The goal of businesses who practice good CSR is not only to help the community, but also have a profitable product of high quality. Unilever was my example in the last round. They have products such as deodorant that is not only of very high quality, but extremely affordable, even for a lower income family. My Innovation point refutes Con's point.
"In addition to this, potential buyers and investors are not interested in how "socially responsible" an entity is when seeking to purchase or invest. "
Yeah, they are actually. As I said before, consumers these days are looking for products that do not negatively affect our society. A company's CSR reputation can seriously affect the sales of their goods and services. A company that gives back to society often appeals to more consumers, therefore this company tends to have more sales. If it has more sales, then investors will want to buy shares of this company. A company that is socially responsible is also sustainable and clearly has a long-term plan. If a business wants to decrease packaging costs, they will change their current packaging to a more efficient one, therefore increasing profit margins for the future. Again, the business becomes more profitable and if investors buy shares right now, their shares will increase in value because the business becomes more profitable.
I think this pretty much refutes Con's entire Interest of Potential Buyer and Investors point.
Our world today is facing serious problems in regards to the environment. Problems such as global warming, deforestation and over consumption of natural resources are raising major concerns about the future of planet Earth. Now, the public is even more informed about these issues and the role that large corporations play in this. Often, you will find consumers boycotting companies that are damaging the environment. Because of this, companies now have an incentive to reduce their environmental impact. One company who has a very small carbon footprint is Google.
I'm sure many people already know this, but Google has some of the most amazing work facilities. Their amazing employee benefit programs and workplace environment makes Google one of the most appealing places to work. Not only is it a great place to work, but it also has some of the most efficient facilities in the world. Google, as any other tech company, uses large amounts of energy for their data centers and servers. However, the Google data centers 50% less energy than the typical data center.  Google has developed and put into place their own custom servers that are an astounding 93% efficient.  Google has 5 steps to ensure that they have almost no impact on global warming. They constantly measure PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) to ensure that they can be as efficient as possible. Currently, they are operating at 12% overhead, compared to the typical data center which operates at 100% overhead. This means most of Google's energy is used towards powering the servers and products rather than used on cooling.  Google also designs their facilities specifically so that the airflow is properly managed, significantly decreasing costs for cooling.  Google also raises the temperature in their facilities, to decrease use of air conditioners, use natural forms of cooling such as bodies of water to also reduce air conditioning costs, and optimize power distribution so that 15% or less of energy is being wasted while being transported.  The typical data center wastes about a third of its energy while it is being transported. 
Though all these installments raised costs for Google, the upside of the installments allowed Google to significantly increase and their efficiency and profit margin, while reducing their carbon footprint to the point where they have virtually no impact on the environment. In 2011, Google emitted around 1.5m tonnes of carbon, which is on par with the guidelines set by the United Nations.  Google estimates that their data centers account for 1% of the world's energy consumption and Google uses only 1% of that energy. 
Giving Back to the Local Community
Giving back to the local community is also a great way to practice good CSR. This can come in numerous forms such as volunteer work, monetary donations, or social programs.
Tim Horton's is also my example for this point. Much of this is in the round before, but it is still a great example. Tim Horton's hosts three camps each year for underprivileged children. They have the famous Camp Day which is the single largest fundraiser on one day and each year, it raises millions of dollars for children. Tim Horton's has many other local programs. They have a free skate and swim program offered to youth, Earn-A-Bike volunteer program, a food drive program and a litter awareness program.  They also have their famous Timbits Minor Sports Program. Tim Horton's sponsors over 200, 000 youth from ages 4 to 8 to be active and play sports such as soccer, hockey, baseball, lacrosse, etc. Each sponsored team receive a Tim Horton's jersey and often play with sports celebrities from the NHL. 
Helping the Global Community Become A Better Place
"have good CSR while saving money at the same time... to reduce packaging size" - this may be to reduce the size of the product or to "efficiently" use packaging. Even if the business does this in an effort to manufacture larger quantities of their product , they will have further costs as they will have to now accommodate for the extra packages. the pieces of the packages that they think can be used for another product will actually not suffice. In addition to this, if they intended to save money buy reducing the packaging size , but charge the customer the same amount of money for the good would be unfair to the customer and seeing the same price for a product that have been diminished in size, they may refuse to buy the product.
"Customers are more attracted to responsible companies that have a good reputation."- This point states that being "socially responsible" influences consumer behavior. However, the factors which have had the most impact on consumer behavior are :
.income and affordability
.Price of sbstitutes
.. notice that the list does not include "good reputation" ? this clearly show that this is not what being socially responsible majority of consumers look for.
"allows the business to increase their profit margins."- how could a business increase their profit margins while trying to be socially responsible ? .When non-profit organizations are constantly looking and begging them for donations and to sponser upcoming events. Being socially responsible business would have a constant deficit to the company , therefore, lowering their profits NOT increase it.
you also keep saying that consumers tend to gravitate towards products which are manufactured and produced by these socially responsibilities, therefor increase in sales, profits, promotion , etc ... But do you , as a consumer go to the grocery or somewhere and say " wow this product is made from a socially responsible company , therefore, i will buy it even though it is / may not be of a high quality rather than purchase a product that i know for sure because it is popular and is definitely of a good quality just because it does not have a good CRS"
REBUTTALS TO YOUR REBUTTALS :
. "small businesses... little impact they actually make on society" - Small businesses actually make up the backbone of the economy. In fact, in the UK, most businesses are small. Two thirds are owned and run by one person. They are also a source of employment to society. This will decrease the unemployment rate of the country, leading to a higher standard of living and GDP. This results in more revenue for the country which will help increase the rate of development of the country. Now, my deluded opponent, tell me how does a small business have LITTLE impact on society ?
."Just because there are costs at the beginning does not mean that the final cost of the G&S (Goods and Services) will increase" - Actually they do , honey. When a businesses' expenses that are incurred or an increase in expenses , they always raise the cost of their good or service to make up for the amount lost. It does not mean that the end price will necessarily be unfair, but it will definitely increase.
. Potential buyers are the individuals or entities who wish to purchase a business. i think you misunderstood that as you referred to them as the consumers .. and they do only care about the profits when looking to purchase entities.
(Greenwashing) -This is when a company or an organization spends more time and money claiming to be "green" through advertising and marketing than implementing practices that actually minimize environmental impact. An example can be when an energy company that runs an advertising campaign touting a "green" technology they"re working on, but that "green" technology represents only a sliver of the company"s otherwise not-so-green business, or may be marketed on the heels of an oil spill or plant explosion.
Or a hotel chain that calls itself "green" because it allows guests to choose to sleep on the same sheets and reuse towels, but actually does very little to save water and energy where it counts , on its grounds, with its appliances and lighting, in its kitchens, and with its vehicle fleet.
Or a bank that"s suddenly "green" because you can conduct your finances online
or a grocery store that"s "green" because they"ll take back your plastic grocery bags.
Is this the kind of market promotion that comes with being so socially responsible ?, the reuse ? where the increased profits come form ?
In addition to this, people believe that corporate social responsibility can be an exercise in futility. The company's management has a duty to its shareholders. CSR directly opposes this. Aneel Karnani, Professor at the University of Michigan says that, "The responsibility of executives to shareholders is to maximize profits. A manager who forsakes profits in favor of some benefits to society may expect to lose his job and be replaced by someone for whom profits are a priority. This is called greenwashing." This show that businesses' main priorities are to make a profit and please it shareholders by paying then sufficient amounts of money for their investments.
(Responsibility)- A business in the private sector's main priorities are to make a profit and to provide a good and service to the public. It is not to give back to society, nor is it to environmentally friendly. In addition to this, it is claimed that businesses should focus on profits and leave social and environmental issues to the government or nonprofit organizations to deal with. Milton Friedman, an American economist states that," companies are meant to create products or provide services rather than handle welfare activities. They do not have the expertise and knowledge necessary for handling social problems. Also, if managers are concentrating on social responsibilities they are not performing their primary duties for the company at full capacity" This shows that companies should continue to focus on making profits , not handle social issues as they know not how to handle it as they major in making profits.
Furthermore, businesses have to pay taxes in order to be operating legally in an economy. The money from these taxes go to the government. This is a form of revenue to the government. These taxes are supposed to be used to improve and develop the country socially. However, the constant demanding for extra money to "improve the country socially " makes one question where the money from tax is actually going towards and whether or not these donations would go to actually helping the environment.
This can be seen in a prominent case against NIKE in the US supreme court. When, in 2002, the Californian Supreme Court ruled that Nike did not have the right to lie about what they do in relation the CSR movement. An activist, Marc Kasky attempted to sue the company over a misleading public relations campaign. Nike defended itself using the First Amendment right to free speech. The court ruled that Nike was not protected by the First Amendment, on the grounds that the publications in question were commercial speech79. The case proceeded to the US Supreme Court. Legal briefs were submitted to the Supreme Court by public relations and advertising trade associations, major media groups, and leading multinationals, arguing that if a company's claims on human rights, environmental and social issues are legally required to be true, then companies won't continue to make statements on these matters.
This shows that an internationally recognized brand , NIKE, lied to the public about doing good for society just for an image and that companies and businesses just use the term CSR to deceive the public.
Waterman, Ivan and Dave Ramsingh. Principles of Business for Caribbean Examinations.Oxford: Macmillan Publishers limited, 1999.
Wilson, Mark, with Patrice Bowen and Anthony Rogers.Caribbean Business for CSEC principles of Business.Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2010.
Looking forward to the last round!
" Even if the business does this in an effort to manufacture larger quantities of their product , they will have further costs as they will have to now accommodate for the extra packages. the pieces of the packages that they think can be used for another product will actually not suffice."
When a company reduces their packaging size, they are not increasing the quantity of their product, but simply decreasing the amount of wasted space, or using less material to cover the same surface area. I don't see how it is possible that they will have more costs if they are saving money through less packaging. And, the amount of packaging that is saved through this process can be used for the next product being packaged. It may not be enough to cover the entirety of a product, but it definitely saves materials.
"In addition to this, if they intended to save money buy reducing the packaging size , but charge the customer the same amount of money for the good would be unfair to the customer... they may refuse to buy the product."
It really is not that unfair. Often, customers are looking for the quality product and not what the product is housed on. Also, if consumers are really worried about what you say they might do about refusing to buy the product, the company can reduce the price of their product. I already said this in the first round. With lower costs, the margin between the price of the product and price of manufacturing increases. Therefore, the business has the option to lower the price of the product for consumers, but maintaining a strong profit margin because of the lower manufacturing costs.
"notice that the list does not include "good reputation" ? this clearly show that this is not what being socially responsible majority of consumers look for. "
Firstly, what is this list? Sure, I agree that these are factors that affect consumer behaviour, but honestly, I could have made up a list like that too by myself. There is no citation, so for all we know, you could have made it up. Also, I disagree with "good reputation" not being a factor on consumer behaviour. If a company has a bad reputation or bad publicity, often consumers will boycott their products.
For example, Dollarama has been a lot of hot water for selling products that do not fit the health guidelines. Often, their products that are brought in from China contain high amounts of lead. In fact, between July 2006 to August 2007, Dollarama made a recall on all charm toys due to their insanely high amount of lead content.  The value of the Dollarama stock decreased quite significantly since their sales dropped after consumers learned of this news.
Therefore, consumers are seriously affected by the reputation of businesses.
"how could a business increase their profit margins while trying to be socially responsible ?"
I have already addressed this like a billion times. Companies can make their manufacturing, goods,etc. as efficient as possible. That would reduce their environmental impact while saving money. My entire cost savings point explains this.
"as a consumer go to the grocery or somewhere and say " wow this product is made from a socially responsible company , therefore, I will buy it even though it is / may not be of a high quality rather than purchase a product that I know for sure because it is popular and is definitely of a good quality just because it does not have a good CRS""
Products from companies with good CSR are generally better than products from companies with bad CSR. For example, Dollarama practices bad CSR and provides relatively low quality products. Walmart practices better CSR than Dollarama and makes higher quality products. Companies who practice good CSR focus on making high quality products since they want to use material from ethical sources, or certified manufactures or use factories in places that do not use child labour. It is not possible for a company to practice bad CSR, yet somehow have a higher quality product than a company that has good CSR.
"Small businesses actually make up the backbone of the economy. In fact, in the UK..."
Small businesses shouldn't have been mentioned anyways because the definition I provided for business is that it is a relatively large company. Mentioning small businesses contradicts my definition, which in turn breaks the rules.
"Now, my deluded opponent, tell me how does a small business have LITTLE impact on society ?"
Sure, small businesses may have an impact on the ECONOMY, but they have little impact on national or global issues. Small businesses cannot not donate lots of money to charities or NGOs since they cannot afford it, so in that aspect, they have very little impact.
"Actually they do , honey. When a businesses' expenses that are incurred or an increase in expenses , they always raise the cost of their good or service to make up for the amount lost. It does not mean that the end price will necessarily be unfair, but it will definitely increase."
I already covered this again and again. I'm really not sure why Con is under the impression that prices will suddenly increase. I already said: COSTS WILL GO DOWN. That means that PRICE CAN GO DOWN. I've given numerous examples where companies have saved money by practicing good CSR and therefore, their products are more affordable.
"Potential buyers are the individuals or entities who wish to purchase a business. I think you misunderstood that as you referred to them as the consumers .. and they do only care about the profits when looking to purchase entities."
I mentioned consumers because they affect the decision of investors. If a company has lots consumers, they will have lots of sales, therefore attracting more investors. You're completely incorrect to say that investors only focus on profits. Ever watched Dragons Den or Shark Tank? Often, the Dragons or Sharks do invest because they do not like owner, or they feel the business is too small, etc. These are some reasons other than profit.
I am just going to refute this entire point because personally, I believe that this is ridiculous. First of all, businesses that are on the stock market are required to publish all their company's information. It is the law; they have to be transparent for the public. Therefore, these companies cannot simply mislead consumers to what they may actually be doing. All the example you presented are hypothetical situations that do not often happen in the real world. Consumers are more informed that before and can figure out if a company is being misleading or not. This will give bad publicity to the company, which will affect the number of consumers they get.
"A business in the private sector's main priorities are to make a profit and to provide a good and service to the public. It is not to give back to society, nor is it to environmentally friendly"
Now it is. Consumers today are looking for companies with good CSR, therefore businesses are changing so that they do practice good CSR. Why else would all the companies I mentioned be practicing good CSR?
" They do not have the expertise and knowledge necessary for handling social problems."
If companies do not have the knowledge, they can just donate money to groups that do.
"Also, if managers are concentrating on social responsibilities they are not performing their primary duties for the company at full capacity" This shows that companies should continue to focus on making profits , not handle social issues as they know not how to handle it as they major in making profits."
Addressed this already. Companies can make more profits through practicing good CSR. It is illogical to say that reducing costs for packaging somehow raises costs.
"The money from these taxes go to the government. This is a form of revenue to the government. These taxes are supposed to be used to improve and develop the country socially. However, the constant demanding for extra money to "improve the country socially " makes one question where the money from tax is actually going towards and whether or not these donations would go to actually helping the environment."
Con contradicts herself. First she says that the taxes from businesses are going to the government, who are supposed to be helping society. Then she questions whether or not the taxes (not donations...) are really being used in the right way. What are you trying to say?
" Some internationally recognized companies who claim to be socially responsible by being environmentally friendly or using recyclable products, may be lying to the public's face , just to make an image and boost their sales."
You're not exactly allowed to do that anymore. There are laws that regulate advertisements and what not that state you cannot lie about your product and cannot mislead consumers.
"This can be seen in a prominent case against NIKE in the US supreme court. When, in 2002..."
Well that was in 2002. As I have said before, there are new regulations in place that ensure that companies are not misleading.
Con has failed to prove why businesses should not make more of an effort to practice good CSR.
This points still stands. Con has failed to prove why cost savings using CSR is bad.
This points also stands. Con makes a futile attempt to refute this by saying businesses will lie to consumers. I successfully refute this by saying there are laws and regulations which disallow businesses from doing this.
This point remains all the way to the last round. Con has failed to bring up a single point which refutes my point.
This point remains untouched. Con has not brought up a single point that argues against this point.
Giving Back to the Local Community
Same as Environmental Effects
Helping the Global Community Become A Better Place
This point still stands since Con did not address this.
"you will find consumers boycotting companies that are damaging the environment" - Why would consumers abandon companies if they are getting what they want ? In addition to this, how is diverging from a company going to help the environment? When profits start to decline, they increase their production , flooding the markets with their goods, therefore, increasing the damage to the environment. Maybe that is why my alert opponent keeps resorting to say that their products would be cheaper as with a glut in the market the prices would drop immensely
"increased profit margins" - My outgoing, enthusiastic, opponent has brought up this phrase numerous times but has not explained how these profits would increase after the large amount of money has been spent.
I shall not rebut against anything said in my opponent's final round as it would be unfair because he can not rebut against me in this round.
In summation, I believe that businesses should not have to make more of an effort to have a good CRS because of economic issues such as high costs, damage to the global market place and the interest of potential buyers and investors as well as social reasons which include green washing, the responsibility of the government and non-profit organizations and false praise. My opponent has failed to properly present his case as he insufficiently explained his point but tries to by using long, repeated examples. He also spent a lot of his argument trying, in vain to disregard my points that he ran out of characters to properly explain his points and present his case , as can be seen in round 3. I will end by saying this. CSR tries to pose ineffective market-based solutions to solve social and environmental problems.
once again i would like to thank Swagmasterpoopoo for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic
IF YOU ARE AWESOME , VOTE CON !
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|