Should companies be required to help the world?

[unformed 0]

Day after day, I see post after post claiming a business or corporation is making way too much money by screwing over the customer, the little guy.

My question: is there anything inherently wrong with this?

Should a corporation be indebted to society and aim to better everybody's life, even if it means less profits, or should a corporation be strictly indebted to its investors and attempt to make a profitable return? Or is there a gray area?

I have my own opinions on this. I want to hear yours.

This ad space for sale.

[flynlois 0]

Should companies be required to help the world?

No. Compulsory charity is oxymoronic and doesn't work.

That said, corporate peer pressure can move mountains. When one company is big on charity it can have a snow ball effect on other companies wanting to stay competitive, even in seemingly "altruistic" endeavors.

[skydyvr 0]

Yes, corporations have an obligation to accomodate the needs not only of customers and shareholders, but of ALL stakeholders, including employees and society at large. Not that they all do it, but they should.

Fortunately, the idea of corporations doing only what it takes to make a profit regardless of impact on people or the environment is changing. Thanks to corporate culture changes and more enlighted management techniques, more and more companies are conducting proactive and positive business practices. Some of those companies even discover higher profit in doing the right thing.

. . =(_8^(1)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

No, compulsory charity is anathema to freedom. (We are seeing schoolkids required to do "mandatory 'volunteer' work" in order to graduate from high school, now!)

But at the same time, unbridled greed is wrong, nonetheless.

So even if a company has the world by the short hairs and could charge exorbitant prices, it should not, because that is simply morally wrong.

Obscene profits are obscene profits.


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[freethefly 6]

Not sure if corporations should be "forced" to give back. Maybe nudged. I do believe that they are, however, indebted to society, the very people who consume their products. Also, the communities they employe, they are also indebted to and in return the people too are indebted to the company. As skydyvr pointed out, some corporations do give back and the goodwill reflects back on the company as desirable. Some companies participate in toy drives, community clean up and renovation, food drives and such. Some give heavily to other forms of charities such as AIDS research, cancer research, muscular dystrophy to name a few. Bill Gates has given heavily of himself and his money, same as Ted Turner. Philanthropy happens with little knowledge that it does. What overshadows the good being done is that more light is shed on the Ken Lays of the corporate world. For good reason as they should be exposed for feigning to be the good guys while the true white hats go about the business of giving back with little or no fanfare.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Should companies be required to help the world?

No. Compulsory charity is oxymoronic and doesn't work.

That said, corporate peer pressure can move mountains. When one company is big on charity it can have a snow ball effect on other companies wanting to stay competitive, even in seemingly "altruistic" endeavors.

My preference has always been that charity be done by individuals, and companies stay OUT of politically or socially sensitive areas.

I don't want to have to consider whether my bluejeans are made by a company (Levi's) that funds anti-gun efforts. I don't want to have to consider that the company that makes my soft drinks has an official position on abortion for example. Why should they bother? Just make the fuckin' product, okay?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[freeryde13 0]

by current law no .

by gods/ universal law yes.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

by current law no .

by gods/ universal law yes.

By god's/universal law, we are in agreement; and so the question is moot because the world is, in fact, now ending!


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

No, compulsory charity is anathema to freedom. (We are seeing schoolkids required to do "mandatory 'volunteer' work" in order to graduate from high school, now!)

I agree with your (complete) post; but re: this portion, let me take off on a tangent for a sec.

Compulsory charity is different, in my mind, for kids than it is for adults or corporations. Obviously kids don't have the same range of freedoms as adults, and an example of this is compulsory education. Compulsory charity, whether thru home or thru school, can be a valuable tool in a kid's overall social, civic and moral education. FWIW, most high schools these days refer to them as "community service projects", which kids understand is integrated into their education curriculum. Also, many churches & synagogues have similar compulsory community service projects for kids to fulfill their confirmation requirements.

[cesslon 0]

check out the google org web site
www.google.org

[freeryde13 0]

damn, i was just starting to get the hang of it...... oh well , i'll met you in the next world, don't be late.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"i'll met you in the next world, don't be late. "

I think Stevie Ray Vaughan's version is better than Jimi's.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely. Companies should be required to help the world or go out of business.

These companies help the world via a product or service that the world finds helpful, and does it at a price that people are willing to pay.

Has there been a company in the last 50 years that has done more to impact people's daily lives in a positive way that Microsoft? How much easier has Microsoft made my life and everybody else's?

Microsoft has done TREMENDOUS good for the world. And they have been nicely and justly compensated for their products.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Absolutely. Companies should be required to help the world or go out of business.

These companies help the world via a product or service that the world finds helpful, and does it at a price that people are willing to pay.

Has there been a company in the last 50 years that has done more to impact people's daily lives in a positive way that Microsoft? How much easier has Microsoft made my life and everybody else's?

Microsoft has done TREMENDOUS good for the world. And they have been nicely and justly compensated for their products.

And its chairman has done a tremendous amount of charitable work.

But as far as forcing companies to do anything in addition to succeeding, the only change I would make is to identify employees as stakeholders rather than chattel (good companies already do this for the most part).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Day after day, I see post after post claiming a business or corporation is making way too much money by screwing over the customer, the little guy.

My question: is there anything inherently wrong with this?

Should a corporation be indebted to society and aim to better everybody's life, even if it means less profits, or should a corporation be strictly indebted to its investors and attempt to make a profitable return? Or is there a gray area?

I have my own opinions on this. I want to hear yours.

No. A company is not obligated to help society. The converse is also true: Society is not obligated to help corporations.

illegible usually

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

"i'll met you in the next world, don't be late. "

I think Stevie Ray Vaughan's version is better than Jimi's.

SRV's version of Little Wing is freakin beautuful, better than the original in some respects. Been trying to learn it on guitar for the past few months, jeeze it's hard.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[akarunway 1]

I wonder how much these guys give to help the world?>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil_5

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

“SRV's version of Little Wing is freakin beautuful, better than the original in some respects.”

Yeah I love the SRV version of that one as well, I’d have liked to get hold of a version(if one exists) of the SRV plus vocals, JH’s vocals on the original are what makes it, IMO, but SRV seems to make the vocal element pretty much redundant in his version.
Freakin’ beautiful sums it up for the SRV version though.

On Voodoo Chile the SRV vocals are better than the original, more sharp and gritty, and the guitar work is better than JH’s sort of fluffy meandering, if you see what I mean.

By the way, I'd like to see Shell involved in this discussion somewhere, they have just announced record 13 billion UK profits, meanwhile the jury is hearing how they killed two guys on Brent Bravo, due to cost cutting. See also Shell's environmental record in Nigeria's Delta region.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[akarunway 1]

I like this story better. Opinions?>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Looks good, but I 'd anticipate an Oil For Food mud slinging session before anyone goes much further.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[markd_nscr986 0]

***Should a corporation be indebted to society and aim to better everybody's life, even if it means less profits, or should a corporation be strictly indebted to its investors and attempt to make a profitable return?


They provide return on investment and dividends to shareholders, employment,goods and services and they pay taxes..............in some cases quite a bit

I think that's more than adequate......others may not

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Nightingale 0]

No. The US isn't a communist state. Corporations should be responsible to nobody except their shareholders, provided they're operating legally and following environmental regulations. There's nothing wrong with making money. It'd be nice if they want to give back to the community, and a lot of them do, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No. The US isn't a communist state. Corporations should be responsible to nobody except their shareholders, provided they're operating legally {enviro comments is redundant with 'operating legally'). There's nothing wrong with making money. It'd be nice if they want to give back to the community, and a lot of them do, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

My answer too. Sometimes if a company volunteers to do more "obviously defined" acts of charity (above and beyong providing goods and services as part of their function) that reflects on the company and can help their bottom line in the long run. If so, good for them.

Ludicrous to force it. Who's going to define what good enough means? Who's going to tell them what the 'correct' charity efforts are?

The original question is such a broad-based and subjective question, that it really makes little sense. If there is a demand for a good or product, providing that good or product and generating jobs doing so IS 'helping' the world. More help than single unemployed right/left activist standing on a corner screaming about some trendy "cause of the day" gives to the world.

Best to leave charity and caring to the individuals.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Dolph 0]

Yes, the Gates Foundation have around $25 billion available.

You may hate his business practises, but I'd rather see my money go to such an individual than to some grubby little want-it-all.

[freeryde13 0]

stevies' is allright but damn , that could only be said on speakers corner.......CAN WE GET A MONITER OVER HERE.

Quote

"i'll met you in the next world, don't be late. "

I think Stevie Ray Vaughan's version is better than Jimi's.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance