Furthermore having money, company also have a legal. Having been in the dilemma of whether being agreement with the statement, I have decided to present a neutral position.
One the one hand, there are two principal reasons why I can agree with the argument given. First and foremost, Only have not a money in company, so be responsibility. Have a money well but how it is important. In addition to this, If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become irrelevant. These are the most obvious reasons that make me agree fifty percent.
One the other hand, the arguments presented above can be considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, One social obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. Secondly, I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Hardly the statement in question is acceptable due to these counterarguments provided.
In conclusion, I cannot say that I either totally agree or disagree. This is because there are equally strong arguments on both sides of the spectrum.