Topic - Business


Nowadays, most large companies operate multi-nationally. To what extent those companies should have responsibility towards local communities in which they operate?

đăng 07:30, 22 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 07:30, 22 thg 3, 2017 ]

In the globalization process, a variety of organizations run on an international scale. However, I believe that these firms should not forget to place more of an emphasis on contributing to the development of the local societies where they are located in several aspects.

The first responsibility that the multinational companies should take is to preserve the local environment. Companies of any size would exert negative influence on the region's air and water quality by running factories, disposing of waste to the waterworks or simply using air conditioners. Therefore, it is encouraged that they are active in placing restrictions on the level of the contaminants released and endeavoring to operate on an environmentally friendly basis.

Second of all, paying tax on schedule is also an obligation. The tax money is used to upgrade the public constructions and regulate the socio-economic activities, thus facilitate people's life. Accordingly, not paying tax properly, the companies not only violate the national laws, but also indirectly deprive the inhabitants of a wide range of benefits they are well-deserved to reap.

Finally, the major global companies can support the regional communities by creating jobs. Provided with career opportunities at a firm near their homes, the workers can not only save time and money for traveling but also find it easier to take care of their family. In a broader view, this action helps reduce the unemployment rate at the area, which boosts the local economic development in the long run.

In conclusion, I believe that helping the local communities thrive should be considered a must for the international organisations, and there are any ways to implement the task.

(273 words – Thành Nguyễn)

As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. Do you agree or disagree?

đăng 18:02, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 18:02, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

People have different views about what kinds of obligation a company should have. While I accept that the top priority of companies is to generate profits, I believe they should also have social responsibilities.

On the one hand, I believe businesses already contribute to society by simply focusing on making money.  The  first  reason  is  that  when  companies  earn  much  profits,  they  can  expand  their businesses, which creates more job opportunities for people. Some big multinational corporations such as Apple or Microsoft can be a great illustration. They have been employing hundreds of thousands of individuals around  the world, which helps to reduce unemployment rates in many countries. Additionally, when companies make higher profits, they will pay more taxes for the government. This money can be used to invest in important fields such as education or health care, which will benefit society as a whole.

On the other hand, I would argue that apart from making money, companies also need to have social responsibilities. Firstly, since the rising number of factories these days has led to serious environmental damage, companies need to take immediate actions to help protect the natural environment. For example, they could try new technologies to recycle their wastes instead of disposing of them right away. Secondly, corporations should also consider helping those who are less fortunate such as homeless or disabled citizens. This will contribute to better society and also help to enhance the image of the company or the brand.

In conclusion, although companies should prioritise the need to make profits, I believe they should also have social responsibilities.

(264 words, by Quang Thắng)

Accommodation and transport problems are increasing in many large cities. Businesses are encouraged to move to rural areas. Do advantages outweigh disadvantages?

đăng 17:58, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 17:58, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

The movement of organizations from urban areas to less-developed provinces is a solution to various municipal problems, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of this trend. The essay will clarify both sides of the coin, and demonstrate my view that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

On the one hand, it is absurd to say that an organization can easily move from a major city to the countryside without  suffering  any  losses.  A  change  in  terms  of  position  may  cost  a  firm,  for example, a reduction in the quality of its workforce. Not every employee is willing to resettle down in a faraway province, and they prefer  seeking another career in the metropolis to maintain their current living standards. The enterprise, to handle such risk of brain drain, would have to hire local workers who are normally less competent. The expenses for their prerequisite training courses are  significant,  but  an  improvement  in  their  professional  performance  would  still  not  be guaranteed.

On the other hand, I believe that the advantages of this scenario are more important. Firstly, such relocation of organizations can reduce the population density in the urban areas. As a result, the influx  of  workers  traveling  in  rush  hours  which  causes  traffic  congestion  would  disappear. Secondly, the movement of companies’ headquarters makes way for the construction of more residential areas, so the citizens would no longer have to live in narrow houses and apartments anymore. Finally, factories carry along with them modern production lines to the suburban areas, hence the rural population might have access to such cutting-edge technological advancements, which have been by no means close to them ever.

In conclusion, I believe that governments should encourage companies to move to rural areas because of the mentioned considerable benefits.

(294 words – Thành Nguyễn)

Leaders and directors in an organization are normally older people. Some people think younger leader would be better. Do you agree or disagree?

đăng 01:29, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 02:07, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

People have different views about whether older or younger people are more suitable for important positions in organizations. While I accept that old individuals have significantly important qualities, I believe younger ones are more likely to become good leaders.

On the one hand, elderly people can be good leaders for some reasons. Firstly, as old people have worked for many years, they have accumulated much more work experience compared to younger workers. This might allow them to make wiser decisions and bring success to the company they work for. Secondly, older people are often more respected by others. Therefore, they can have a more powerful voice within the company, and people are more likely to listen to them. If leaders are young, they might find it hard to influence other employees.

On the other hand, I believe it will be better if young people take up important positions. The first reason is that since young individuals tend to be physically stronger, they can handle big responsibilities and much work. Being a leader requires people to work with much pressure, and old people are often not capable of doing that. Additionally, younger people are usually more creative, so they are more likely to find newer and better improvements which benefit the entire organization. For example, a young manager can come up with a new advertising strategy for a product, which contributes to the increasing sales of the company.

In conclusion, while I accept that old individuals can be good leaders of an organization, I believe these important positions should be given to younger people.

(263 words - by Quang Thắng)

1-4 of 4