The opinion that a company's most effective strategy in maintaining and increasing profits over the long term by upholding a high ethical standards is one that I can strongly agree with. Although it might be that there is a high initial cost of investment for ethical strategy, in the long run the returns to the company will many times greater.
A company who sole purpose is gaining profit through unscrupulous means will not be able to maintain the same level of profit for long. For example, Food and Beverage brand Ayam Brand saw a drastic drop in profit when an independent body reported that their source of tuna was not environmentally viable. The company that supplied the tuna to them were catch fishes using deep sea trawlers that were severely harming the population of sea animals, dolphin amongst others because they nets they used did not discriminate between the kind of animals caught. As a result, consumers boycotted their brand and their profits never recovered until they agreed to switch suppliers. Although the cost price of their canned tuna is now higher, more and more consumers are turning to their brand for environmentally sustainable tuna, which in turn will generate more profits for the company in the long term.
Entertainment companies have also seen that their profits were reduced when they resorted to ethical questionable practices. For examples, film studios are resorting to including ever increasing amount of sex and violence in their movies to meet the demands of consumers. Although it might seem like a good idea to give what consumers what, many countries censorship boards are imposing bans on movies and films that they deem to be too violent or sexualised for distribution. For example, China has a very strict standards on what they deem to be suitable for viewing and have been known to completely shut out movies even if the movies are the most anticipated blockbusters of the year. Film studios are wary of this and increasingly smarter and adherent to filming ethical standards for fear of missing out on capturing the China market, which will severely put a dent on their balance sheets.
Although it can be argued that companies will see a marked increase in profit by resorting to unethical standards of practice, but surely it cannot be sustainable. A fishing company can increase their profit by not investing in environmentally friendly equipments and continue using nets which indiscriminately catch all kinds of fish to be sold to the market. However, this practice will destroy fish stocks and in the extreme case the fish population might go extinct in the future. The very commodity that the company so heavily rely on will be gone and so too will the company.
As a conclusion, we see that companies might see an increase in profits by resorting to unethical strategy. However, companies can only get away with so much and the tides will soon turn against their favour and the profits that they have been reaping will soon be gone.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'standard'?
Suggestion: standard
...e long term by upholding a high ethical standards is one that I can strongly agree with. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 485, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'net'
Suggestion: net
...ls, dolphin amongst others because they nets they used did not discriminate between ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 347, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'countries'' or 'country's'?
Suggestion: countries'; country's
... idea to give what consumers what, many countries censorship boards are imposing bans on ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 515, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'standard'?
Suggestion: standard
...n. For example, China has a very strict standards on what they deem to be suitable for vi...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'for example', 'kind of', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232902033272 0.240241500013 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.170055452865 0.157235817809 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0850277264325 0.0880659088768 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0702402957486 0.0497285424764 141% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0443622920518 0.0444667217837 100% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127541589649 0.12292977631 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0573012939002 0.0406280797675 141% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7327234804 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0314232902033 0.030933414821 102% => OK
Particles: 0.00554528650647 0.0016655270985 333% => OK
Determiners: 0.0813308687616 0.0997080785238 82% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0351201478743 0.0249443105267 141% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0203327171904 0.0148568991511 137% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3012.0 2732.02544248 110% => OK
No of words: 504.0 452.878318584 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97619047619 6.0361032391 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.58838876751 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.337301587302 0.366273622748 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.289682539683 0.280924506359 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.180555555556 0.200843997647 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.117063492063 0.132149295362 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7327234804 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 219.290929204 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498015873016 0.48968727796 102% => OK
Word variations: 58.5994274472 55.4138127331 106% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6194690265 87% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.380412469 120% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.6976522326 59.4972553346 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.333333333 141.124799967 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.380412469 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.444444444444 0.674092028746 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 56.9682539683 51.4728631049 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.46753246753 1.64882698954 89% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.440593107435 0.391690518653 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.130847681291 0.123202303941 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0760529933755 0.077325440228 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.568666679071 0.547984918172 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.13136253885 0.149214159877 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171019871068 0.161403998019 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832354955087 0.0892212321368 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.355911683082 0.385218514788 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0251750297381 0.0692045440612 36% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283593595012 0.275328986314 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0989001155584 0.0653680567796 151% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88274336283 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.66592920354 82% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 13.5995575221 110% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.