Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Many believe that the sole responsibility of corporations is to make as much money as possible, whilst operating within the confines of the law. However, I believe that this line of thinking does not necessarily lead to a successful corporation and can even be potentially dangerous to the well-being of its workers and its environments.
The vast majority of major companies today have some form of program that promotes the well-being of its employees. Google, for example, is very well known for its comprehensive benefits package that focuses primarily on the well-being of the employees. Just to name a few of these benefits, employees at Google have access to an on-site gym, they have 'nap-pods' available for use in the office, and they have a flexi-time working schedule. Google is one of the most successful corporations in the world, and they recognize the importance of promoting well-being for its employees. Studies in organizational behavior have shown that if worker satisfaction drops, then worker productivivity also drops. Therefore, corporations cannot only think about making the most amount of money in order to be successful; they must also support the well-being of its employees.
However, some may argue that focusing too much on the well-being of employees and environment would take away resources from a corporation's day-to-day functioning. They may even go on to say that giving employees so many benefits can cause them to get complacent and lazy. To counter these arguments, as stated before, studies have shown that giving such benefits to employees actually cause productivity to go up. For example, there was an experiment in one of the Scandinavian countries that had some workers in a company to work only 6 hours a day instead of the normal 8 hours. The result was a surprise to many: productivity actually increased despite employees working less hours. This experiment supports the notion that putting money and resources into the well-being of employees actually benefits the company and does not take away from their productivity.
In addition to supporting the well-being of their employees, corporations also have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the environments that they operate in. If a corporation fails to take care of their environments, then soon enough the environment will stop taking care of them. For example, if a fishing company fails to keep in mind the consequences of overfishing and simply starts fishing as much as they can in order to make the most money, within a matter of years the fishing population in their environment dwindle until the company cannot fish any more. Hence, corporations have this responsibility to take care of their environments, if not only for the sake of their own well-being.
To conclude, corporations have much more responsibility than just making sure that they make money. They have the responsibility to promote the well-being of their employees and their environments. This not only benefits the employees themselves and the environments, but also benefits the company in the long run, even if it seems that spending money and resources on well-being takes away from their main profits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 126, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a corporation' or simply 'corporations'?
Suggestion: a corporation; corporations
...ironment would take away resources from a corporations day-to-day functioning. They may even g...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 676, Rule ID: LESS_DOLLARSMINUTESHOURS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer hours'?
Suggestion: fewer hours
...lly increased despite employees working less hours. This experiment supports the notion th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 676, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun hours is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...lly increased despite employees working less hours. This experiment supports the not...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2695.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 515.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23300970874 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.763781212 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10895919844 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431067961165 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 833.4 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6031890489 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.333333333 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5238095238 23.4991977007 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.340420875276 0.243740707755 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121799532371 0.0831039109588 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0968951797549 0.0758088955206 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21675029994 0.150359130593 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0635404337903 0.0667264976115 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.71 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 100.480337079 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.