GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文十八

会计考友

18.        We take for granted that a primary objective and obligation of a corporation is to
0 ]: H# h# W/ B9 D- a8 B6 w0 u* Gmaximize profits. But does this mean a corporation cannot also fulfill its obligations to
$ A! a- E9 ^4 r& p$ k5 Gsociety? The speaker claims mat the two duties necessarily conflict. In my view,
however, a corporation's duties to maximize shareholder wealth and to serve society
' s, E2 [3 ]+ \; S4 ~( swill at times coincide and at times-conflict; and when they do conflict, neither takes
4 p8 {: P6 a, F% C. [% [automatic precedence over the other.
, t2 c) @" t& g7 k$ }/ K. B; j      .Beyond the obvious duty to maximize shareholder wealth, corporations indeed
owe a duty to serve society, especially the immediate community, which permits
corporations to operate in exchange for an implicit promise that the corporations will do
; c6 h$ B5 h% e' N0 Bno harm and will bring some benefit to the community. These duties can often be
fulfilled together. For example, a successful corporation brings jobs and related
economic benefit to the community. And, by contributing to community activities and
8 c/ D4 c$ Y. D; [9 P! Kchanges in other ways, the corporation gains a reputation for social responsibility that
' \0 y* N8 m3 p& _) y* O) L* H& m- {often helps it become even more successful.
. j5 e3 J! O/ g8 k! _& e, j, |      However, at times these duties do conflict. Consider, for instance, a company that
- W4 g, ^( t& r5 punknowingly leaks into the ground a toxic substance that threatens to contaminate local
groundwater. While the company may favor an inexpensive containment program,
) z. e1 O) `+ ^) T- fcommunity leaders may want the company to go further by cleaning up and restoring
their environment—even if the expense will force the company to leave and take jobs
from the community. Whatever the company decides, it should not assume that
protecting profits automatically outweighs social obligation. In many instances it does
not, as highly visible tobacco, automobile safety, and asbestos liability cases aptly
illustrate. Such examples reveal a limit as to how far a corporation can ethically go in
trading off the well being of the community for the sake of its own profits.
  c" f8 u  a' z9 P6 N5 l      In sum, corporations have duties both to do well and to do good. Although
/ }0 x/ g% @0 H% y9 rconflict between these duties is not inevitable, it does occur. Determining which duty
& K8 |. F' V; k) ~+ Wtakes precedence in time of conflict requires careful consideration of all the ethical
$ y4 Y' y2 e8 @  A& p9 ^ramifications of each alternative.