Table of Contents
Directions
Your professor is teaching a class on Business. Write a post responding to the professor’s question. In your response, you should:
- express and support your personal opinion
make a contribution to the discussion in your own words - An effective response will contain at least 100 words. You have ten minutes to write.
Class Discussion
Today, we are debating an important topic in business ethics. Apart from the economic benefits companies may gain from voluntary actions, we should consider the overall impact on society and the environment. The main question is: Should ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ be a legal requirement rather than a voluntary choice?
I believe that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be a legal requirement. Practical reasons support this view — if companies are required by law, they cannot ignore their environmental and social duties. This legal enforcement ensures consistent actions across industries, preventing some companies from taking advantage of voluntary standards and gaining unfair benefits.
I see it differently. While legal rules can force companies to act, they might also create a minimum effort mindset rather than true commitment. Voluntary CSR encourages companies to innovate and go beyond the law. Also, making CSR compulsory could lead to excessive regulation that harms businesses, especially small ones.
Sample Answers & Evaluation
🏆 Perfect Score – The Sniper Approach (30/30)
While Bob argues that legal requirements might create a minimum effort mindset, he fails to consider the fundamental mechanism through which law shapes corporate behavior and societal norms. Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility catalyzes a paradigm shift by institutionalizing accountability, which voluntary schemes lack. Why does this matter? Because scattered voluntary actions often result in inconsistent impacts and greenwashing, undermining genuine progress.
The landmark example of the UK’s Companies Act 2006, Section 172, demonstrates how legal obligations compel directors to consider stakeholders’ interests, facilitating transparent and socially responsible decision-making. Unlike voluntary CSR, legal frameworks create measurable standards and enforce compliance, ensuring corporations contribute positively to environmental and social welfare.
Therefore, making CSR a legal requirement not only promotes ethical business practices but also aligns corporate autonomy with societal expectations, offering a sustainable model for future corporate governance.
Teacher’s Feedback
Score: 30/30
Logic: This student used precise logic by identifying a flaw in the opposing argument and explaining why legal CSR is more effective. They included a specific real-world example from UK law, making the argument authoritative and convincing.
Golden Vocabulary: paradigm shift, institutionalizing, accountability
🏆 High Score – The Standard Approach (25/30)
I think Corporate Social Responsibility should be a legal rule. This is because when CSR is required by law, companies must follow certain rules about helping the environment and society. For example, if a factory is legally required to reduce pollution, it will have to change its ways, even if it does not want to.
Voluntary CSR depends on companies choosing to do the right thing, but some companies may ignore it to save money. Laws help make sure all companies work towards the same social goals. However, making CSR a law can sometimes make rules very strict, which might be hard for small companies to follow.
In conclusion, legal CSR helps create fairness and better protection for society because companies have clear duties they must meet.
Teacher’s Feedback
Score: 25/30
Logic: This student gave a clear opinion supported by logical reasons and a simple example. The writing is correct but the example is general and lacks deep evidence or special vocabulary compared to the 30-point essay.
Golden Vocabulary: voluntary, pollution