Write about the topic below for 5 minutes
Some people think governments should require companies to reach carbon neutrality by a strict deadline. Others think companies should be allowed to set their own pace toward sustainability. Which do you agree with?
A follow-up question based on your answer will appear here.
Useful Expressions
Show Model Answer · Step 1
I agree that governments should set a strict deadline for carbon neutrality. Voluntary targets are too easy to delay or abandon once they conflict with short term profit, and the climate crisis does not wait for companies to feel ready.
A firm deadline forces every company to plan seriously instead of treating sustainability as an optional extra. It also creates a level playing field, since no company can gain an advantage by simply delaying its commitments longer than its competitors.
Governments can pair the deadline with support, such as tax incentives or transition funding, so companies are not just punished but also helped toward compliance. The deadline still needs to be firm, because without one, progress tends to slow whenever it becomes inconvenient.
Show Model Answer · Step 2
That risk is real, but it argues for smarter policy design rather than abandoning the deadline itself. Governments can scale requirements by company size, giving smaller businesses more time or targeted financial support while larger companies, which have far more resources, move faster.
Without any deadline at all, small companies still face risk, just a different kind. Markets, customers, and investors are already shifting toward sustainable practices, so businesses that fall too far behind may struggle to compete regardless of government rules.
A well designed deadline with tiered timelines protects smaller companies better than no deadline at all, because it gives them a clear, supported path instead of leaving them to adapt on their own timeline against faster moving competitors.