Here are a few more reasons why its a bad idea. First of all, if they raised the taxes no one would be happy. Many people buy snacks and pop from stores, if taxes are raised they may stop buying them and the store would lose business. If they continue buying it they would lose money. Either way it goes, nothing good happens.
Company Q in the scenario provided has a very poor attitude towards social responsibility because though they provide some basic aspects like Economic and Legal they fall short in Ethical and Philanthropic aspects. We will examine ways that Company Q can improve those lacking aspects. The first potential improvement is in the store closing situation of the scenario where Company Q closed two stores in high crime rate areas. Company Q has the right to be profitable and if they report that these stores are losing money then they have every right to close those stores but they made no efforts in the Philanthropic aspect of social responsibility. Company Q could have made investments in the local community that would have potentially improved the community thus decreasing the crime rate.
Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma would have you to believe that capitalism (which he states is a poor economic model) to apply to issues of food consumption and production. I have to say that I agree with his premise that the industrial model of business is not the best model for approaching food anxiety in the United States. The main reason that it creates divisions in the food production chains that are all for the wealthy and unfair to the poor, it also leads to the upper income families having the pleasure of the more expensive healthy meals that are nutritious while the poor families eat the cheaper meals that are not as healthy or nutritious (Schlosser 123). It is obvious that larger manufacturing companies in the food industry have inflated their control on the market. The larger the company, the more market power it has.
Export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States No, a business shouldn’t be able to export commodities that have been banned from the United States. There are reasons that these products have been banned whether its drugs, chemicals or some other product it most likely causes harm to individuals or has some kind of danger to it. Although a company’s main concern is making a profit they still have other responsibilities that also contribute to their profits that they receive. Everything a business does reflects on them in either a good
The company’s abuse has consequences that turn out to have hidden economical and sociological costs that are not reflected in the market price of the food. The consumers are paying for these unseen costs while four to seven of corporations dominating the meat industry keep getting richer (Food Inc.). The industrial food production process must be seriously examined and improved because the current production system is sacrificing the integrity of our food at the sake of the consumer. The integrity and health of real food could be maintained if our government finally helps our citizens take a stand to end food born illnesses, animal abuse, and obesity that the industrial food market creates. Between the seasonless crops, genetically modified animals and crops, and the mixture of thousands of cows in one hamburger patty, everything about our food is fake.
The ‘seduced’ consumer is one with no restrictions; i.e. money etc, being a seller’s favourite type of buyer, while a ‘repressed’ buyer may be restricted by money or disabilities etc. This type of buyer has less favour with sellers. A consumer society is still based on inequalities and exclusions (Hetherington, 2009, p30) There is also a minority of consumers classed as ‘oppositional’, this group of people tend to oppose the big supermarkets and retail parks in favour of small businesses, for political and/or environmentally reasons, those who like to buy organic from farmers’ markets etc, “reducing carbon footprint and recycling to create a vision of consumption based more on personal thrift and social responsibility” (Hetherington, 2009, p47-48) rather than being a ‘seduced’ consumer. Supermarkets’ buying power creates a ‘zero-sum’ effect, where not everyone benefits.
By not complying with the duty of serving the owners’ interest a manager would allocate resources artificially and arbitrarily. This spending would be unjust and probably non-optimal, because it is not democratically authorized. Assigning duties other than serving the owners to a non-democratically selected manager would result in abandoning parts of freedom and democratic achievements. Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management basically says that the purpose of a business is to make money for the owner or the stockholders of the business. Friedman says that there is only one social responsibility for the business: to use its resources in order to increase its profits as long as the business stats within the rules that are assigned.
A final area that we will look into is that of a decision made by company Q to dispose of old and expired food products, instead of agreeing to a request of local food banks to donate the items. The reason company Q made this decision, according to their spokesman, was that there was “a concern of lost revenues due to possible fraud, or theft of food by employees and claiming donation.” This is a poor excuse by a company with the resources to enable proper oversight of the donation process. So what can be done? Company Q has 3 examples where a lack of vision and
Those people who are able to join the consumer society in a positive way are the seduced. Others belong in the repressed category, those who are unemployed, perhaps old or disabled and have little money to spend on luxury’s and are less likely to be accepted into some parts of society. However lots of Sociologist argues that not everyone can simply be placed in two categories as it requires more detail. Some consumers might not want to shop in the large supermarkets for different reasons, maybe environmental or political reasons. Consumers may like to protect the environment and prefer to shop at farmers markets or use vegetables grown in an allotment.
The gap among the rich and the poor exists not only in terms of wealth, but also in terms of access to healthy food. Normally, businesses do not think about the wellbeing of those that live in poverty, they are too worried about their own success to worry about the underprivileged. More often than not, businesses make decisions for financial reasons, not based on the wellbeing of others. Morally, the food gap in America is a huge problem. While existing in the same society, under the same foundation, some people have the funds to sustain healthy diets, while others have nothing to eat or overeat to the point of obesity.