The top priority of businesses is making money, and they do not need to have social responsibilities. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Employment

has always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that associations have. I completely agree with the idea that

employment

should do more for the nation than simply make money. On the one hand, I accept that

employment

must make money in order to survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any group is to cover its running costs,

such

as employee wages and payment for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies

also

need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If an association is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become irrelevant.

In other words

, a company can only make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health.

On the other hand

, companies should not run with the sole aim of maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in the nation. One social obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploit them.

For example

, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I

also

like the idea that

employment

could use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives.

Finally

,

instead

of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I believe that community bosses should be happy to contribute to the company through the tax system. In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.