Businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.

Looking forward to the last round!Rebuttal" Even if the business does this in an effort to manufacture larger quantities of their product , they will have further costs as they will have to now accommodate for the extra packages. the pieces of the packages that they think can be used for another product will actually not suffice." When a company reduces their packaging size, they are not increasing the quantity of their product, but simply decreasing the amount of wasted space, or using less material to cover the same surface area. I don't see how it is possible that they will have more costs if they are saving money through less packaging. And, the amount of packaging that is saved through this process can be used for the next product being packaged. It may not be enough to cover the entirety of a product, but it definitely saves materials."In addition to this, if they intended to save money buy reducing the packaging size , but charge the customer the same amount of money for the good would be unfair to the customer... they may refuse to buy the product."It really is not that unfair. Often, customers are looking for the quality product and not what the product is housed on. Also, if consumers are really worried about what you say they might do about refusing to buy the product, the company can reduce the price of their product. I already said this in the first round. With lower costs, the margin between the price of the product and price of manufacturing increases. Therefore, the business has the option to lower the price of the product for consumers, but maintaining a strong profit margin because of the lower manufacturing costs. "notice that the list does not include "good reputation" ? this clearly show that this is not what being socially responsible majority of consumers look for. "Firstly, what is this list? Sure, I agree that these are factors that affect consumer behaviour, but honestly, I could have made up a list like that too by myself. There is no citation, so for all we know, you could have made it up. Also, I disagree with "good reputation" not being a factor on consumer behaviour. If a company has a bad reputation or bad publicity, often consumers will boycott their products. For example, Dollarama has been a lot of hot water for selling products that do not fit the health guidelines. Often, their products that are brought in from China contain high amounts of lead. In fact, between July 2006 to August 2007, Dollarama made a recall on all charm toys due to their insanely high amount of lead content. [1] The value of the Dollarama stock decreased quite significantly since their sales dropped after consumers learned of this news. Therefore, consumers are seriously affected by the reputation of businesses. "how could a business increase their profit margins while trying to be socially responsible ?"I have already addressed this like a billion times. Companies can make their manufacturing, goods,etc. as efficient as possible. That would reduce their environmental impact while saving money. My entire cost savings point explains this."as a consumer go to the grocery or somewhere and say " wow this product is made from a socially responsible company , therefore, I will buy it even though it is / may not be of a high quality rather than purchase a product that I know for sure because it is popular and is definitely of a good quality just because it does not have a good CRS""Products from companies with good CSR are generally better than products from companies with bad CSR. For example, Dollarama practices bad CSR and provides relatively low quality products. Walmart practices better CSR than Dollarama and makes higher quality products. Companies who practice good CSR focus on making high quality products since they want to use material from ethical sources, or certified manufactures or use factories in places that do not use child labour. It is not possible for a company to practice bad CSR, yet somehow have a higher quality product than a company that has good CSR. "Small businesses actually make up the backbone of the economy. In fact, in the UK..."Small businesses shouldn't have been mentioned anyways because the definition I provided for business is that it is a relatively large company. Mentioning small businesses contradicts my definition, which in turn breaks the rules. "Now, my deluded opponent, tell me how does a small business have LITTLE impact on society ?"Sure, small businesses may have an impact on the ECONOMY, but they have little impact on national or global issues. Small businesses cannot not donate lots of money to charities or NGOs since they cannot afford it, so in that aspect, they have very little impact. "Actually they do , honey. When a businesses' expenses that are incurred or an increase in expenses , they always raise the cost of their good or service to make up for the amount lost. It does not mean that the end price will necessarily be unfair, but it will definitely increase."I already covered this again and again. I'm really not sure why Con is under the impression that prices will suddenly increase. I already said: COSTS WILL GO DOWN. That means that PRICE CAN GO DOWN. I've given numerous examples where companies have saved money by practicing good CSR and therefore, their products are more affordable. "Potential buyers are the individuals or entities who wish to purchase a business. I think you misunderstood that as you referred to them as the consumers .. and they do only care about the profits when looking to purchase entities."I mentioned consumers because they affect the decision of investors. If a company has lots consumers, they will have lots of sales, therefore attracting more investors. You're completely incorrect to say that investors only focus on profits. Ever watched Dragons Den or Shark Tank? Often, the Dragons or Sharks do invest because they do not like owner, or they feel the business is too small, etc. These are some reasons other than profit. "Greenwashing"I am just going to refute this entire point because personally, I believe that this is ridiculous. First of all, businesses that are on the stock market are required to publish all their company's information. It is the law; they have to be transparent for the public. Therefore, these companies cannot simply mislead consumers to what they may actually be doing. All the example you presented are hypothetical situations that do not often happen in the real world. Consumers are more informed that before and can figure out if a company is being misleading or not. This will give bad publicity to the company, which will affect the number of consumers they get. "A business in the private sector's main priorities are to make a profit and to provide a good and service to the public. It is not to give back to society, nor is it to environmentally friendly" Now it is. Consumers today are looking for companies with good CSR, therefore businesses are changing so that they do practice good CSR. Why else would all the companies I mentioned be practicing good CSR? " They do not have the expertise and knowledge necessary for handling social problems."If companies do not have the knowledge, they can just donate money to groups that do. "Also, if managers are concentrating on social responsibilities they are not performing their primary duties for the company at full capacity" This shows that companies should continue to focus on making profits , not handle social issues as they know not how to handle it as they major in making profits."Addressed this already. Companies can make more profits through practicing good CSR. It is illogical to say that reducing costs for packaging somehow raises costs. "The money from these taxes go to the government. This is a form of revenue to the government. These taxes are supposed to be used to improve and develop the country socially. However, the constant demanding for extra money to "improve the country socially " makes one question where the money from tax is actually going towards and whether or not these donations would go to actually helping the environment."Con contradicts herself. First she says that the taxes from businesses are going to the government, who are supposed to be helping society. Then she questions whether or not the taxes (not donations...) are really being used in the right way. What are you trying to say? " Some internationally recognized companies who claim to be socially responsible by being environmentally friendly or using recyclable products, may be lying to the public's face , just to make an image and boost their sales."You're not exactly allowed to do that anymore. There are laws that regulate advertisements and what not that state you cannot lie about your product and cannot mislead consumers. "This can be seen in a prominent case against NIKE in the US supreme court. When, in 2002..." Well that was in 2002. As I have said before, there are new regulations in place that ensure that companies are not misleading. ConclusionCon has failed to prove why businesses should not make more of an effort to practice good CSR. Cost SavingsThis points still stands. Con has failed to prove why cost savings using CSR is bad. Marketing Tool This points also stands. Con makes a futile attempt to refute this by saying businesses will lie to consumers. I successfully refute this by saying there are laws and regulations which disallow businesses from doing this. Innovative ProductsThis point remains all the way to the last round. Con has failed to bring up a single point which refutes my point. Environmental EffectsThis point remains untouched. Con has not brought up a single point that argues against this point. Giving Back to the Local CommunitySame as Environmental EffectsHelping the Global Community Become A Better PlaceThis point still stands since Con did not address this. Vote Pro!http://www.edsonleader.com... [1]