“Scientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“科学家在不断重新制定对环境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的标准。由于这些标准不停变动，面对新建议，公司应该保持他们的产品和流程不变直到新的建议成为国家标准为止。”
1. 科学家的建议也并不一定都是正确的。很有可能他的结论适用面很窄。或者他所得到的数据有错误等等。
2. 对企业来说频繁的变更产品和生产流程会造成很大的经济损失
3. 诚然等待国家制定标准很可能存在滞后等问题但是比较起来以上的问题还是应该等待国家制定标准。此外一个折中的方案是国家成立专门的机构快速地对新的方案和建议做出评价并迅速制定标准
split the difference lag evaluate
View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,
View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therefore do harm to the companies .
View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.
The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and about regulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations compel me to disagree overall with the argument.
First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably. At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover, a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company on the coast. It would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or, in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious. Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.
Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA might be overburdened with its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.
In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker’s recommended approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage resulting from bureaucratic delay.
45. “The most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics.”
“商务人员在长期内实现利润最大化的最有效途径是遵循最高标准的道德。”
反面的例子可以是说如果从最高的道德规范来看有些污染环境的行业根本就不应该存在。但是从企业的长期发展来看以及从社会的福利最大化来看，只要污染控制在一定范围就好。如化工厂只要把排污控制在国家规定的范围就好。
1. 道德不明确，每个人的标准不一样
2. 法律立法时符合大多数人的要求明确具体
3. 时滞可以用提高立法效率来解决
和AI034基本一样。
1. 支持者会认为, 高道德会赢得reputation and trust; 第一, 高道德生产高质量的产品以及service,顾客稳定stable share of the market; 第二, 高道德会让员工满意度提高(公平，平等). 从而attract those applicants with high ability and keep the employees loyal to the company---最终导致高的productivity.
例子：Bayer, one of the largest pharmaceutic companies in the world, announced that the company would cease production of one of its major products, because of the hazardous ingredients it contained. By doing so, the company suffers great loss on profitability, but gains strong public support and understanding, which can contribute to the long-term success of the company.
2. 但在更多的情况下, 高道德也许不equal to maximal profit. 比如,a, 如果把道德放在第一位的话,企业的executive很可能无法执行裁员活动complete the normal administration, such as raising the price, reducing the superabundant staff… b, 高道德的话，很可能采用最高标准的环保生产——这样很不是cost-effective. 总之，Following such undue concern about ethics, the company may find it impossible to survive in the radical competitive market, let alone to gain large profit.
View1: the definition of highest standards of ethics vary from person to person and time to time. Therefore, it is impractical to find and then stick to the highest standards of ethics.
View2: the regulations and laws of authorities are more feasible and suitable standards to follow.
View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of eliminating the ill actions, we can count on the authorities to speed up the process of refining the laws and regulations.
The speaker claims that following high ethical standards is the best way to maximize profits in the long run. However, this claim seems to be more of a normative statement than an empirical observation. The issue is more complex than the speaker suggests. In my observation, the two objectives at times coincide but at other times conflict.
In many ways behaving ethically can benefit a business. Ethical conduct will gain a company good reputation that earns repeated business. Treating suppliers, customers and others fairly is likely to result in their reciprocating. Finally, a company that treats its employees fairly and with respect will gain their loyalty which, in turn, usually translates into higher productivity.
On the other hand, taking the most ethical course of action may in many cases reduce profits, in the short run and beyond. Consider the details of a merger in which both firms hope to profit from a synergy gained thereby. If the details of the merger hinge on the ethical conviction that as few employees as possible should lose their jobs, the key executives may lose sight of the fact that a leaner, less labor-intensive organization might be necessary for long-term survival. Thus, undue concern with ethics in this case would results in lower profits and perhaps ultimate business failure.
This merger scenario points out a larger argument that the speaker misses entirely-that profit maximization is per se the highest ethical objective in private business. Why? By maximizing profits, businesses bestow a variety of important benefits on their community and on society: they employ more people, stimulate the economy, and enhance healthy competition. In short, the profit motive is the key to ensuring that the members of a free market society survive and thrive. While this argument might ignore implications for the natural environment and for socioeconomic justice, it is a compelling argument nonetheless.
Thus the choice to follow high ethical standards should not be made by thinking that ethical conduct is profitable. While in some cases a commitment to high ethical standards might benefit a company financially, in many cases it will not. In the final analysis, businesses might best be advised to view their attempts to maximize profits as highly ethical behavior.