*If there is missing reference please tell me what else is needed to answer this question*

Debate Statement:

• Corporations are carrying out the will of consumers and if consumers want corporations to be socially responsible, they must demand it.

*I am on the affirmative side*

I need help making a simple report referencing of my personal position of the debate topic.Using the notes I have provided I need to back up myself in the paragraph. An intro and conclusion is needed. I need help starting this and getting the main points down not the whole assignment.

• What is your personal position regarding the debate topic?
  • Did it change after the debate? (no)
• 2-3 supports (you can use the links I have at the end)
• In-text citations (paraphrased and/or direct quotes) within paragraphs of your report
• Work Cited page of resource used to support your position (APA)

My notes:

Affirmative (my side)	Negative
A corporation is primarily there to focus on profit earnings. Though increasing customer satisfaction and meeting their needs to generate higher potential incomes. Customers are the bloodline of the business Consumers admire corporations that are open to feedback and criticism, to improve on what they struggle with. The corporations save more money, mainly because consumers are willing to pay more into a product if the corporation is willing to act. An example is an environment, corporations will resolve into something for the environment. Such as preventing forest fires, deforestation, etc... Corporations that commit to actions will get the consumer to buy their product as they understand that the money, they are spending is going for a good cause. It builds a good reputation for the corporation, allowing corporations to expand, gain trust from their consumers and promote their products, hire more employees, and earn more. It benefits employees, gets them more motivated to be more positive and productive in the workplace. It gives corporations a better advantage than other corporations that don't act socially responsible. Which causes their consumers to go towards the socially responsible corporation. Employees will have a morale boost in the workplace as they see themselves having a purpose there. As much as corporations don't want to take part in social responsibility due to the fact it is not their problem. It does eventually become difficult to sustain non-social responsible cooperation as you will not have more consumers to build the reputation and sustain a proper income as to those who are socially responsible. Corporations do contribute to something like the environment to gain profit. However, they cannot do it under greed. If consumers realize that they are being taken advantage of just to satisfy the corporation's profit margin. The reputation of the corporation will plummet, and so is their profit. Corporations that are socially responsible will also be able to expand on new products on the line. Allowing them to expand their business further using the resources from CSR and the reputation it built for the mainstream consumers to purchase their product. Knowing that they are buying their products as a contribution.	A corporation is primarily there to focus on profit earnings. They do not care about the consumer's beliefs, much more for their money. It takes more responsibility to be socially responsible than to not be. Corporations do not want to get involved with responsibilities. Only politicians can act. The government is expected to commit to those actions if they are considered an atrocity. For example, smoking is legal. The government profits from the tax money from cigarettes and cigars. If they find it to be a severe cause, then they should ban it. But instead, they don't because of profit earnings. So, if the government does not act because of high profits from tax money. Corporations don't need to act either because of the sheer profits they make. The most effective business leader would not focus on being socially responsible. They do not wish to donate to causes as profit is a primary focus. Most corporations that are socially responsible will not be successful in the marketplace. This is due to the profit they invest in for great causes. This causes them to lose more than what they can profit from. This is not necessary; corporations want to save more time into making a profit-line. Corporations do not actually care about being socially responsible, they do not actually care about contributing to the environment. They simply do it for them to take advantage of their consumers. Corporations are also doing this to take more from the poor to profit from the rich. Some corporations do not have the legitimacy to act for what they promise to their consumers. This is because what they may promise is just because they want to manipulate the consumers for them to make a profit. Some corporations do not have the competency to deliver on their promises. If the corporation is legit about its promises in CSR. How will they be able to deliver on the promise? It will initially be too pricey, and everyone would struggle to find a solution. This conflicts with the point of how CSR saves money.
Arguments: Consumers are the power of corporations Boycotts damage severely to businesses Supply and demand are affected, loss in shrinkage Internet callouts "In today's economy, every corporation has set its strategic goals and objectives to help them attain a strategic advantage over its competitors. Efforts and studies are made to help a business grow and remain sustainable in the long run. However, customer behavior and preferences have been undeniable factor that significantly affects every business operation. For decades of study, it has been proven that consumers have a significant impact in attaining corporate goals, becoming more profitable and sustainable in the long run. According to an Austrian American management consultant Mr. Peter Drucker, he says that customer determines business procedures and how they will prosper. He claims that for a business to have a competitive edge, a business must compete with value, not the price. How customers will value the products and services of a company is all that matters the most (Ink, 2018). Another American psychologist and one of the most important contributors to the field of visual perception, Mr. James Gibson, introduced the bottom-up approach in 1972 to help every company to meet the expectations of its target market by gathering relevant ideas of customer behavior based on interviews, neurosciences studies and customers' opinions towards situations (Zhang, 2018). In addition, for the past two years, every company has put all their efforts to remain sustainable amidst of COVID-19 pandemic where major shutting down of business operation is due to unsudden fall of demand of product and service and decrease of supply of direct and indirect material while the cost continuously increases its price. Every company has strived to remain sustainable while providing and meeting the needs of its customers, for they believed that dissatisfied customers could lead to boycotts, shrinkage, and internet callouts. You see how customers can significantly impact a corporation's growth and sustainability."	Anticipated Counter Arguments: Big companies aren't that affected by boycotting Companies that have enough money can eat the loss Forcing consumers into buying their products Consumers will ultimately buy into their game if they don't have anything else to buy
With recent events such as the spark in "cancel culture" and overall callouts, consumers can reach a wide spectrum of audiences to call out a business. If it receives enough traction, people will begin to either bombard the company or completely boycott, which leads to their profit going down. Social media ultimately helps but is incredibly dangerous and effective, as businesses can be torn and shredded with "cancel culture". Businesses must manage themselves online to maintain a respectable and humane reputation. "Companies are greatly affected by "cancel culture" caused by boycotting. It can cause damage to reputations through generating negative media coverage that could reach millions of customers in just one ad. Let us say that there are companies who have much money that can eat the loss, but the problem is that until when can they afford to cope with their losses? It is just a short-term solution that can be made by a company who have experienced boycotting. But how about in the long run? Every business has put much effort into making sure that it can grow and remain sustainable and attain its long-term goal of success. Remember that once a company's reputation is damaged, it is hard to recover, especially when another competitor's company offers better products and services while the other company is still recovering. Most customers will no longer value a company's products and services with a damaged reputation. The worst is that a company may lose its integrity and trust from its customers. How long can a company continue to cope with its losses if it no longer generates the same income percentage as before? Companies cannot force the customer to purchase products and services that they do not need and do not have value to them. If you claim that"Consumers will ultimately buy into their game if they do not have anything else to buy."That will never happen. There are a lot of alternatives or substitute products and services offered by a competitor's company in the market. A company may claim that they are distinct from its competitor. However, a company may have no right to copy the property of another company. But they have the right to create products or services that would surpass the expectation of the customers."
Rebuttals: Show proof of past boycotts and destroyed companies Consumers that moved to DIY instead of products Businesses that were forced to change due to consumers. Internet callouts go viral, and some companies are charged and sued. "There are big companies that boycotts have recently destroyed. The first company was destroyed by boycotts, the fashion brand of Ivanka Trump, in July 2018. The "#GrabYourWallet" was launched by Shannon Coulter, a digital marketing expert in San Francisco, and Sue Atencio in 2016 to encourage US citizens to participate in movement campaigns against Trump's products. Nordstrom is one of the major retailers that have announced that they no longer carry Trump's brand in 2017. The boycott reportedly happened because of the disagreement with President Trump's policies which he imposed an executive order restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries (Bourne, 2018). The controversy went viral online as "#GrabYourWallet," and the Trumps charity issued for illegal conduct where Barbara Underwood said that the charity was designed to influence the election. Another proof is Sea World, which was boycotted when the documentary "Blackfish" was released in 2013. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals announced a boycott of Sea world park that mistreated killer whales. The company was charged to pay 5 million Dollars in the "Blackfish Effect" (Zaveri, 2018). The stock market price of Sea World fell by 33% when Blackfish was released, and the company announced that they no longer feature shows with orcas. Both cases Trump brand and Sea World are evidence that shows how can boycott damage a reputation and decrease the company's profits." Consumers are the drive of corporations If consumers boycott a corporation enough, their worth and money will go down Supply and demand Corporations will use any means necessary to not spend much money on products Calling them out will cause them to backpedal Consumers ultimately have the power to crush businesses "In conclusion, based on the evidence and arguments I have presented, I strongly agree that corporations are carrying out the will of consumers and if consumers want corporations to be socially responsible then they must demand it".

References:

Bourne, L. (2018, July 26).The Story of Ivanka Trump's Fashion Brand Illustrates the Power of a Shopping Boycott. Glamour. https://www.glamour.com/story/the-story-of-ivanka-trump-fashion-brand-illustrates-the-power-of-a-shopping-boycott

Ink, E. (2018, July 10).Think You Know What Your Customer Wants? Think Again. Management Matters Network. https://www.managementmattersnetwork.com/competitive-strategy/articles/think-you-know-what-your-customer-wants-think

Wiginton, K. (2019, February 15).Major boycotts that changed history. Stacker. https://stacker.com/stories/2502/major-boycotts-changed-history

Zaveri, M. (2018, September 20).SeaWorld Agrees to Pay $5 Million in 'Blackfish Effect' Case. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/business/seaworld-blackfish-fine.html

Zhang, J. (2018, March 8).Who are your customers? Identify Your Customers with Top Down or Bottom-Up Approach.LinkedIn Learning. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-your-customers-identify-top-down-bottom-up-approach-jessie-zhang/