Yes/No/Not Given #01: Environmental Practices of Big Businesses

Yes/No/Not Given
#01: Environmental practices of big businesses

The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that for many
of us offend our sense of justice. Depending on the circumstances, a business may maximize the
amount of money it makes, at least in the short term, by damaging the environment and
hurting people. That is still the case today for fishermen in an unmanaged fishery without
quotas and for international logging companies with short-term leases on tropical rainforest
land in places with corrupt officials and unsophisticated landowners. When government
regulation is effective, and when the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big
businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government
regulation is ineffective and if the public doesn’t care.
It is easy for the rest of us to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But
blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities
but profit-making companies, and that publicly owned companies with shareholders are under
obligation to those shareholders to maximize profits, provided that they do so by legal means.
US laws make a company’s directors legally liable for something termed ‘breach of fiduciary
responsibility’ if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. The car
manufacturer Henry Ford was in fact successfully sued by shareholders in 1919 for raising the
minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day: the courts declared that, while Ford’s
humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits
for its stockholders.
Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the
condition that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run,
it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such
destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies
profitable.
The public can do that by suing businesses for harming them, as happened after the Exxon
Valdez disaster, in which over 40,000m3 of oil were spilled off the coast of Alaska. The public
may also make their opinion felt by preferring to buy sustainably harvested products; by
making employees of companies with poor track records feel ashamed of their company and
complain to their own management; by preferring their governments to award valuable
contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their
governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.
In turn, big businesses can expert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public
or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread
of a disease known as BSE, which was transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US
government’s Food and Drug Administration introduced rules demanding that the meat
industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But for five years
the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey.
However, when a major fast-food company then made the same demands after customer
purchases of its hamburgers plummeted, the meat industry complied within weeks. The
public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public
pressure: for instance, fast-food chains or jewelry stores, but not meat packers or gold miners.
Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for
business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must
accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs, if any, of sound
environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in
accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we
have to recognize that, throughout human history, in all politically complex human societies,
government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral
principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.
To me, the conclusion that the public has the ultimate responsibility for the behavior of even
the biggest businesses is empowering and hopeful, rather than disappointing. My conclusion is
not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish, a good guy or a bad guy.
In the past, businesses have changed when the public came to expect and require different
behavior, to reward businesses for behavior that the public wanted, and to make things difficult
for businesses practicing behaviors that the public didn’t want. I predict that in the future, just
as in the past, changes in public attitudes will be essential for changes in businesses’
environmental practices.
Questions 1-5
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage?
In boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet, write
YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
1 The public should be prepared to fund good environmental practices.

2 There is a contrast between the moral principles of different businesses.
3 It is important to make a clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
4 The public have successfully influenced businesses in the past.
5 In the future, businesses will show more concern for the environment.
Nguồn: https://webberz.in/blog/ielts-yes-no-not-given-practice-1/
#02:
But salt is also an essential element. Without it, life itself would be impossible since the human
body requires the mineral in order to function properly. The concentration of sodium .ions in
the blood is directly related to the regulation of safe body fluid levels. And while we are all
familiar with its many uses in cooking, we may not be aware that this element is used in some
14,000 commercial applications. From manufacturing pulp and paper to setting dyes in textiles
and fabric, from producing soaps and detergents to making our roads safe in winter, salt plays
an essential part in our daily lives. Salt has a long and influential role in world history. From the
dawn of civilization, it has been a key factor in economic, religious, social and political
development in every corner of the world, it has been the subject of superstition, folklore, and
warfare, and has even been used as currency.
Questions 1-5
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage?
In boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet, write
YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
1. It is possible to live without consuming salt.

2. Sodium ions control body fluid levels.
3. Salt has only culinary uses.
4. Salt deficiency results in diseases.
5. Salt has been used as money.
Nguồn: https://ieltsmaterial.com/ielts-reading-yes-no-not-given/

Yes/No/Not Given #01: Environmental Practices of Big Businesses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yes/No/Not Given #01: Environmental Practices of Big Businesses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yes/No/Not Given #01: Environmental Practices of Big Businesses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yes/No/Not Given

#01: Environmental practices of big businesses

In boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

1 The public should be prepared to fund good environmental practices.

In boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

1. It is possible to live without consuming salt.

You might also like