6. "If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then [b]conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duly to [b]serve society." From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? [b]Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own [b]experience, observations, or reading. [b][b]We take for granted that a primary objective and obligation of a [b]corporation is to maximize profits. But does this mean a corporation cannot [b]also fulfill its obligations to society? The speaker claims mat the two [b]duties necessarily conflict. In my view, however, a corporation's duties to [b]maximize shareholder wealth and to serve society will at times coincide and [b]at times conflict; and when they do conflict, neither takes automatic [b]precedence over the other. [b][b]Beyond the obvious duty to maximize shareholder wealth, corporations indeed [b]owe a duty to serve society, especially the immediate community, which [b]permits corporation to operate in exchange for an implied promise that the [b]corporations will do no harm and will bring some benefit to the community [b]These duties can often be fulfilled together. For example, a successful [b]corporation brings jobs and elated economic benefit to the community. And, [b]by contributing to community activities and charities in other ways, the [b]corporation gains a reputation for social responsibility that often helps [b]it become even more successful. [b][b]However, at times these duties do conflict. Consider, for instance, a [b]company that unknowingly leaks into the ground a toxic substance that [b]threatens to contaminate local groundwater. While the company may favor an [b]inexpensive containment program, community leaders may want the company to [b]go further by cleaning up and restoring their environment-even if the [b]expense will force the company to leave and take jobs from the community. [b]Whatever the company decides, it should not assume that protecting profits [b]automatically outweighs social obligation. In many instances it does not, [b]as highly-visible tobacco, automobile safety, and asbestos liability cases [b]aptly illustrate. Such examples reveal a limit as to how far a corporation [b]can ethically go in trading off the well-being of the community for the [b]sake of its own profits, [b][b]In sum, corporations have duties both to do well and to do good. Although [b]conflict between these duties is not inevitable, it does occur. Determining [b]which duty takes precedence in time of conflict requires careful [b]consideration of all the ethical ramifications of each alternative. [b]