Introduction In today’s world, businesses are no longer judged solely on their financial success but also on their contribution to society. One increasingly popular idea is that companies should provide sports and...
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-09-06
Deciding whether companies should provide sports and social facilities for local communities is a complex question of business ethics and social policy. This guide offers a model essay and a detailed breakdown of how to structure your arguments, use evidence effectively, and achieve a top grade on your English exam.
The Norwegian curriculum for the English subject requires you to discuss and elaborate on social, cultural, and political issues from the English-speaking world. The role of corporations in society is a classic theme that can appear in various forms on your exam. Understanding the arguments surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) will prepare you for a range of tasks.
For example, exam questions often ask you to deliberate on contested social issues. You might encounter tasks like:
The following text is a complete model essay. We will use this essay as a basis for understanding how to structure arguments, use evidence, and meet examiner expectations in the sections that follow.
In today’s world, businesses are no longer judged solely on their financial success but also on their contribution to society. One increasingly popular idea is that companies should provide sports and social facilities for the communities in which they operate. Supporters argue that such initiatives improve public health, strengthen community relations, and enhance a company’s reputation. Critics, however, claim that this is not a company’s responsibility and that such tasks should fall under government or individual accountability. This essay will examine both sides of the argument before concluding that companies should indeed play an active role in supporting their local communities.
The most obvious advantage of companies providing sports and social facilities is the improvement of community well-being. Many people struggle to afford gym memberships or access quality sports infrastructure, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. When companies invest in such facilities, they promote healthier lifestyles, reduce stress, and encourage social inclusion. For example, providing public football fields, swimming pools, or fitness centers gives people opportunities to exercise regularly and form social connections. These activities not only improve physical health but also foster mental well-being by reducing loneliness and building stronger community bonds. As a result, local residents often feel more positively toward the companies that support them, leading to increased trust and cooperation.
From a business perspective, investing in community facilities can significantly enhance a company’s public image and corporate reputation. In an age where consumers value corporate social responsibility (CSR), businesses that actively contribute to society often enjoy greater customer loyalty. A well-known example is Nike’s community outreach programs, which promote youth sports and physical education across the world. Such initiatives show that a company is not purely profit-driven but genuinely cares about social development. Moreover, providing local facilities can also benefit employees directly. Workers who have access to recreational and social opportunities are generally happier, more motivated, and more productive. This, in turn, reduces absenteeism and increases staff retention—key factors in a company’s long-term success.
Despite these advantages, some critics argue that providing social and sports facilities should not be the responsibility of private companies. They claim that the primary goal of any business is to generate profit and provide employment, not to perform the functions of the government. According to this view, expecting companies to fund such facilities could divert financial resources away from innovation, investment, or employee salaries. Smaller businesses, in particular, might find such expectations unrealistic or financially burdensome. Furthermore, if only a few companies invest in community infrastructure, the benefits may not be distributed equally, leading to inequalities between regions or communities. Therefore, opponents believe that local or national governments should take the lead in providing social and recreational amenities, funded through taxation rather than corporate goodwill.
However, the most effective approach may lie in shared responsibility. Governments, businesses, and communities all have a role to play in creating a healthy and connected society. Companies could collaborate with local authorities and non-profit organizations to build or maintain sports and social facilities. In such partnerships, companies might provide funding or materials, while governments handle planning and long-term maintenance. This approach ensures that the responsibility does not fall entirely on either side, and the benefits can reach a wider group of people. Furthermore, community engagement initiatives can be integrated into companies’ CSR strategies, making them a natural part of business planning rather than an additional burden. The debate over who bears responsibility echoes similar questions about whether individuals can help the environment or if it is up to governments and companies.
In the long run, when businesses invest in the well-being of local communities, the benefits extend far beyond immediate social gains. Healthy, active citizens contribute to higher productivity, lower healthcare costs, and greater social stability—all of which indirectly benefit the economy and, consequently, the companies themselves. For instance, areas with access to sports facilities often see reduced crime rates and improved youth engagement, creating safer and more prosperous environments for everyone. In this sense, corporate involvement in community development should not be viewed as a cost but as an investment in a stable and sustainable society.
In conclusion, while critics argue that providing sports and social facilities should be the government’s responsibility, there are compelling reasons for companies to participate actively in such initiatives. Supporting local communities through sports and social infrastructure not only improves public health and cohesion but also strengthens corporate reputation, employee satisfaction, and long-term economic stability. Therefore, I firmly agree that companies should contribute to building and maintaining community facilities as part of their broader social responsibility. In doing so, they help create a society in which business success and human well-being go hand in hand.
To write a high-scoring essay on this topic, you need to move beyond simple opinions and use precise terminology. Mastering these concepts will elevate your analysis from good to excellent. …