Date Stakeholder Research Paper:

Companies, institutions, government departments and such comprise of stakeholders who worktogether in a neutral environment. All parties, whether employees, directors, creditors, suppliers,
customers, competitors, government or the community where the company is based are key in
determining the progress of any companies. The roles played by each one of them is different.
However, there is no superior or inferior stakeholder than the other. For instance, employees are
operationally based on seeing the daily targets of the company are met. The employer or
management is important to supervise employees and supervise all functions of the organization.
The community allows the company to fit itself in the environment.
Directors and shareholders provide capital for a venture into the business and keep check to
ensure that the company does not deviate from the main agenda of which it was formed.
Government plays a crucial role in providing security to ensuring the company its advocacy
provided it complies with the regulatory guidelines provided concerning such a venture.
Competitors are also significant to give the business venture competition and keeping its
management on the eye. They stimulate the company to maintain the standards and quality of
their products and service in the attempt to remain relevant in the market. The companies have to
keep watch of any competitive advantage that arises in the adventure so as to protect its position

in the market. This is the indirect motivation that makes a corporation better off compared to
other similar companies in the same industry.
Of recent, many companies have recorded declining profit, sales and compromised the quality.
The reason for this is a lack of cooperation among the stakeholder and competition in an attempt
to prove one is superior to the other. They fail to realize that they play complementary roles
towards the same company. They also lack a unity of work and a uniting agent.
In my research, I am determined to explore further, the main causes of conflict among
stakeholders and possible remedies to these conflicts. What can be done to unite employees and
employer? What can be done to convince employees that employer regards them and does not
undermine them anyway? The employers have dared to do all possible to eradicate the mentality
that employees have towards them. Employees’ inclusion in decision making have to some
extent tried to address the concern. also, no much contribution have this remedy yielded. The
level of dissatisfaction continues to grow even the more. Employees tend to think they are being
overworked by being involved in managerial role of decision making.
The community is another subject that is rising claims against the company board of directors.
By the virtue of allowing the company to get roots into their society, they over demand from the
director. They argue that they have given the company an ample time and space to do business in
their land and community. For this reason, they demand compensation from the company of
which the company cannot afford. Though directors try to convince the members to bear with the
little indirect benefits they get, such as employment of subordinate staff and sponsorship of some
activities in the society such as sport, the tag of war between the stakeholders is not yet settled.

Not forgetting another stakeholder such as competitors, creditors, suppliers, and government,
much need to be done to ensure all stakeholders are brought in one pull of commonness and
reasonability. The study is designed to come up with a method and recommendations that can be
applied to smoothen relationship among the company stakeholders
Conservatism and Liberalism on the Issue of Abortion
Conservatism is defined as a political philosophy which favors traditional values such as
traditional culture, religion, nationally acclaimed beliefs, and older customs. The mindset abhors
propositions that seek to introduce overwhelming social changes that are meant to alter the
cultural and societal code of a people (What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It). On the
other hand, liberalism is a political philosophy which pressures the society to embrace liberty
and equality oriented policies (Gaus). Liberalism manifest as social—concerned with equality for
all and sundry—classical liberalism—concerned with the role the liberty has in the society.
Some people believe that if a person is not conservative, they are liberal, that is, they are
progressive. I believe that no person is purely conservative or progressive on all issues. This is
because, even the most conservative person, they will often be in a situation where they need to
observe a progressive agenda for the sake of convenience as well as social convenience.
Additionally, even the most liberal minded people on earth have various conservative aspects in
their mind set. As an illustration, the conservative people are usually associated with pro-life
campaigns. The society has an understandable bias that they are they do not tolerate any form of
ending life for any reason.
Additionally, the conservatives often cite religious books to support their predisposition
regarding the unborn (MacInnis et al., 77). On the other hand, the liberal is predominantly

freedom oriented. They support the freedom to choose whether to bring life to earth. They
support the freedom to choose whether to add onto themselves the responsibility of caring for
another child. The conservative people hold onto the traditional nuances that every person that
undertakes in activities that may bring new life should be willing to bear the consequences of
their actions. These thinkers do not usually harbor a place for allowing people to let go of the
consequences of choices that were entered into without much awareness of keenness. They are
staunch on their stand that adults should own up to their mistake. The liberals often do not draw
a line between accidental experiences that may led to such situations (Deak et al., 267). They
tend to think that individual freedom should go to extent of deciding the fate of the unborn. Isn’t
this a contradiction? As a result, this breeds irresponsibility since there is always the promise of
an easy out.
I believe that a person should to have to make a decision whether to be pro-life or pro-
abortion. This is because the situations that lead to conception are as varied as the reasons that
each of the two opposing sides propose for their predispositions. In addition, when a person takes
either of the extreme sides, they automatically feel an urge to abhor any ideas that emanate from
their counterparts. I feel that this works as block to creative ways of solving societal problems.
What are the consequences of an extreme pro-life campaign in the situations that endanger the
child bearer’s ability to continue the lives as productive citizens of the society? What if such
families resort to drug abuse and crime as a result of the additional responsibility? What if they
have moral convictions that disallow them to try various method of avoiding pregnancy? How
much sexual coercion should be regarded to as unwarranted? In the case of a claim of
unwarranted sexual engagement, which side of the argument bears more weight in deciding the
grounds upon which a child will be introduced to the society? These questions challenge the

conservative approach regarding the rights (or their lack thereof) regarding the grounds on which
a pro-life social mindset might introduce to the society.
On the other hand, do liberals really believe that a person has the right to choose whether
life should be eliminated on social and economic grounds? When they argue that no person
should be forced to take on responsibilities that they are clearly unwilling to take, do they realize
that some people abuse such rights and go on killing spree? Isn’t the argument that every person
should be allowed to make choice regarding their lives contradictory to the termination of
another person’s life? I realize that there are no simple answers to these questions and that they
are likely to start even bigger debates. However, I feel that these are the questions that each side
should address in deciding whether a strict approach toward the subject is the right way to go. I
feel that a simple answer to the question ‘are you liberal or conservative on the issue of
abortion’, should be avoided. The reason is that each side of argument takes a disheartening
approach to the problem.
Questions that divide people based on conservatisms or liberalism should not be posed in
their simplicity since it is likely to cause more division than unity. To address issues emanating
from the subject, an intuitive question should be posed instead ‘what do you think that people
whose religions disallow the use of artificial methods of preventing pregnancy should do if they
conceive in situations where it is strenuous or financially impossible to feed another child or take
care of them?’ Such a question gets everyone to consider the consequences of the stance that
they take. This happens since various issues are mentioned as part of the question. In addition, it
allows the respondent to put themselves in the shoes of the victim of such issues.
The question of abortion is just one out of the many that have separated most nations
across the world, from the west to the east. Others include the right to one’s body, the extent to

which religious affiliation becomes a coercion more than simply a right and the stance toward
multiculturalism. Being a citizen of my nation, and the world at large, I feel that these questions
are often posed inappropriately. They are complex issues and therefore they deserve to be asked
in a similar manner, a manner that will ensure that the response will be sufficiently thought
through.
For one to receive insightful answers, they must ask insightful questions that are not
driven by the usual political correctness, convenience or company agendas. Both conservatives
and liberals only hold their strict positions to an extent. A time comes when they question their
affiliations when their moral perception can no longer reconcile with their social tags (Sumner).
As a citizen of my country and the world I feel that is about time that the society started asking
genuine questions if genuine answers are what it seeks. Moreover, the current bipartisan
approach has clear failed. Most countries have a ‘pro-this’ and ‘anti-this’, in nearly every social
subject. The society should get rid of this failed system. That starts with asking the right
questions.
Works Cited

Deak, Csilla, and Vassilis Saroglou. “Opposing Abortion, Gay Adoption, Euthanasia, and
Suicide.” Archive for the Psychology of Religion 37.3 (2015): 267-294.
Gaus, Gerald, and Shane D. Courtland. “Liberalism”. Plato.stanford.edu. N. p., 1996. Web. 16
Apr. 2016.
MacInnis, Cara C., Mary H. MacLean, and Gordon Hodson. “Does “humanization” of the
preborn explain why conservatives (vs. liberals) oppose abortion” Personality and
Individual Differences 59 (2014): 77-82.
Sumner, Leonard Wayne. Abortion and moral theory. Princeton University Press, 2014.
“What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? “. Polaris.gseis.ucla.edu. N. p., 2016. Web.
16 Apr. 2016.

*Professor Comment*

In addition to the rubric, my notes include one or two big things that I think you need to focus on:

This paper has the best grammar and vocabulary use of any of your papers. The voice is great for a research paper.

This paper consists of two halves with seem to have nothing to do with each other. The first section of the paper does not speak to the assignment requirements in any way. The second section of the paper begins to address the assignment requirements, but it should consider all groups of people affected by the issue and discuss each group’s perspective in an accurate way. It’s not clear what the thesis of this paper is, although it is clear that the second section at least is about abortion.

NOTE: I just wanna to edit my papers and i send to you the professor comments that gonna help you to edit it
And please highlight the things or the sentence that you fix it (Edit).

find the cost of your paper