This is a college-level essay in terms of grammar and vocabulary. Most of the edits in red concern sequence, structure, that kind of thing. Most of them are not crucial or necessary; they're more like "improvements"than "corrections."
This was my reaction after a first reading:
I think this essay could be improved by stepping heavily on words and phrases of orientation. In "logic"-type expository material especially (as opposed to subjective or narrative writing), every word spent in orienting the reader is worth its weight in gold.
But this is my reaction after an analytical reading:
I think the reason the essay seems scanty in terms of logical orientation because it deliberately skips over the logical connections between its statements. Instead of saying, "This is what a company should do, and this is why I think so," the essay is blurring the fact that sometimes there are NO reasons given -- just bare assertions that companies should not follow US standards when they operate abroad.
The essay gives the feeling that it was more or less rephrased from the textbook, and that the student didn't struggle much to respond to the challenge laid down by the question --
What is the right thing for a company to do?
"Carefully explain the rationale for your position."
U.S. federal regulations may not always be applicable in other countries. Regulations in other countries regarding labor practices, product safety, (serial comma here) and the environment (RELOCATE "in other countries") may be different from those in the United States. (REPLACE "However" with Nevertheless, it may be beneficial for (OMIT "the") U.S. companies to apply some U.S. regulations while doing business in (OMIT "another country") other countries. FOR EXAMPLE, US regulations regarding travel allowance, housing allowance and pay rate may be applied.
One factor to be considered is that applying all of one's country's regulations while doing business in another country may be impossible. Cultural differences, political structure, the current government, and the influence of local businesses (OMIT 'in that country") and interest groups may override US regulations. In Sweden, for example, foreign businesses are obligated to follow domestic labor practices.
(OMIT as off topic "and foreign businesses are expected to employ a majority of the local people.")
Preserving the environment is applauded by many countries, so applying the host country's regulations regarding the environment would usually be the best thing to do. (WHY? What about the numerous cases where local regulations are much weaker than US ones?) Product safety is (OMIT "also very") important in the United States, (COMMA) but it would be advisable to implement the regulations of the host country. (WHY? What about cases where US standards are more strict -- and therefore more costly?)
> The words "so" and "but" do not logically apply to the sentences they are used in
> You ducked the question.
> The essay is supposed to be about: "Does a US company have a moral obligation to conform to US standards when operating in a country with lower standards? GIVE YOUR REASONS."
> Here is the paragraph where you bring the question up, but you sidestepped answering it
> You simply say "so the local rules should be followed" or "but the local rules should be followed" -- but you don't give any reasons for your opinion
In my opinion, for a business to be successful and make profit while doing business in another country it must take into consideration the regulations, the culture, politics, interest groups, and local community in that country. It is also best to establish the business to satisfy its consumers in that country while legitimately balancing public good against corporate profits.
> This paragraph is unresponsive to the question
> It sounds like it's no more than a paraphrase of p.138 from the textbook
> As a result, it feels like padding
> I think this paragraph should be deleted and replaced with a deeper search for the justification of the opinions this essay advances