Different Health Systems Free Essays

The healthcare system of the United States is commonly associated with state-of-the-art hospitals and highly-trained physician. However, the general performance of the U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Different Health Systems or any similar topic only for you Order Now healthcare system has been determined to be a less than that of other industrialized countries. Such observation is mainly due to the differences in healthcare systems among states, regions and health administrations. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a socialized healthcare system managed by the government. It provides varied healthcare support to veterans or ex-officio military servicemen and their families. Survey shows that approximately 83% of VHA patients are satisfied with the healthcare that they have received. In addition, survey depicts that 69% of the patients were treated within 20 minutes of their appropriate appointment with their physician (DeNavas-Walt et al. , 2005). Also, approximately 93% of the patients participating in the survey indicate that they had seen a specialist within the last 30 days. Such observations show that the Veterans Health Administration provides an exemplary system of healthcare, much better than the private sector. However, it also could mean that the VHA is associated with more costly healthcare rates than the other healthcare systems such as the Military Health system and the private sector. This characteristic compensates for the types of members that would avail of the VHA benefits, who are actually veterans, which are commonly composed of older, sicker and illness-susceptible individuals. In addition, these veterans are generally poorer, homeless and victims of substance abuse, which represents a major difference from the major population in the United States. It has been estimated that more than 50% of the VHA enrollees are above 65 years of age. The private sector’s healthcare system is mostly focused on intervention-based healthcare, which means that the physician will generally treat a patient who is already suffering from a particular illness (Frogner and Anderson, 2006). Such system is thus less costly than the VHA system, because the patients enrolled in the private sector will only resort to requesting medical attention when the need arises. In the private sector healthcare system, health insurance is generally bought by the employer on behalf of its employees The VHA system, on the other hand, follows the prevention approach to health care, which involves providing checkups and education to its veteran patients in order to avoid more serious illness in the future. The Military Health System, on the other hand, provides healthcare to individuals who are currently active in the military service, including members of their family. The benefits of the Military Health system falls under the blanket coverage known as the Tricare, which is almost identical to that of the private sector’s system of healthcare management (Smith et al. , 2005). Here the enrollee pays a small portion of the total cost of the healthcare service, such as 20% of a surgery, for example, and the other 80% is paid for my the Military Health System. Each visit to the physician, just like the private sector’s healthcare system, is associated with a small co-payment, such as $10 per visit, regardless of specialization of the doctor to which consultation was made. The mission of a healthcare system is to provide medical services at the lowest practical price and at the same time, with the best feasible quality. The integration of electronic medical records in the Veterans Health Administration has provided a model for the other healthcare system to follow suit. In addition, the private sector has also use the VHA’s mission in providing prevention-based medical services, instead of just intervention-based services. References DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor B and Lee C (2005):   Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2004.   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. Frogner BK and Anderson GF (2006):   Multinational comparisons of health systems data, 2005.   New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Smith C, Cowan C and Sensenig A (2005):   Health Spending Growth Slows in 2003.   Health Affairs   24(1):185–94. How to cite Different Health Systems, Papers

Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources

Question: Describe about the Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources. Answer: Introduction The objective of the paper is to conduct the sustainability performance analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company in part A of the report. Wesfarmer Resources Limited serves as an Australian conglomerate that has its headquarter in Perth, Western Australia along with interests predominantly with New Zealand and Australian retail (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2014). The company also has its business operations in chemicals, coal mining, fertilizers along with industrial, and safety products. Wesfarmers Resources has a leading and sustainable business as a metallurgical coal manufacturer and supplier of thermal coal in domestic generation of power. In part, B, Fuji Xerox Limited Companys sustainability report comparison in two nations will also be conducted. Fuji Xerox and its associated affiliated companies believe that corporate social responsibility must be vital to offer superior consumer services (Frias?Aceituno et al. 2013). The differences in the guidelines used for its Japan and Australian reports will be evaluated for the years 2014 and 2015. Part C of the paper will consider gaining conclusion and recommendations based on the sustainability report of Wesfarmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Finally, part D will present a reflective journal on the personal development that has been gained through the completion of sustainability report analysis of West farmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Part A 1. Assessment and comparison of the sustainability reports of Wesfarmers of 2014 and 2015 with respect to the G4 GRI guidelines: According to the viewpoint of the management of Wesfarmers, only improving the financial performance of the organization is not sufficient to deliver maximum value to the shareholders. Instead, the five key sustainability areas of reporting are essential in order to provide maximum returns to the shareholders. In the words of Alonso?Almeida, Llach and Marion (2014), the sustainability areas comprise of people, community support, environment, carbon and energy, economic contribution and governance. In order to compare the sustainability reporting performance of Wesfarmers, the following aspects are taken into consideration in relation to the G4 GRI guidelines: Economic aspect: Wesfarmers Resources provides a number of necessary services to its staffs and families in the local communities of its operations. This is achieved through open communication and continual engagement to extend support to these communities. As a result, it has positive influence on the lives of the people living in the local communities. In this regard, Bebbington, Unerman and O'Dwyer (2014) cited that extension of support to the local communities helps in contributing to the development of a nation and the economy as a whole. The most notable undertaking of Wesfarmers Resources in 2014, the company has undertaken a new plan to contribute to the economy of Australia by supporting the local communities. It has been named as Currish, which involves allocation of community investment funds to encourage the community organizations for future planning. This could be made through application of funds and in-kind support via grants program. Curragh has developed a committee comprising of employees, who possess adequate knowledge about the needs of the local communities. The financial support that has been provided through this program amounts to $46,900 to 22 local community organization between the period of January-June in 2014 (Wesresources.com.au 2016). The organizations, which have been highly benefitted from this program, include Royal Flying Doctors Service and Riding for the Disabled Backwater and Black water PCYC. However, in 2015, no notable program has been initiated; instead, the organization has continued with its Curragh program to provide employment opportunities to the indigenous woman. Therefore, the contribution to the economy of Australia has been slowed down in 2015 in contrast to 2014. As per the category 6 of the GRI G4 guidelines, an organization needs to disclose the generated economic value comprising of revenues, employee compensation and other community investments. In addition, the guidelines need to cover detailed benefit plan obligations from the investment made (Globalreporting.org 2016). In this case, Wesfarmers Resources has made all the necessary disclosures in order to comply with the GRI G4 guidelines. Figure 1: Wesfarmers Resources Contribution to the local communities (Source: Wesresources.com.au 2016) Environmental aspect: Wesfarmers Resources acknowledge the potential risks arising out of climate change and take actions for minimizing the possible influence on operations due to increased rainfall and flooding. Therefore, the organization has concentrated on minimizing greenhouse gas efficiency through improved energy efficiency process. In the year 2014, the organization has bought materials that emit less chemicals and hazardous substances in order to maintain the environmental sustainability. In this context, Boyd and Golden (2016) stated that use of sustainable resources helps in minimizing the negative impact on the community along with ensuring sustainable flow of operations. In addition, it has been observed that the Curragh mine of Wesfarmers Resources utilizes mobile lighting to carry out its night operations in 2014. Such units have been extremely expensive to run, since they have high emissions and difficulties in maintaining the same (Eccles et al. 2012). In order to minimize such negative impact on the environment, the managers of Curragh mine in 2014 undertook investigations for improving the lighting technology to improve the availability of units. In the words of Fonseca, McAllister and Fitzpatrick (2014), such improvement is of utmost importance in minimizing the greenhouse gas emissions, operating costs and the availability of units. Therefore, these new units have been set up in the year 2015 by replacing the previous 28 metal halide lighting units. The numbers of units introduced are 21 LED units. With the help of these new units, Wesfarmers Resources has been able to minimize the usage of fuel by nearly 700,000L per year. As a result, the annual operating cost of the organization has been minimized by $760,000 with reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 2,000 tones CO2e (Ioannou and Serafeim 2014). Figure 2: Energy use of Wesfarmers Resources (Source: Wesresources.com.au 2016) The above graph illustrates the energy use of Wesfarmers Resources for the years 2011-2015. It is evident that the organization has switched to make sustainable use of resources for minimizing the negative impact on the environment and related communities. As per the guidelines of GRI G4, an organization needs to disclose its greenhouse gas emission-related data, use of energy efficient resources and introduction of new units. Therefore, Wesfarmers Resources has followed all the relevant guidelines in making the environmental disclosures associated with sustainability reporting. Social aspect: The mining operations possess serious threat to the employees involved in such activities and the society as a whole (Hahn and Khnen 2013). In order to minimize such activities, the organization has undertaken necessary controls and measures to ensure the safety of the workers and the community as a whole. The organization has implemented the Curragh code of business conduct to maintain the integrity and ethics while engaging in dealings. The organization provides employment opportunities to the small organizations of the local communities that intend to help the society. Moreover, Wesfarmers Resources has implemented a whistle blower policy, which could be accessed on the part of the staffs to maintain the highest governance standards. This has been implemented in the year 2014 and the same process has been followed in the year 2015. According to GRI G4 guidelines, the social aspects could be divided into the following sub-categories: Amenities and infrastructure: Curragh mine of Wesfarmers Resources takes and releases waterfrom the Mackenzie River; however, it follows the water management practices strictly. The organization provides a complete overview on the river system to maintain the amenities and infrastructure of the river system. In addition, the organization is involved in reporting conditions of the marine environment; thus, providing relevant information about the amenities and infrastructure, which is prepared in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines (Idowu et al. 2013). Social and cultural life: The organization has also relied stress on protecting the biodiversity of the eco-systems in order to protect flora and fauna on-site for accomplishing its conditions of environmental approval. In order to compensate the loss of 220 hectares of land in Brigalow ecological community, Wesfarmers Resources has provided an offset area (Lvehagen and Bondesson 2013). The Department of Natural Resources and Mining is a voluntary apparatus for protecting the areas of vegetation. Curragh has been working with the landholders now to prevent soil erosion, ensure fire management practices and rehabilitation, when deemed necessary. Thus, it has made all the relevant disclosures in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines. Voice and influence: Wesfarmers Resources has been involved in entering into a partnership with the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience (AIME). This program is mainly intended to increase the opportunities for indigenous children completing high school. The partnership was formed in July 2013 and the program has been continuing until date. The organization aims to provide coaching principles and mentoring to involve the students belonging to indigenous high school for excelling in their career. It has been observed that the indigenous students have increased from 4% in 2012 to 22% in 2015 for attending the university. Thus, the organization has made relevant social disclosures in compliance with the GRI G4 guidelines (McKinnon et al. 2015). Space to grow: Currgah mine of Wesfarmers Resources has been involved in empowering indigenous woman for helping them to excel in their future. In order to empower indigenous woman, the woman has been involved in providing employment opportunities to disadvantaged indigenous woman in Central Queensland. Thus, it provides a space to the indigenous woman in the year 2014 and 2015 to grow in their lives. Most relevant guideline to Wesfarmers: Based on the above discussion, the most relevant guideline for Wesfarmers Resources would comprise of the environment aspects, as laid out in the GRI G4 guidelines. Since, this is a mining industry is based on use of different energy resources and emission of greenhouse gases, It has been found that the necessary disclosures are made in the years 2014 and 2015 in accordance with the GRI G4 guidelines (Sharifi and Murayama 2014). In addition, following the environmental guidelines will help in fulfilling the expectations of the shareholders, since reduction in emission of greenhouse gas emissions will ensure sustainability reporting. Targets in the report: The main targets of Wesfarmers Resources in its sustainability report include fall in the greenhouse gas emissions through removal of mobile lighting technology. Curragh mine of the organization has installed LED lighting units in order to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases through sustainable use of resources. In addition, it also aims to empower the indigenous children completing their high schools. The percentage has increased from 4% in 2012 to 22% in 2015, which shows that the target of Wesfarmers Resources has been successfully achieved (Morrison-Saunders and Pope 2013). Self-declared level of adherence and its appropriateness: In accordance guidelines as stated by GSI states that the companies preparing their sustainability reports are required to identify the major determinants that falls under the General Standard Disclosures. The primary form of such standard disclosures comprises of strategy, analysis of operations, the sets of organizational composition prevalent in the organization (Globalreporting.org 2016). This is to be followed with the disclosures pertaining to stakeholder engagement, ethics, integrity, and governance in the functioning of the organization. Finally, the report profile as regards to the sets of disclosure undertaken by the company in its annual report, sustainability reports is to be taken into consideration for adhering to the in accordance guidelines. Wesfarmers Resources identifies several factors that it feels as material in reference to its businesses. The factors that the company identifies as relevant comprises of safety, water extraction, bio diversity, climate change (wesfarmers.com.au 2016). Moreover, the company emphasizes upon providing support to communities along with maintaining safety of its various stakeholders. The company discloses the fact those in terms of emissions, the companys overall emissions has increased by over 16%. Moreover, in terms of road safety, the company has minimized the recordable rate in relation to frequency of injury in order to facilitate enhancement of health and safety measures undertaken by the company. In terms of good corporate governance, the company has initiated measures to improve the transparency. However, there has been no visible set of measure to increase gender diversity in the management. Moreover, the overall degree of disclosure in regards to the adherence to ethical guidel ines and business operations providing integrity has been minimal. The company has provided satisfactory disclosures as regards to its company strategies in relation to the investment in newer mining quarries, its prospective sets of investments onto renewable energy sources. The functioning of different sets of committee over-viewing the functional activities of the company has been disclosed in the different sets of reports prepared by Wesfarmers Resources (Alonso?Almeida 2014). In terms of report profile, the company has failed towards providing data as regards to material facts. Further, with respect of material facts the data provided can be construed as minimal. Guidelines followed in preparing the report: The company in accordance with the guidelines specified by the GSI in order to facilitate the contribution of the company has prepared the sustainability reports. The disclosures that have been made in the annual statements of the company have been prepared in accordance with the Corporations Act. Moreover, the participation of the company in several environmentally sustainable programs has been facilitated through the disclosures made in accordance with the UN Global Compact by the company. The company has been a participant in UN Global Compact from 22 April 2015 (Unglobalcompact.org 2015). Verification of the report and scope of the assurance: The Chairman and Managing Directors of the company have verified the sustainability reports as regards to the company. Management has provided the assurance as regards to the sustainability initiatives undertaken by the company. However, lack of assurance in terms of verification by external auditors as regards to such sustainable policies can hinder the overall evaluation of transparency. Part B Being an employee of consumer watch group comparison on the sustainability reporting by Fujju Xerox Australia Pty Limited is carried out in this section. It was observed that Fuji Xerox released a sustainability report in the year 2014 in Australia. However, in the year 2015, the company decided to release its sustainability report through its head office in Japan. Certain differences in the guidelines employed for disclosure and reporting was observed in its sustainability reports from Japan and Australia. Fuji Xerox Comparison Difference in Guidelines employed in Sustainability Report of 2014 and 2015 The sustainability report of Fuji Xerox was prepared by the company in alliance with the key G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines of thee international reporting initiatives. Certain difference has been observed in the sustainability reports regarding disclosure of its non-financial information. The guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. The sustainability report of the company in this year was prepared in compliance with the concepts of G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Moreover, the company also conferred with the 2012 edition of the Japanese ministry of the guideless regarding Environmental Reporting. The general standard disclosures such as G4-1 offered a statement from the most senior decision-maker of the company regarding the importance of sustainable to the company and its strategy for dealing with the sustainability (Bebbington et al. 2014) . G4-2 offered an elaboration of major risks, impacts, as well as opportunities to the company in the year 2014. However, in the year 2015 the G4 GRI guidelines of Fuji Xerox were observed to be quite distinct from its sustainability report released from Australia in the year 2014. In alignment to such GRI guidelines, the company considered to review the standard disclosures recently and identify any issue that can need further work other the three aspects mentioned in its report produced in Japan. In this report of 2015, the company adhered with certain different G4 guidelines such as under G4-33 the company-released report on the organizations policy and the recent practice in consideration to gaining external assurance for the report. Factors Causing Different (2015) Influences in Reports Produced in Australia (2014) and Japan The sustainability report of 2014 and 2015 of Fuji Xerox are different as in 2014, Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd released a sustainability report whereas the sustainability report of 2015 was released from the head office of Fuji from Japan. It is seen that there has been a significant amount of changes in the guidelines used in the preparation of the report. This is due to various factors, which are different for both Australia and Japan. These factors will be discussed as follows: Environmental Impact: The environment in Australia is different from Japan due to climatic changes and topographical transformations. Therefore, it is seen that the guidelines and method of preparation varies from both the countries (Morrison-Saunders, and Pope, 2013). Community: The community and the society where the report is being prepared have different perspective towards sustainable development and thus the guidelines are prepared accordingly. The community plays a vital role and therefore the report prepared is according to the interests of the society. Culture: The culture plays a pivotal role for the preparation of the report and therefore, it is seen that the culture functioning in Australia is different from Japan. The functioning of an organization takes place according to the culture prevailing in the country so that it becomes easier for the customers to understand the validity of the report. Health and Wellbeing: The health and wellbeing of the citizens living in both the countries are different and therefore it is seen that the report of 2014 and 2015 are different. The employees working in the organization in Japan and Australia have different health issues and therefore the report is prepared according to the health proposition of the employees. Financial Factor: It is also seen that the investment and the percentage change in the financial procedure is different for both the countries as the investors functioning in both the countries have different perspectives. Therefore, the level of investment will differ from country to country thus altering the guidelines of Fuji Australia Pty Ltd 2014 from the report prepared by Fuji Xerox 2015 in Japan (Sharifi, and Murayama, 2014) Comparison and Evaluation of the Companys 2014 and 2015 Sustainability Report Considering G4 GRI Guidelines There have been significant changes in the sustainability report of the organization in 2014 and 2015 due to the preparation of the report in different countries. The reports are prepared considering the Global Reporting Initiative. It is a standard prepared to help the organizations to understand and communicate their effects on different issues affecting the organization. The standards of the guidelines are created so that the third parties can evaluate the environmental effects from the operations of the organization. The performance indicators focus on the environmental, social, and economical aspects of an organization (Carroll, and Buchholtz, 2014). According to the G4 GRI guidelines, Fuji Xerox has prepared their sustainability reports for the year 2014 and 2015. The report in 2014 was prepared with the Australian perspective and thus the report deals with the problems occurring in Australia. On the other hand, the report in 2015 is prepared considering he problems in Japan. The report in 2015 is prepared looking after the welfare of the customers, global and local environment, employees, suppliers, the local society etc. The report aims to educate the future generations and conserving the cultures and information of the country. The report aims to support the reconstruction of the places affected by the Japan Earthquake. It also aims to strengthen the corporate social responsibility introduction in the production unit o the company. It helps to reduce the CO2 emissions from the customers. It tries to develop a human resource and an environment with a diversified work force. This report is based on Japan (Lvehagen, and Bondesson, 2013). The 2014 report comprising of the country Australia is concerned about transforming the business according to the changing environment, procuring the responsibility, creating cultural harmony within the country. It also aims to attract the right talented people from the society and tries to train them to maximize its productivity. The well-being of the society and the employees are also taken under scrutiny and develops a society and environment. This is healthy and harmonious. Part C Based on the GRI guidelines analysis of wesfarmers it was gathered that several unit of westfarmes attempted to enhance the lighting technology in order to enhance the accessibility of the units. This attested to reduce early costs savings of the company as well as annual emission of the harmful greenhouse resources. Following such strategies, the company intended to comply with the GRI G4 guidelines in maintaining corporate social responsibility. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines (Boyd and Golden, 2016). The company is recommended to revise its general and specific standards regarding supply chain. Moreover, the company is recommended to comply with general standard governance disclosures and ethics and integrity disclosures. From the sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox, company in alignment with the GRI G4 guidelines indicated that in the sustainability the guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. Based on the sustainability report of 2014 it was gathered that G4-2 offered an elaboration of major risks, impacts as well as opportunities to the company in the year 2014. However, in the year 2015 the G4 GRI guidelines of Fuji Xerox was observed to be quite distinct from its sustainability report released from Australia in the year 2014. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines. The company is recommended to report CHG emissions and energy based standard disclosures in both Japanese and Australian sustainability reports (Ha hn and Llfs 2014). Moreover, both its Australian and Japanese sustainability report must adhere with specific G4 guidelines in order to comply with effective sustainability regulations such as strategy and analysis, organizational profile, labor practices and efficient decent work and human rights as well as society. Part D The evaluation of the sustainability reports of Wesfarmers Company and Fuji Xerox send as a great assessment technique in developing skills for my personal as well as professional future. The assessment tasks increased my understanding on the capability to locate as well as interpret information. From the evaluation of the sustainability reporting of both the companies I came to learn that a focus on sustainability a facilitate a company to manage their social and environmental effects along with enhancing their operational efficiency. Part A and Part B of the assignment increased my understanding on the relevance of GRI requirements and evaluation on the use of the GRI guidelines was followed. This enhanced the disclosure of the companies from the year 2014 to 2015. Both the assessments tasks completed in Part A and Part B increased my understanding on certain important GRI guidelines concept, necessary principles, corporate governance stakeholders, moral and ethical obligations, an d corporate social responsibility. Sustainability report analysis of Fuji Xerox and Wesfarmer Resources Company based on GRI guidelines enhanced my knowledge on the Australian corporate governance and its possible impact on committee and board functions and structure along with the organizations officers training, behavior and induction in order to safeguard the interests of all the stakeholders involved in the business. Evaluation of the GRI guidelines use by both the companies helped me to gain knowledge on the principles of efficient corporate governance s ell as corporate disclosure needs. Several major theories and concepts regarding aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) became clear after the evaluation of the sustainability reports of both the companies for the year 2014 and 2015. The learning outcomes gathered from the competition of both the assessment tasks well help me in implementing such knowledge in the real world situations. The understanding on the GRI guidelines importance in preparation of sustainability reports through both the assessment tasks in Part A and Part B will be effectively used in the workplace. Moreover, such learning outcomes will help me in better evaluation of the sustainability position of the companies and will efficiently help me in justifying the decisions I make in consideration to the gathered information. Conclusion The objective of the paper is to conduct the sustainability performance analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. Additionally, the differences in the guidelines used for both the companys reports were evaluated for the years 2014 and 2015. Reflective journal on the personal development has been gained through the completion of sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmer Resources Company and Fuji Xerox. From the report, it was gathered that the sustainability report of Fuji Xerox was prepared by the company in alliance with the key G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines of thee international reporting initiatives. Certain difference has been observed in the sustainability reports regarding disclosure of its non-financial information. The guidelines that the company used in its sustainability report in the year 2014 is found to be quite different from the companys sustainability report in the year 2015. Moreover, from the both its Australian and Japanese sustainability report must adhere with specific G4 guidelines in order to comply with effective sustainability regulations such as strategy and analysis, organizational profile, labor practices and efficient decent work and human rights as well as society. Based on the sustainability report analysis of Wesfarmers Resources Company, certain recommendations are recommended that will ensure better adherence to sustainability and corporate governance guidelines. The company is recommended to revise its general and specific standards regarding supply chain. Reference List and Bibliographies Adams, C., Muir, S. and Hoque, Z., 2014. Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector.Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,5(1), pp.46-67. Ainapur, R., Rao, B.R. and Iacocca, L., 2014. Prominence of stakeholders in designing sustainability reporting practices based on G4 Guidelines.International Journal of Management,11(5), pp.70-75. Alonso?Almeida, M., Llach, J. and Marimon, F., 2014. A closer look at the Global Reporting Initiative sustainability reporting as a tool to implement environmental and social policies: A worldwide sector analysis.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,21(6), pp.318-335. Bebbington, J., Unerman, J. and O'Dwyer, B., 2014.Sustainability accounting and accountability. Routledge. Boiral, O. and Henri, J.F., 2015. Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations.Business Society, p.0007650315576134. Boyd, G. and Golden, J.S., 2016. Enhancing Firm GHG Reporting: Using Index Numbers to Report Corporate Level Measures of Sustainability. Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K., 2014.Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education. Eccles, R.G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G., 2012. The Need for Sector?Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards.Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,24(2), pp.65-71. Fonseca, A., McAllister, M.L. and Fitzpatrick, P., 2014. Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach.Journal of Cleaner Production,84, pp.70-83. Frias?Aceituno, J.V., Rodriguez?Ariza, L. and Garcia?Sanchez, I.M., 2013. The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,20(4), pp.219-233. Fuente, J.A., Garca-Snchez, I.M. and Lozano, M.B., 2017. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information.Journal of Cleaner Production,141, pp.737-750. Global Reporting Initiative, 2013. The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines Main Features of G4. Globalreporting.org. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/main-features-of-g4.pdf [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016]. Hahn, R. and Khnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research.Journal of Cleaner Production,59, pp.5-21. Hahn, R. and Llfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies.Journal of Business Ethics,123(3), pp.401-420. Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N. and Zu, L., 2013.Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Initiative, G.R., 2013. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam, Netherlands: GRI. Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2014. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from four countries.Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, (11-100). Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G., 2014. The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from four countries.Harvard Business School Research Working Paper, (11-100). Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D., 2015. Managing materiality: a preliminary examination of the adoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community.Journal of Public Affairs. Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D., 2016. The sustainable development goals and business.International Journal of Sales, Retailing and Marketing,5(2), pp.38-48. Junior, R.M., Best, P.J. and Cotter, J., 2014. Sustainability reporting and assurance: a historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon.Journal of Business Ethics,120(1), pp.1-11. Kawahara, N. and Irie, N., 2015. Articles Analysis on the Compliance with GRI Guidelines and the Information Disclosed by Japanese Companies. = Shokei-gakuso: Journal of Business Studies,61(3), pp.19-35. Llena, F. and Talalweh, M., 2015. Factors Determining Social and Environmental Performance of Islamic Companies: Analysis of Sustainability Related Reporting Practices.Jordan Journal of Business Administration, 11(4). Lvehagen, N. and Bondesson, A., 2013. Evaluating sustainability of using ICT solutions in smart citiesmethodology requirements. InProceedings of the First International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Sustainability (ICT4S)(Vol. 1, pp. 175-182). Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European companies.Journal of Cleaner Production,51, pp.57-65. Maas, K., Crutzen, N. and Schaltegger, S., 2014. Special volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production on Integrating corporate sustainability performance measurement, management control and reporting .Journal of cleaner production,65, pp.7-8. McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Whiteing, A. and Piecyk, M. eds., 2015.Green logistics: Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics. Kogan Page Publishers. Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J., 2013. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment.Environmental Impact Assessment Review,38, pp.54-63. OSullivan, N., 2015. The Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines and External Assurance of Investment Bank Sustainability Reports: Effective Tools for Financial Sector Social Accountability?. InResponsible Investment Banking(pp. 251-266). Springer International Publishing. Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2014. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan.Building and Environment,72, pp.243-258. Solsbach, A., Isenmann, R., Gmez, J.M. and Teuteberg, F., 2014. Inter-organisational Sustainability Reporting-A harmonized XRBL approach based on GRI G4 XBRL and further Guidelines. InEnviroInfo(pp. 9-16). Stirn, S., Martens, M. and Beusmann, V., 2016. 74. EU-sustainability reporting requirementsan incentive for more sustainable food retailers?.Food futures, p.484. Unerman, J. and Zappettini, F., 2014. Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting.Social and Environmental Accountability Journal,34(3), pp.172-186. Unglobalcompact.org. (2015). Wesfarmers Limited | UN Global Compact. [online] Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants/56331-Wesfarmers-Limited [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016]. Wesresources.com.au. (2016). [online] Available at: https://www.wesresources.com.au/ [Accessed 20 Oct. 2016].

Genetically Modified Food and European Consumer Behavior

Introduction Genetically Modified Food (GMF) is a product of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). These organisms have been genetically bioengineered or cloned either chemically, through selective breeding or by use of radiations.[1] The organisms have been subjected to experimental analysis for a long period in an effort to eradicate hunger in the world.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Genetically Modified Food and European Consumer Behavior specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More GMF trigger controversial legal, health and ethical issues that are yet to be resolved. GMF critics express their concerns based on economic, ecological and biological issues. For instance, steroids are incorporated in organisms to modify them into larger and better products. Supporters of the technology on the other hand have a Utilitarian perspective stating that various advantages outweigh the harmful effects and therefore, the GMF should be embraced globally. For instance, GMFs are pesticide free and it is not only environmentally safe but also is economical for farmers since the plants or animals can resist pests. They therefore are not prone to diseases such as bacterial, fungal or viral. The foods can be modified to resist cold, drought and still maintain or amplify the nutritional value and to crown it all, they are more affordable[2]. Irrespective of all the merits, some countries have opted to ban the foods or others trade organizations such as the European Union dictate that GMF must be highlighted on the product labels. Consequently consumers are reluctant at incorporating them in their diet[3]. Is it within the rights of individuals to alter organisms just because they have ability to do so? This paper will address the issue of GMFs and why they are still rejected by the European consumers irrespective of the outwards consumer benefits they have. European Consumers The European market as compared to that o f the United States reflects a contrasting stand. In the U.S, GMF is embraced as an economically and socially attractive sector, that its growth continuous to be enormous. Large farms continue to be allotted to cater for GMOs. Conversely, GMF food are scarce in Europe for the countries continue to impose harsh laws regarding GMF production and having to ban the GMF based on negative opinion. In Europe, there are fewer lands for cultivation and often are positioned in areas of high population. These lands are not public but private property and therefore, cultivation is hard. Disregard for GMF in Europe is mainly due to the issue that the food requires more analysis in terms of being tested and researched more. The EU Directive 2001/18/EC outdated the Directive 90/220/EEC restricting marketing and experimental release of GMF. The directive was aimed at ensuring extensive research is carried on GMFs for the benefit of the public. Labeling every product with GMF was also a requirement for the consumers to make personal choices on the products.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More In the United Kingdom, GMF is restricted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the market as enforced by the EU directives. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) is awarded with the responsibility of advising the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on GMF to ensure public food safety. This has facilitated banning of GMF since they are said to be hazardous to the human health.[4] Reasons behind the Rejection of GMF in the European Market One of the core issues surrounding the dilemma of whether or not to embrace the GMFs is inadequate understanding of the technology surrounding the issue. Many European consumers fear technological debut and therefore they becomes skeptic. Inadequate understanding results to mistrust which often is undesirabl e especially when it is expressed publicly. The European Union is applying the strategy of taking things slow and meanwhile, research could be done extensively on the benefits and hazards associated with the food.[5] GMFs cannot be regarded as inherently dangerous and therefore, it is for the welfare of the consumers. This is because GMF not only add up to malnutrition problem but also they aid in conserving the environment since it amplifies production and decreases overreliance of chemicals. In the rising global population, such a technology would prove beneficial since more food is needed and no enough agricultural land. This is especially very timely in developing world and therefore, Europeans may be reluctant at embracing the technology since it does not seem very critical in their world forgetting that in the future, a higher food demand may force the use of GMF to become the only way forward.[6] The European consumers sometimes disregard the GMF claiming that the practice is unnatural since it causes irreversible harm to organisms. In such cases, an animal may not recover the changes since they are genetically incorporated. The germ plasm which dictates heredity may be discarded through the technology. This violates the intellectual’s rights since it involves altering organisms for the benefit of human. Other consumers are afraid of food-borne diseases such as the mad cow although it is not related with the issue of bioengineering. They have noted strong phrases such as â€Å"What is happening to our food? Is it still safe? Are we being told everything?†[7] In EU, a hard stance on the issue is evident since the debates surrounding GMO initiated from there. It has resulted to differentiated European market which has fears of transgenic food with various supermarkets chains aiding in embracing GM free food which sells more.[8] They claim that every individual has a right to preference which emphasize on the need to put labels The European m arket is not only opposed to selling the GMFs in their region but also in having these organisms grown there.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Genetically Modified Food and European Consumer Behavior specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The Europeans have a tendency of being so keen on the views and opinions of environmentalists rather than the academic institutions. It is crucial since these environmentalists have been having a negative opinion about bioengineering and therefore, this affects the consumer. This is unlike the Americans who look upon academic opinions and less on that of the environmentalists. The cultural attitudes are crucial when it becomes to the consumers preference. The European media is very extensive when it comes to covering issues regarding GMF. They have insisted on using strong statements referring to GMF as Frankenstein Foods.[9] As a result, there has the public is alarmed about the effe cts of these products. Conclusion Consumer opinion is very significant when it comes to implementing certain policies. Negative opinion of the GMF in the European consumers has not only affected globalization efforts but also a clash in the global socio-political welfare.[10] Cultural differences, individual opinions, the media and environmental entities have had a great part in influencing the trends by which GMF is handled in Europe. International trade is affected by such differences. Public uneasiness regarding GMF especially in Europe has affected their productivity. The public has been influenced by the environmentalists and the media thus creating uncertainty of the future of GMF. European Union member states have been faced with a dilemma regarding GMF since it has adversely affected the international trade. Nevertheless, European consumers prefer organic food rather than GMF and their opinion should not be interfered with since they possess the right to do so.[11] Bibliogra phy Gaisford, J Kerr W, Economic analysis for international trade negotiations: the WTO and Agricultural Trade, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, 2001. Gordon, S, Critical Perspective on Genetically Modified Crops and Food, Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 2006.Advertising Looking for essay on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Nottingham, S, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering our Diet. Zed Books, Ltd, New York, 2003. Shaw, I, Is It Safe to Eat? Enjoy Eating and Minimizing Food Risks. Springer, New Zealand, 2005. Sherlock, R Morrey, J, Ethical Issues in Biotechnology. Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland, 2002. Footnotes I Shaw, Is It Safe to Eat? Enjoy Eating and Minimizing Food Risks, Springer, New Zealand, 2005, p. 213 214 S Nottingham, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering our Diet, Zed Books Ltd, New York, 2003, p. xxv J Gaisford W Kerr, Economic analysis for international trade negotiations: the WTO and Agricultural Trade, Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, 2001, p. 156 Nottingham, p. xxi Gaisford, p.149 S Gordon, Critical Perspective on Genetically Modified Crops and Food, Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York, 2006, p. 145 R Sherlock J Morrey, Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Rowman Littlefield Publishers ,Inc., Maryland, 2002, p. 18 6 Gaisford, p.151 Gaisford, p.149 Sherlock, p.186 Nottingham, p. xxvi This essay on Genetically Modified Food and European Consumer Behavior was written and submitted by user LilyHollister to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Essays

It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Essays It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Paper It Takes a Village to Raise a Child Paper It takes a village to raise a child is a popular proverb with a clear message: the whole community has an essential role to play in the growth and development of its young people. In addition to the vital role that parents and family members play in a child’s education, the broader community too has a responsibility to assure high-quality education for all students. In the past, parent involvement was characterized by volunteers, mostly mothers, assisting in the classroom, chaperoning students, and fundraising. Today, the old model has been replaced with a much more inclusive approach: school-family-community partnerships now include mothers and fathers, stepparents, grandparents, fosterparents, other relatives and caregivers, business leaders and community groups–all participating in goal-oriented activities, at all grade levels, linked to student achievement and school success. The research is clear, consistent, and convincing. Parent, family, and community involvement in education correlates with higher academic performance and school improvement. When schools, parents, families, and communities work together to support learning, students tend to earn higher grades, attend school more regularly, stay in school longer, and enroll in higher level programs. Researchers cite parent-family community involvement as a key to addressing the school dropout crisis1 and note that strong school-family-community partnerships foster higher educational aspirations and It takes a village to raise a child is a popular proverb with a clear message: the whole community has an essential role to play in the growth and development of its young people. In addition to the vital role that parents and family members play in a child’s education, the broader community too has a responsibility to assure high-quality education for all students. In the past, parent involvement was characterized by volunteers, mostly mothers, assisting in the classroom, chaperoning students, and fundraising. Today, the old model has been replaced with a much more inclusive approach: school-family-community partnerships now include mothers and fathers, stepparents, grandparents, fosterparents, other relatives and caregivers, business leaders and community groups–all participating in goal-oriented activities, at all grade levels, linked to student achievement and school success. The research is clear, consistent, and convincing. Parent, family, and community involvement in education correlates with higher academic performance and school improvement. When schools, parents, families, and communities work together to support learning, students tend to earn higher grades, attend school more regularly, stay in school longer, and enroll in higher level programs. Researchers cite parent-family community involvement as a key to addressing the school dropout crisis1 and note that strong school-family-community partnerships foster higher educational aspirations and motivated students.

Research Unilever and Proctor and Gamble Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Research Unilever and Proctor and Gamble - Essay Example The research aims to bring forth the comparison and contrast of the above principles between the two organizations, Unilever and Proctor and Gamble. Major similarities and differences would be brought forth between the two organizations on the two principles. Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management- Comparison and Contrasts between Unilever and Proctor and Gamble (P&G) Division of work Division or specialization of work is chosen as the first topic to compare between the two organizations. In Proctor and Gamble, division of labor has begun right from the beginning of the company. Since the mid 1850s the company has reinforced division of labor with the initiation of moving operations to Western Row. While Proctor handled the financials and sales, Gamble supervised the factory productions. Now it is seen that the company has four major pillars which account for the main corporate structure of the organization, namely, the global business units, market development organizations, cor porate functions and the global business services (P&G, 2011). The division of labour in Unilever can also be seen from the fact that labor is employed in such activities like food production, distribution, and marketing etc. Its labor division strategies are also seen to be aimed at increasing employment and generating job opportunities. For example, in Indonesia, while the company employs 5000 individuals, an estimate of 300,000 more jobs were supported both in the fields of production as well as distribution (Pfitzer & Krishnaswamy, 2007, p.7). Despite the fact that both organizations demonstrate division of labour as a main component of their corporate structure, however, the degree or extent of specialization and division of tasks is much more in Proctor and Gamble in comparison to Unilever. This is because it represents a highly bureaucratic structure characterized by an authority hierarchy, explicit rules, clear division of labor and impersonality (Andersen & Taylor, 2010, p. 141). On the other hand, there is less labor division in Unilever, which emphasizes more on maintaining a geographical structure where the head in each geographic region is responsible for maintaining profitability in the region while the country managers are responsible for the local sales and marketing of products. Rather it can be said that Unilever reflects both of a geographic as well as a multidivisional structure. In fact now it is even recommended that the company implements a matrix structure in order to tightly coordinate between the geographic regions and the various specializations or divisions (Hill, 2008, p.197). Centralization According to Fayol centralization is considered essential for all organizations and is said to occur as a natural consequence of the organizat

Individual case study analysis(Money is not always the best reward ) Essay

Individual case study analysis(Money is not always the best reward ) - Essay Example The analyzed data has further been presented comprehensively to recommend strategies that would help in enhancing the performances of the employees. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Discussion 5 Key Issues identified in the case 5 Critically Analyzing and Evaluating the Case Issues 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 10 References 11 Bibliography 13 Introduction After being appointed as the CEO of a sporting and community club, Tim Johnson was bestowed with the responsibility of developing an innovative organizational structure as well as to implementing human resource systems for the effective performance of the club. During that period, the annual turnover of the club was more than $ 33 million with 75 employees which depicted the financial viability of the organization along with its size, augmenting the necessity to develop an organized and effective organizational structure. After his joining, Tim Johnson recognized that the management of the club was ineffective due to the lack of effective Human Resource (HR) as well as operational policies which is essential to yield superior performance from employees. Strategically, Tim Johnson conducted a survey on the employees and was able to identify that a lack of morale as well as motivation persisted within the workforce. Correspondingly, he formulated plans to develop and implement strategies such as position descriptions, systems related guidelines, job specifications as well as other HR and operational policies to be followed by the employees. Formal meetings were also organized with the motive of informing the employees about the change in the organizational structure. The HR and the operational policies were further intended to be legally enacted so as to ensure ethical viability within the reframed organizational process. One of the most significant changes brought by Tim Johnson in the philosophy of the restructured organizational process indicated an increased focus on improving the performance of the employees through empowerment rather than considering the monetary reward system. The discussion will thus emphasize on the identification as well as the analysis of various issues which have been identified in this case. The results of the analysis will further be used to recommend strategies which are required to mitigate the identified issues. Discussion Key Issues identified in the case In the referred case, the issues which were faced by the sporting and community club hampering the performance of the employees depicted that the club lacked effective leadership from the senior decision makers of the organization. Owing to the ineffective organizational structure and ill-organized process related policies, the organization had to face various problems related with lack of morale among the employees which further obstructed an enhanced performance from the human resources of the club. Lack of motivation to work in accordance with the standards specified by the management for the effective achievements of the goals was also observed as a restriction to the enhanced performance of the club. The club did not have Human Resource Management (HRM) for effective HR as well as operational polic

EFFECTS OF RELIGION Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

EFFECTS OF RELIGION - Essay Example An example of this can be seen through the way in which Imperial Japan was able to use its religious fervor to require the kamikaze pilots to sacrifice their lives in suicide missions. Although the allies did not understand such an approach at that time, the theory behind this was simple. Sacrifice for the fatherland was a highly desirable form of sacrifice that ensured a firm link would remain between the ancestors and the current generations. This is a prime example of how a religious point of view helped to define a nation in the midst of wartime via a reliance on the traditions and shared religion that helped to define the group as a whole. Similarly, organized religion in Middle Ages Europe served to retard the process of knowledge acquisition and scientific discovery. The Catholic church exhibited such a high degree of control that the overall result was that human and scientific knowledge and development were delayed by nearly 400 years. In this way, it is easy to see some of the net effects of complete societal control by a religious entity. Although these two examples are both pejorative, there exist positive examples as well. However, these are usually with relation to an overall sense of morality and/culture that a societal interpretation of religion invariable