Why firms go green

Why firms go green

1. Environmental pressures shortly are going to force companies to be environmentally responsible.
2. The pressures to be eco friendly can be social, political, or legal.
3. This change impacts all phases of the transformation process and can have implications to an organization.
4. Managers and executives play a significant role in shaping organizational responses.
5. Environmental responses are linked to two intra-firm processes; political and leadership based
6. Factors that influence the drive corporate ecological behavior include legislation/regulation, economic opportunities, and ethical influences.
7. Failure to comply with regulatory responses can result in an organization incurring fines, penalties, and legal costs.
8. Other factors that influence ecological behavior include the size of the firm, the industry in which it operates, and the attitude of managers.

The claim is not supported by evidence. Reasonable or not reasonable.

9. Firms are motivated to go green for three broad reasons: it provides benefits and opportunities for an organization: reduces threats and risks: it is following companies’ ethical stance.
10. Some barriers limit environmental change.
11. A firm’s resources, individual biases, organizational and industrial factors, and institutional arrangements hinder corporate greening.
12. Governments are usually responsible for creating environmental laws and regulations.
13. The media, environmental NGOs business representative in most cases champion for the need of ecological responses.
14. A stakeholder can induce governments to increase their regulatory oversight of business and, in turn, may encourage further demands on firms from interest.

    Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

    GET CUSTOM PAPER

Word count=approximately 246

Winner takes all politics.

1. There is a dramatic rise in inequality in the United States, which has caught the attention of economists.
2. The gap between the rich and the poor has increased.
3. Public officials contribute to a rigged system that has made insiders wealthy and the more significant general poor.
4. The relationship between American politics and inequality is notable in the absence of other factors.

The claim can not be supported by evidence. Reasonable or not reasonable.

5. Research by students has linked the two, but it is inconclusive.
6. Economic accounts ignore American politics in these shortcomings
7. Organizational shifts in the 1970s tilted the balance of political power I favor of those at the very top of the economic ladder bringing about the notion of “winner takes all.”
8. The gains in income have been highly concentrated on the rich.
9. Significant gains in income at the top were not accompanied by substantial increases in the bottom.
10. American inequality is the highest in the advanced world.
11. Economists blame this on levels of education, but the gap between the most learned and that directly below them is enormous.
12. America’s development drives the rise in Canada’s and the United Kingdom’s executive compensation.

The claim is not supported by evidence. Reasonable or not reasonable.

13. Economists admit the enormous inequality but insist on the Market still rules.
14. The relative income of the median voter is not worse than it was 30 years ago.

“voters are doing as well as they have ever done.”