kelvin klin
The corporation name should be used as the company name.
A socially responsible investor would typically avoid supporting companies involved in activities such as tobacco production, firearms manufacturing, or fossil fuel extraction, as these industries may conflict with ethical or sustainability values. Instead, they would prefer companies that prioritize environmental sustainability, social equity, and ethical governance. Therefore, a company that engages in harmful practices, such as those listed, would not align with the principles of socially responsible investing.
It means the company name is a registered trademark.
Yes, a company name is a proper noun. A proper noun is the name of a specific person, place, or thing. A company is a thing.
A socially responsible investor typically avoids companies involved in activities that harm society or the environment, such as those in the tobacco, fossil fuels, or weapons industries. Therefore, a company that engages in practices causing significant environmental degradation or human rights violations would not be supported by such an investor. Instead, they would favor businesses that prioritize sustainability, social equity, and ethical governance.
Bp
Social irresponsible
Nestlé has faced significant criticism for its practices, particularly regarding water extraction and infant formula marketing. The company has been accused of depleting water resources in areas facing drought, leading to community conflicts and environmental degradation. Additionally, its aggressive promotion of infant formula in developing countries has raised ethical concerns, as it can undermine breastfeeding and contribute to health risks for infants. These actions have led to widespread perceptions of the company as socially irresponsible.
They pollute the environment.. 1) they let harmul chemicals in water 2) they emit harmful chemicals in the air....
Benefits clearly outnumbers risks on this one. With many diseases the child will be handicapped for life or not even survive so yes, then you are irresponsible. Getting serious side effects from vaccines are very rare.
No! A company should pay the market wage required to attract and keep the people it needs to do the necessary work. That is the answer you would get from a socially irresponsible company, driving people to socialism, whis is an even worse response. The correct answer is Yes! The market is the best yardstick for the price of goods and services, it does not apply to human beings.
A socially responsible consumer might boycott a company that uses child labor.
The employees are a part of a company's being socially responsible because they reflect the face of its employer.
Socially responsible companies use renewable resources.
Kraft has faced criticism for various reasons considered socially irresponsible, including its marketing practices, particularly targeting children with unhealthy products high in sugar and fat. Additionally, concerns over its environmental impact, such as deforestation linked to palm oil sourcing and excessive plastic packaging, have drawn negative attention. The company's labor practices in some regions have also been scrutinized for not meeting fair labor standards. These issues contribute to a perception that Kraft prioritizes profit over social and environmental responsibility.
As a blanket statement, no, quite the opposite. It would be irresponsible to not have a company owe up to their responsibilities simply because they are a giant corporation. It would also be irresponsible to not hold the responsible parties to their responsibilities.
yes