Study into the Variable causing conflict in Nestle. 1.0: INTRODUCTION TO NESTLE Nestle was founded in 1866 by Henri Nestle with headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland. It has employed around 250,000 people and has factories or operations in almost every country in the world. It is one of the world’s biggest food and Beverage Companies. The Company’s priority is to bring the best and most relevant products to people, wherever they are, whatever their needs, throughout their lives. 1.1: PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The study of the research is to find the variable which has leads towards conflicts in Nestle Organization. The main purpose of the research is, firstly, to identify the causes of conflicts in Nestle and, secondly, to manage conflicts in Nestle organization. This report will be helpful for students who want to conduct a research as well as the company improving or solving the problems. 1.2: BACK GROUND OF THE STUDY All of us experience some type of conflicts in our daily lives. Tensions, antagonisms, and frustrations always occur when people work together. There are disagreements, perhaps even fights, between employees and the supervisor or between co-workers. Aside from personality clashes, people simply have different viewpoints about the way things should be done. The main purpose of conducting the research is to find out the conflicts, and finding the ways to manage and solve them in an organisation. In this context we have got the opportunity to conduct our research on one of the top organization’s (Nestle). 1.3: DEFINITION OF CONFLICT Conflict is defined as the state of discord caused by perceived or actual opposition of needs, interests and values. A conflict can be internal or external. The concept of conflict can help to explain many social aspects of life such as social disagreement, fights between individuals, groups, or organizations and conflict of interests. Conflict as taught for graduate and professional work in conflict resolution which is defined as “when two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other’s goal-seeking capability”. However, conflict can also occur in cooperative situations, in which two or more individuals or parties have consistent goals, because the manner in which individuals or party tries to reach their goal can still undermine the other individuals or party. 1.4: NATURE OF CONFLICT Conflict may constructively be viewed as resulting from differing belief systems, varied perspectives on the situation and values resulting from participant’s accumulated life experience and conditioning, differing interests and objectives. Effectively dealing with conflict requires the expression and management of participants’ varying interests, belief systems, perspectives and values. Through the integration of participants’ perspectives, belief systems, interests and values, conflict and conflict resolution play important roles in individual and social evolution and development. Conflict arises when one or more participants view the current system as not working. At least one party is adequately unhappy with the position, that they are willing to own the conflict and speak with the hope of being able to influence the situation to arrive at an improved condition. Conflict may be sight as a process we put ourselves through to attain a new condition and self definition. Through conflict we have opportunities to be artistically self-defining. If nothing else, conflict allows us in future to do things differently. Through the resolution of conflict, we can evolve and redefine ourselves, our community, our relationships our society and our world. 1.5: LEVELS OF CONFLICT 1.5.0: Inter divisional conflict Inter divisional conflicts exists between the perceiver and another individual within the organization. Although the other person does not need to be aware of the conflict, the perceiver of the conflict situation recognizes the present or future impact conflict can have on job performance. 1.5.1: Intra group conflict Intra group conflicts occur between perceiver and his or her immediate group within the organization. The immediate group can consist of work team, department or union. Whether fully or only superficially aware of the conflict issue, the perceiver realizes that the conflict can directly or indirectly affect job performance. 1.5.2: Inter group conflict It arises between the perceiver’s immediate group and another group within the organization. Again, the perceiver’s involvement may not be critical, but he or she must be aware of the situation and the potential impact the conflict can have on work performance. 1.5.3: Organizational conflict Organizational conflict is a state of disagreement caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together. 1.6: TYPES OF CONFLICT A conceptual conflict can rise into a verbal exchange or result in fighting.Conflict can exist at a variety of types. These are Community conflict Diplomatic conflict Emotional conflict Environmental resources conflict Group conflict Ideological conflict Interpersonal conflict Inter-societal conflict Intrapersonal conflict Organizational conflict Religious-based conflict and Workplace conflict . 1.7: CAUSES OF CONFLICTS 1.7.0: Authority relationship Authority Relationship conflicts occur because of the existence of strong pessimistic emotions, misperceptions or stereotypes, poor communication or miscommunication, or repetitive negative behaviors. Authority relationship problems often increase disputes and lead to an unnecessary rising spiral of destructive conflict. Supporting the secure and balanced expression of perspectives and emotions for acknowledgment (not agreement) is one effective approach to managing relational conflict. 1.7.1: Management style For any organization to be effectual and efficient in achieving its goals, the people in the organisation need to have a common vision of what they are determined to achieve, as well as clear objectives for each individual, group/ team and department. Management style also needs ways of recognizing and resolving conflict between people, so that conflict does not become so serious that collaboration becomes impossible. The management of any organisation needs to have ways of keeping conflict to a minimum and of solving problems caused by conflict, before conflict becomes a major obstruction to work. Management style helps to avoid conflict where probable and organizing to resolve conflict where it does happen, as rapidly and smoothly as possible. 1.7.2: Communication barriers: Conflict will be greater when barriers to communication exist. If parties are separated from each other physically or by time e.g.; the day shift versus the night shift-the opportunity for conflict is increased. To illustrate suppose a company employs only one plant supervisor, who works the day shift and leaves orders at the beginning of each week for the workers on the night shift. By the end of the week, how ever, these orders have been only partially carried out. The supervisor cannot figure out why. Obviously, the supervisor absence from the night shift has posed a communication barrier, which in turn causes decreased output. As Bryans, P, Cronin argued in 1984 that Space or time separations could promote isolated group interests rather than advance a common effort towards joint goals. 1.7.3: Personal factors 1.7.3.0: Behavioral The way emotional experience gets expressed which can be verbal or non-verbal and intentional or un-intentional. 1.7.3.1: Physiological It’s defined as the bodily experience of emotion. The way emotions make us feel in comparison to our identity. 1.7.3.2: Cultural values Culture tells people who are a part of it, “Which emotions ought to be expressed in particular situations” and “what emotions are to be felt.” 1.7.3.3: Physical This escalation results from “anger or frustration.” 1.7.3.4: Verbal This escalation results from “negative perceptions of the annoyer’s character.” 1.8: WAYS OF ADRESSING CONFLICTS There are basically five ways of addressing conflicts which were identified by Thomas and Kilman in 1976. These are 1.8.0: Accommodation One’s party surrenders its own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party. 1.8.1: Avoidance Avoid conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. As an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-recurring conflicts or Avoidance can be useful as a temporary measure to buy time. In many cases, conflict avoidance involves severing a relationship. 1.8.2: Collaboration Working together can find a mutually beneficial solution. Collaboration can also be inappropriate and time-intensive. When there is not enough respect, trust or communication among participants for collaboration to occur. 1.8.3: Compromise Finding a centre point where each party is partially satisfied. 1.8.4: Competition Take the one’s point of view at the potential expense of another. It can be more useful when achieving the one’s objectives outweighs one’s concern for the relationship CHAPTER # 2 2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW Different researchers have published their reviews on conflicts in the organization. We are viewing two best reviews of the researcher’s articles. Mr. Philips in 1982 threw light on some of key conditions, which may lead to serious organizational conflicts; he gave his views in the book named as “Community in Organization”. According to M Phillips certain social relationships characterized various kinds of conflict behavior. Each one could occur in your work area. The more aware the managers are of these conflict settings, the better are the chances of correcting them and running a smooth operation. Mr. Philip identified communication as problem in his research. The causes of conflicts are structural factors, authority relationships, common resources, goal differences interdependence, jurisdictional ambiguities, specialization, status-inconsistencies, personal factors, communication, conflict management style, cultural differences, emotions, perception, personalities, skills and abilities, values and ethics. According to the researcher, possible solution; it is obvious that a perfect communication system is unlikely. But also perfection like rationality will not be achieved; organizations do have mechanism by which they can attempt the communication system as clear as they can. Philips also suggested that there are such devices available which can reduce the distortion and complications in communication process and suggested that communication recipients should be aware of the biases of the message senders and protect their own counter biases as protection devices. James M LeifStudy into the Variable causing conflict in Nestle
Table of Contents Introduction Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Works Cited Footnotes Introduction Internet governance is crucial for the security of the world’s nations. The Internet is the most commonly used source of information in the modern digitalized economies regardless of a nation’s development status. On the other hand, terrorists use the Internet to access information about their target areas of attack across the world; hence, there is a great need for Internet governance that offers security mechanism for shielding information that could benefit terrorists in their missions. Since its inception, the Internet has lacked a centralized governing body, hence making it freely accessible to everyone with an Internet access around the globe. Consequently, many people have suffered from acts of terrorisms and huge data leaked to the hands of the Internet hackers. In addition, individuals, corporate organisations, and even governmental bodies have suffered huge losses due to the Internet virus spread coupled with malwares that corrupt computer memories leading to loss of data. In addition, many people have lost trust with the Internet security mechanism for its lenience on tightening security for fear of denying people the freedom of expression over the Internet. Some countries oppose the idea of introducing central governing bodies for the Internet fearing that their communication technology development might be hampered by the developed countries1. In contrast, some developed nations fear that other countries would take that advantage to hinder their development thus opposing the idea of centralised Internet governance. Internet Governance Forum (IGF) There is no universal definition of the term “Internet Governance”, which has been agreed upon by the involved stakeholders. The simplest definition of Internet Governance is the management, control, and coordination of the Internet.2 However, in 2005, the United Nations held the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), in which the delegates agreed upon the definition of the term “Internet Governance”. According to Kruger, the agreed definition defined the Internet Governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”.3 Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The coming of the Internet has led to the changes in the mode of international telecommunications processes in the world. Initially, growth and development of the Internet had been without guidance and participation of intergovernmental processes until the adoption of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 1973.4 However, the Internet had not fully grown to a level of becoming a global communication, economic, political, and social platform as it is in the contemporary times. The role of ITU was to manage and standardize the technical and operation tasks of the Internet, which include the standardization of communication protocols, managing web names, and numerical addresses used over the Internet. The rapid growth and development of the Internet in many countries all over the world stirred concerns over the introduction of a multi-stakeholder Internet governance rather than giving the United States full control over the management of the Internet. Fidler claims that the main objective of these countries was “to bring the role of Internet governance within the intergovernmental processes and under the international Internet law treaties”5. In 1988, members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted the International telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which according to Fidler ,it “focused on interconnection and universal operation ability of communication services brought about by the growth of the Internet, and hence replaced Telegraph and Telephone Regulations that ITU had espoused upon its adoption in 1973”6. According to Kruger, the ITRs contained the “governing principles rather than rules that formed a simple framework for the international communication cooperation, which are still been in use today”.7 Over the last few decades, the use and development of the internet in the world has been growing rapidly, and that has posed a great challenge on the Internet governance and administration policies. Internet governance underscores a wide area of study and it entails a number of administrative aspects that seek to keep Internet content under check. Some policies are difficult for national regulative mechanisms, and thus they require international co-operation, of which some policies are often difficult to agree upon their international uniformity. We will write a custom Case Study on Internet Governance specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More There have been heated deliberations over the aspects that touch on Internet governance coupled with the necessary regulations governing the same. According to Kruger, “the United Nations held the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in two stages, viz. the first and the second in 2003 and 2005 respectively, which gave momentum to the debate on Internet Governance”8. The ultimate goal of holding the summit was to discuss the methods that would increase the access of communication and information technologies in the applied when applied on the global platform. Much of the discussions made in the summit relied heavily on the centralisation of the technical administration of the internet, which disappointed a majority of the participants and especially the delegates from the third world countries. However, a key outcome of the summit was an agreement upon the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the aim of the governance forum was to bring together multi-stakeholders in its management, which included the governments, industry, and civil societies. The WSIS of 2003 summit did not reach a consensus because of presence of many disagreements between the proponents and proposers of the adoption of the multi-stakeholder approach to the Internet governance. While China and third world countries proposed for the adoption of the Multi-stakeholder approach, the United States and other western developed countries advocated for the introduction of more governmental and intergovernmental control mechanisms. Those disagreements led the WSIS to advising the then UN Secretary-General to establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in December 2004. Much heated debate over the Internet control led to the confrontation of the WGIG by the parties of both sides. Those confrontations forced the WGIG to recommend the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which was passed on the second WSIS summit in 2005. However, the initial IGF lacked the decision-making authority, despite its being a multi-stakeholders discussion forum. Moreover, in 2006 ITU members decided to hold an international conference on the international telecommunication for the ITRs that would empathize on the much-evolved international telecommunication environments, which they proposed to hold in 2012. Not sure if you can write a paper on Internet Governance by yourself? We can help you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In 2012, delegates filled the ITU conference on the international telecommunication with heated debates over the stand of the ITU on Internet governance. Proponents of the multi-stakeholders approach believed that ITU was using the conference as a platform of bringing Internet governance under the control of both the governmental and non-governmental organisations and hindering innovation, growth of the e-commerce, the Internet development, people’s democracy, and the human rights. Many scholars viewed the idea of the reviewing the ITRs as a move to tie the government regulations on the Internet, and hence keeping the free usage of the Internet away from the future generations. They argued that in order to prevent that case from happening coupled with any fundamental shift concerning the modern Internet governance, influential stakeholders should seek ways of protecting it. However, the secretary general of ITU, Hamadoun Touré, had stated that the conference would not address any issues relating to the Internet governance, but some members proposed for changes that focused much on Internet governance, and they considered it prudent to hold discussions over them. For instance, according to Fidler, in an article on the Internet, Russia had discussed on the multi-stakeholder model, viz. “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of the Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources, and to support for the operation and development of the basic Internet infrastructure”9. Other forms of proposed revisions on ITRs included the financing model for the Internet communications and measures that affect the security of both computer and the Internet security.10 Unfortunately, the conference ended without mutual consensus. There were 144 delegates having the voting rights out of whom eighty-nine appended their signs on the revision of ITRs including many from the third world countries, China, and Russia. On the other hand, delegates from the Unites States, European nations, and Australia did not sign for the revision. The fact that both sides had powerful nations led to the ending of a conference without consensus. However, the ITU secretary-general noted later that the revised ITRs did not mention the word ‘Internet’; hence, there was a need for the revision and thus he made a resolution to adopt the revision. The new revised ITRs included a preamble language, which required ITU members to remain committed in implementing the proposed regulations in manners, which respected and upheld human rights. The major difference between this form of language and others is its responsiveness to debates over the human rights and the Internet while others relied heavily on the freedom of expression as the only basic human right over the communication technologies11. In addition, there were articles of the revised ITRs that brought controversies among the members of the ITU. For instance, article 1 contained a provision that allowed private institutions that engage in the provision of international communication services to govern the Internet. This move brought about the question on the purpose and scope of the ITRs to the government of the United States. Hence, according to Drake, “the United States strongly opposed the provision by arguing that the revised ITRs broadened the scope of Internet governance to the point that the private sector and government operators could play a crucial role in the governance of the Internet across the world”.12 There was also a controversy about the added language in the article1.1 (a), which touched on the human rights and addressed the Internet content as a human right. In essence, content-related issues cannot be termed as human rights to the freedom of expression. The provision failed to convince the majority of members, and as a result, ITU dropped it after much criticism concerning its provision to post harmful contents over the Internet under the human rights provision. Article 5A provided for the provision of information security and cyber-security by individual member states. The United States strongly opposed that provision and described both ITU and ITRs as inappropriate avenues for the world’s Internet security issues. The manner in which some developed countries signed the revision of ITRs was questionable to the United States and consequently it viewed Russia and China as geared towards introducing the Internet security covers that could limit the public usage of the Internet at freewill. Hence, it strongly opposed that provision terming it as a risky move to the human rights. The ITU also adopted an additional revision to the ITRs concerning the enabling of the greater growth of the Internet by all stakeholders called Resolution 3.13 However, Resolution 3 was a non-binding regulation though it received much criticism from some countries especially the United States that viewed it as a contravention to the promise by the ITU secretary general, Hamadoun Touré that WCIT would not touch on anything related to the Internet in the discussions. The United States feared that the proponents of the revision would extend this provision to the point of allowing government and non-government bodies to have great influence over the Internet governance. However, the reviewed ITRs policies would be put in place at the start of 2015 to the countries that appended the revision. On the other hand, others, who did not append to the revision, would remain bound by the current ITRs. There are various questions about the adverse effect of Internet governance on businesses conditions, planning, decision-making processes, and other important sectors in an economy14. In addition, the scope of Internet governance also seems unclearly defined as to where it should take place, the Internet issues that should be addressed, and outcomes to be sought in the application of Internet governance mechanisms. These serious issues hamper good international relations amongst different states such as Russia, United States, and China. Lack of consensus in the world conference of international telecommunication (WCIT) hints at a probable lack of signs of a meaningful comprise in the future. Going by the international laws, the WCIT tried to introduce Internet governance as a set of international rules. Opposition by any state to these rules did not pose any danger of prosecution, but rather the consequences of failing to adhere to such rules and policies. The ITU members realised such discrepancies, which compelled the ambassador of the United States to conclude that his country would support the multi-stakeholders approach of the Internet governance, which incorporates industries, civil societies, and other major stakeholders of economic growth and development. In October 2006, the UN summit held the first meeting that discussed issues on the Internet Governance Forum. In attendance were the delegates from different economic sectors and countries all over the world. In addition, those delegates from different sectors that included government, industries, charities, and civil organisations. According to Drake, “the main theme of the conference was Internet Governance for economic growth and development, and had four main subcategories, which included viz. openness, security, access issues, and cultural and linguistic diversity”.15 Internet Governance does not make decisions, but it provides an Internet platform for democratic decision-making by setting up dynamic coalitions for the process. The key issues in the dynamic coalitions include privacy, open standards, and rights and responsibilities of the Internet users. Beginning with the privacy, the Internet governance forum provided for rules that regulate the web and the Internet users about the handling of privacy. Privacy protection is the first step to ensuring the security of the Internet users through emails, web pages, and databases. Secondly, the Internet security is a major issue of concern in today’s digital world. The major Internet security threats include spam, malwares, and cyberspace attacks. Spam is unwanted message sent by unanimous senders to recipients and mostly contains immoral and security threatening messages. Internet governance has the responsibilities of prohibiting the sending of spam messages over the Internet. Malware refers to application software products sent over the email and destroys the computer database whenever they run in a computer. However, there is a major concern that Internet governance should also control the Internet content despite it being open and global. However, since the inception of the Internet, it has never been under control of a controlling body or organisation. The Internet abuse is controllable and Internet governance mechanisms need to be introduced for the execution of the Internet control processes. For instance, in the UK, unlawful Internet content leads to the prosecution whereby the Internet Watch Foundation controls the Internet contents that are abusive to under-aged individuals. In addition, Ofcom, a UK Internet regulator, works to control the standards of the contents broadcasted over the Internet. It does not prosecute the law offenders, but its duty is to raise awareness to the stakeholders, who include industries and civil societies among others, about the self-regulatory capability that each have over the content displayed over the Internet. Ofcom is a good example of the Internet governance by the multi-stakeholders. In the United States, network neutrality policy advocates for equal treatment of the information displayed over the Internet regardless of the nature and impacts of the content. Considering the future of Internet governance, this paper would conclude by saying that it is at a greater stake considering the policies that are available today for governing the Internet content16. This policy has brought issues in the United States over a majority of the Internet users displaying contents that are abusive to minors and insulting to the religious individuals. However, the government emphasizes on the issuance of freedom of expression to its citizens, and hence no limit to the Internet contents. Through the Internet governance mechanisms, numerous organisations are involved in the administration of the Internet at both the national and international spectrum. The most common organisation that governs internet addresses and security is the Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) located in the United States. In addition, ICANN is a non-profit making organisation for assigning domain names and the IP addresses. Domain Name System (DNS) is a system for allowing computers to identify each other through unique numerical labels and IP addresses. This system ensures security of the Internet users by the identifications of the computers being used over the Internet, and thus it is easy to track the Internet offenders by the location of the used computers. University of Southern California was the first institution mandated, by the government of the United States, with the role of issuing DNS and IP addresses until the introduction of ICANN in early1998. The US government mandated ICANN with the role of delegating top-level domain names to some organisations that maintained two level domain names such as.com and.net17. Secondly, it is responsible for allocating blocks of the Internet protocol addresses to five most common regional Internet registries, and thirdly it authorises the creation of high-level domain names. However, the US department of commerce had much control over the ICANN until in 2006 when a joint agreement to allow it to have full independence over its responsibilities was reached by various government institutions, but the department of commerce has the authority to oversee how ICANN issues the domain registries to some organisations and specific clients18. Internet Governance Forum wishes to introduce new technologies in the governing of the Internet activities that use the detection of the IP addresses of the computers being used for the Internet networking at certain locations. For instance, the Google map application is used in the identification of specific geographical locations of interest all over the world. Google maps are widely used by navigators as well as the Internet governance bodies such as the United States Marine Corps who use special satellite assisted maps in the identification of locations of interest all over the world. However, some critics argue that Internet governance tends to limit the Internet freedom, and this assertion can be looked into two different perspectives. First, Internet governance could limit the Internet freedom through allowing much involvement of the government regulators into the regulatory bodies such as the ICANN of the United States. Secondly, the Internet freedom is denied when the Internet governance mechanisms, which control the nature of the Internet content, are put in place and they end up limiting some individuals from posting contents that are harmful to some individuals such as the Ofcom, which protects the minors. Works Cited Benedek, Wolfgang, Veronica Bauer, and Matthias Ketterman. Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and European Dimensions, New Jersey: Eleven International Publishing, 2008. Print. Drake, William. Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance, New York: United Nations Publications, 2005. Print. Fidler, David. “Internet Governance and International Law: The Controversy Concerning Revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations.” American Society of International Law 17.6 (2013): 7-14. Gelbstein, Eduardo, and Jovan Kurbalija. Internet governance: issues, actors, and divides, Merbourne: Diplo Foundation, 2005. Print. Kruger, Leonard. Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress, Washington, D.C: The Library Congress, 2010. Print. Mathiason, John. Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions, London: Routlegde, 2008. Print. Mueller, Milton. Ruling the root: Internet governance and the taming of cyberspace, Washington D.C.: MIT Press, 2004. Print. Thierer, Adam, and Wayne Crews. Who rules the net: Internet governance and jurisdiction, Boston: Cato Institute, 2003. Print. United Nations ICT Task Force. Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration: an Edited Collection of Papers Contributed to the United Nations ICT Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance, New York: United Nations Publications, 2004. Print. Footnotes 1 John Mathiason. Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions, London: Routlegde, 2008. Print. p.94. 2Ibid, p.27. 3Leonard Kruger. Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress, Washington, D.C: The Library Congress, 2010. Print. p.162 4David Fidler. “Internet Governance and International Law: The Controversy Concerning Revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations.” American Society of International Law 17.6 (2013): 7-14. 5Fidler, p.8. 6Ibid, p.13. 7 Kruger, p.163. 8Ibid, p.168. 9 Fidler, p.9. 10 Mathiason, p.105 11Adams Thierer and Wayne Crews. Who rules the net: Internet governance and jurisdiction, Boston: Cato Institute, 2003. Print. p.128. 12 William Drake. Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance, New York: United Nations Publications, 2005. Print. p.162. 13 Kruger, p.73. 14 Wolfgang Benedek, Veronica Bauer, and Matthias Kettermaand. Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and European Dimensions, New Jersey: Eleven International Publishing. 2008. Print. p.111. 15 Drake, p.201. 16 Milton Mueller. Ruling the root: Internet governance and the taming of cyberspace, Washington D.C.: MIT Press, 2004. Print. p.183. 17Thierer and Crews, p.136. 18 United Nations ICT Task Force. Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration: an Edited Collection of Papers Contributed to the United Nations ICT Task Force Global Forum on Internet Governance, New York: United Nations Publications, 2004. Print. p.47
Environmental impact analysis of Starbucks
Starbucks was a company which offered a choice of regular or decaffeinated coffee beverages to their customer. The product selling by Starbucks such as drip brewed coffee, espresso-based hot drinks, other hot and cold drinks, coffee beans, salads, sandwiches, pastries, snacks, and items such as mugs and tumblers and etc. The material using by Starbucks to produce their goods all is based on natural resources. The products which Starbucks served to their customers are without any colorants, preservatives and additives, especially for their coffee bean. To make sure Starbucks have the best quality and the best standard of coffee product in the world, Dave Olsen, Starbucks’ senior vice president for coffee, personally spearheaded Starbucks’ efforts to secure top-notch coffee beans to supply the company’s growing needs. He traveled regularly to coffee-producing countries such as Colombia, Sumatra, Yemen, Antigua, Indonesia, Guatemala, New Guinea, Costa Rica, Sulawesi, Papua New Guinea, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Java. He builds relationships with growers and exporters, checking on agricultural conditions and crop yields, and searching out varieties and sources that would meet Starbucks’ exacting standards of quality and flavor. So in case, the product produce by Starbucks is 100% safety to use by the consumer, especially the coffee beans they using are 100% from natural and healthy, it won’t harm the humans healthy. In 1999 Starbucks was started take care about the environmental impact. Starbucks started to consider on this problem “is that Starbucks product will impact the environmental”, so with this problem Starbucks decide to make their company more environmentally-friendly. Started from 1999 Starbucks decide to running a ‘Grounds for your Garden” program to make their business more environmentally-friendly. In 1999 Starbucks started gives the leftover coffee grounds to anyone who is requesting it for composting. And In 2004, Starbucks began reducing the size of their napkins and store garbage bags, and lightening their solid waste production by 1.8 million pounds, with this way the Starbuck can reduce to making the waste for environment. In October 2009, in response to concerns over its excessive water consumption, with the response Starbucks try to re-evaluate it’s by used the dipper well system. Finally, Starbucks store in Canada and the United States successfully implemented a new water saving solution which is requesting by the government health standard. So in this case, the Starbucks is an environmentally-friendly company and it didn’t have any action which can impact the environment when produce their product and they try to reduce the number of waste when they are producing the products or after customer used their product, so the Starbucks product is totally environmentally safety. After that, The U.S Food and Drug Administration also granted the first-ever approval to use recycled content in food packaging for Starbucks coffee cups. But not all of the cups Starbucks are using is recyclable, there is 10% of the recycled paper cups using by Starbucks are not recyclable, because the plastic coating that prevents the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled, especially the plastic cups used by Starbucks for the cold drinks is not recyclable. In this case, Starbucks is considering using the biodegradable material instead of plastic to line the cups and is testing composting of the existing cups. On the other hands, Starbucks also advise their customers using the reusable cup. So Starbucks was come out a go green idea which is gives customers a 10-cent discount when they bring their own reusable cup, and it now uses corrugated cup sleeves made from 60% post-customer recycled fiber. Lastly, started from November 2008 Starbucks also began to selling Product Red goods, and some of the profit for the goods was selling will be donated and it’s enabling the supply of AIDS medicine for 3800 people for a year. In conclusion, with the information found that Starbucks Corporation is an environmental-friendly company. The product they produce is 100% from natural resources, their product don’t have any colorants, preservatives and additives which can damage human healthy. Beside the product and packaging for the product is recyclable after using, so it means the product produce by Starbucks will not have any negative impact for the environment. Starbucks also a company which are take care for the social, as they sell the Product Red and donate some from the profit to the AIDS medicine supply and they try to make something to help the social. For my recommendation, Starbucks can be greener with serving the vegetarian product in their store. With this way, Starbucks can make their company more environmentally-friendly and it is the new market way for Starbucks to make profit. On the others hands, Starbucks also can produce their new vegetarian product without harmful the animals and it can be help Starbuck to create a more positive image in the market. Beside, the Starbucks also can build their own crop yields and use the leftover coffee grounds to plant out their own high quality coffee beans, with this Starbucks can be produce more natural and healthy coffee beans to their customer. Starbucks also can offered their own recycle bins at any store to their customers, after the customer using their product all the packaging and the paper cups will throw into the Starbucks own recycle bin. With this way, it can help Starbucks easier to running their recycle works. The Starbucks also can come out and idea, which the customer takeaway their product will be have the other charge for the plastic bags and paper cups and recommend their customer using the product at the store. With this way, the Starbucks can be reducing their customer making rubbish after used their product.
Diablo Valley College A Walk in the Park With God Book Discussion
order essay cheap Diablo Valley College A Walk in the Park With God Book Discussion.
Here is the list of questions for the book THE ANSWER:Here are the questions to answer for this Review in addition to any thoughts you have.1. Describe in your words your overall characterization of each of the 5 Team Members. (Jon, Mary, Jeff, Joseph, and Reverend Jim.) Ideally will be around 500 or so words… I’m not tripping on the count as I’m more concerned with YOUR thoughts.2. Of all the events in the “competition,” which was your favorite and why?3. What did you think of the ANSWER(S) that were given at the Presidential Press Conference after the competition by THE ONE? (Include Who is the ONE)4. What were your thoughts on each of the team members EPILOGUE? How do you feel about the way they all ended up?5. How would you feel if YOU WERE GIVEN THE ANSWER?6. Your general thoughts on the book. Your chance to share! Questions for the book: TWICE IN A LIFETIME Here are a few questions to answer about the review in addition to your thoughts at the end.1. Share, in your words, what you THINK/FEEL the lesson was in EACH GRADE.2. What was your initial reaction to the “Man in the black hat?”3. What was your reaction when you found out who it was?4. Why do you think “Ray” had so much trouble/difficulty throughout the book with the Man in the black hat?”5. What was your overall experience of the book? (Your chance to share) ;-)Here are the questions for the Book: A WALK IN THE PARK WITH GOD.Here are a few questions to answer about the book in addition to your overall thoughts:1. What do you think about “God’s” language that is used throughout the book? A. Did it sound biblical or religious to you?2. What was your impression of the conversation with the little kids in the park?3. What THREE answers struck you as most surprising or profound?4. Your overall thoughts of the book – Good or bad… Your chance to share! ;-)https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=azs_osd_iea?ie=UTF-8&tag=hp-us2-vsb-20&link_code=qs&index=aps&field-keywords=ray+faulkenberry+books
Diablo Valley College A Walk in the Park With God Book Discussion
Capella University the Dilemma of Vaccine Refusal Case Study
Capella University the Dilemma of Vaccine Refusal Case Study.
Develop a solution to a specific ethical dilemma faced by a health care professional by applying ethical principles. Describe the issues and a possible solution. Whether you are a nurse, a public health professional, a health care administrator, or in another role in the health care field, you must base your decisions on a set of ethical principles and values. Your decisions must be fair, equitable, and defensible. Each discipline has established a professional code of ethics to guide ethical behavior. In this assessment, you will practice working through an ethical dilemma as described in a case study. Your practice will help you develop a method for formulating ethical decisions.
Capella University the Dilemma of Vaccine Refusal Case Study
Recipe costing.Based on 75 people.Choose 5: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Side/Snack and Drink. These are the same items from your
Recipe costing.Based on 75 people.Choose 5: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Side/Snack and Drink. These are the same items from your standardized recipes.You need to includea.Name of ingredientb.Portionc.Wholesale costd.Unit –What the item is sold by (case, case of 2, etc.)e.Unit pricef.Unit of measure for priceg.Extended price –How much you will pay based on your product needsh.Total recipe cost per 1 portion I am going to share my student portal link with the username and password. So you can log in and see intructions and the videos when you click on Kaltura Media. I need two seperate ones for Watermelon Summer Cooler and for the soup recipe.