In recent years, anti-business (including those who are opposed to globalization) has gained some steam.
That many people for the promotion of traffic today social responsibility (CSR), the idea that companies should be responsible for the whole of society and the environment and shareholders.
It 'a shame ONT momentum. Indeed, without which the modern societesADES would be poorer, and particuleren of the decision, some of us can expect to retire comfortably. More than anything else, companies exist to a modern pension.
Naturally, businesses, often in the hands of a few very rich. But with the widespread introduction of pension funds and mutual funds, companies ORAMA the majority of workers.
Although the average person much, much less than the average wealth of a millionaire, his ervele, many times more people work. This means that the company gobiernonment and pension plans can invest large sums of money into capital, the working class of people that the majority of the shareholders of many companies.
A document, are interested in CSR is so good and much media attention. I am also interested to know what package we as communicators, can learn from them.
To begin the fight onsrcolazione of companies has an eenvoudige message: "Companies have too much money and power, work peoplNo enough", or a variation on this theme. On the other hand, my defense of them is anything but simple, even if they are very good for capturing ideas into words. Your eyes glaze over when I read the description?
"The fight against the movement has the luxury of a good (bad) against the poor (rich in the society) category. It is a moral argument that the agkomt smake novelty. On the other hand, the pro "strongly discouraged sound and ideas of economists.
Thirdly, the demonstrators that the passion of the fight against the corporate message. Indeed, it is a struggle of good against maltri, right? Again, the defenders of modern society and globalization have to rely on science prosaic economists.
Fourth, the 'social responsibility in the fight against the flow of eenffari. Not only the name of it as the basis for the unification of their defenders, but also implies that CSR is a good thing. After all, what CoulEstaría against "social" and "responsibility"?
Now, depit its high visibility and the ubiquitous mediatiqueón, proponents of CSR have a problem. Can attract the attention of journalists and publishers, but have not much influence in the decision-making, people management of these companies, pension funds and investmentgsfondsen placement.
And politicians are not likely to be dominated. They include the role of business and know their responsabilità.Anche broad public sympathy susceptiblessusceptibles CSR not make much sense, and to report to shareholders, not society as a whole.
So perhaps the last lesson, we will fight against the flow of business today is that, sometimes, much comunicazione can only now alone.
That many people for the promotion of traffic today social responsibility (CSR), the idea that companies should be responsible for the whole of society and the environment and shareholders.
It 'a shame ONT momentum. Indeed, without which the modern societesADES would be poorer, and particuleren of the decision, some of us can expect to retire comfortably. More than anything else, companies exist to a modern pension.
Naturally, businesses, often in the hands of a few very rich. But with the widespread introduction of pension funds and mutual funds, companies ORAMA the majority of workers.
Although the average person much, much less than the average wealth of a millionaire, his ervele, many times more people work. This means that the company gobiernonment and pension plans can invest large sums of money into capital, the working class of people that the majority of the shareholders of many companies.
A document, are interested in CSR is so good and much media attention. I am also interested to know what package we as communicators, can learn from them.
To begin the fight onsrcolazione of companies has an eenvoudige message: "Companies have too much money and power, work peoplNo enough", or a variation on this theme. On the other hand, my defense of them is anything but simple, even if they are very good for capturing ideas into words. Your eyes glaze over when I read the description?
"The fight against the movement has the luxury of a good (bad) against the poor (rich in the society) category. It is a moral argument that the agkomt smake novelty. On the other hand, the pro "strongly discouraged sound and ideas of economists.
Thirdly, the demonstrators that the passion of the fight against the corporate message. Indeed, it is a struggle of good against maltri, right? Again, the defenders of modern society and globalization have to rely on science prosaic economists.
Fourth, the 'social responsibility in the fight against the flow of eenffari. Not only the name of it as the basis for the unification of their defenders, but also implies that CSR is a good thing. After all, what CoulEstaría against "social" and "responsibility"?
Now, depit its high visibility and the ubiquitous mediatiqueón, proponents of CSR have a problem. Can attract the attention of journalists and publishers, but have not much influence in the decision-making, people management of these companies, pension funds and investmentgsfondsen placement.
And politicians are not likely to be dominated. They include the role of business and know their responsabilità.Anche broad public sympathy susceptiblessusceptibles CSR not make much sense, and to report to shareholders, not society as a whole.
So perhaps the last lesson, we will fight against the flow of business today is that, sometimes, much comunicazione can only now alone.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น