Answer:
Larsen Inc. provides free lunch coupons to its employees.
Explanation:
As private business self-regulation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) intends to make contribution towards societal goals which include a philanthropic work, an activism or a work of charitable nature or engagement in volunteering work or supporting ethical practices. When Larsen Inc. provides free lunch coupons to its employees, it does a charitable or philanthropic work, which will help boost employees' satisfaction. It will not only make them tension-free of their lunch it will also generate a good feeling among them for the company. Larsen Inc. fulfills it CSR by spending money on their employees' health and welfare.
Answer:
Qin Shi Huang
Explanation:
Predecessor King Zhuangxiang
Emperor of China
Reign 221 BC – 10 September 210 BC
Successor Qin Er Shi
The chauffeur killed Lord Hazelton
This case can be solved from the facts discovered by Detective Percule Hoirot. The first fact to keep in mind is that:
- Lord Hazelton was killed by a blow on the head with a brass candlestick.
From this, it can be inferred that fact C. is not true because he did not die from a fatal dose of strychnine. In addition, it can be concluded that at the time of the murder in cook was not in the kitchen.
If the cook was not in the kitchen at the time of the murder, that means Sara was not in the dining room at the time of the murder (fact E). So it can be concluded that it was Lady Hazelton who was in the dining room.
If Lady Hazelton was in the dining room at the time of the murder, the one who killed Lord Hazelton was the chauffeur (Fact D)
According to the above, the one who killed Lord Hazelton was the chauffeur.
Note: This question is incomplete because the question is missing. Here is the question.
- Who murdered Lord Hazelton?
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/4163827
The study of the meaning of words is called semantics.
a. True
Divided government: occurs when the governors are unable to reach an agreement about the governance of the country. On that occasion, several different aspects of how the government should act arise, lacking an efficient consensus among politicians and generating strong cases of politicization, which prevents efficient and necessary public policies from being established and voted to allow their execution.
Weak party discipline: Prevents rapid voting on the implementation of public policies. As a result, the implementation of these policies is delayed and precarious. In addition, it makes the work of the federal government more difficult, forcing each parliamentarian to negotiate for these policies separately, making it difficult for political agreements to exist, as the governor starts to act individually.
Growth in the number of interest groups: When a public policy is established and needs to go into the execution process, it is necessary that all government officials work together, which does not happen when interest groups are generated. Each interest group acts individually, seeking personal and not collective benefits.
Political action committees: They can promote the interests of just a group of government officials, generate politicization and polarization of political thought, in addition to generating power gaps that can prevent the implementation of public policies.
