Answer:
The biological perspective views psychological disorders as linked to biological phenomena, such as genetic factors, chemical imbalances, and brain abnormalities; it has gained considerable attention and acceptance in recent decades
Explanation:
hope this helps !!
<span>During the adolescent stages in life, things seem so much bigger than they are. You can view that in the positive light or the negative to be honest. As a child, you see your siblings as another human who lives in your home with you, eats the same food, breathes the same air, loves the same parents as you. You fight over the remote control and wrestle with one another over a small toy you both insisted on needing at the same time. Within the next breath, you sit next to them and talk about your day, ask them to defend you from a so called friend who uses your kindness for weakness as your sibling reminds you of why you are so imortant in this life and deserve to be noticed for that... Swingsets, bike rides to the store, a companion who is always there to listen about how mom and dad "just aren't fair!"
Fast forward to 30 years old. Life interferes with the time spent together, the playtime becomes few and far between and the bike rides are a distant memory. The things that stay though...those are very similar to my first statements on childhood with them. The love, support and time spent doesn't need to disapear. It turns into a mature type of love. You call one another every few days to check in. Make a coffee date to catch up on her latest life experience and remind them that you are always here. Those bike rides though? Now you can take them together with your own children.</span>
she answered before he rang ?
Answer:
Social responsibility is an ethical framework and suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large.[citation needed] Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems. A trade-off may exist between economic development, in the material sense, and the welfare of the society and environment,[1] though this has been challenged by many reports over the past decade.[when?][2][3] Social responsibility means sustaining the equilibrium between the two. It pertains not only to business organizations but also to everyone whose any action impacts the environment.[4] This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social goals. Social responsibility must be intergenerational since the actions of one generation have consequences on those following.[5]
Businesses can use ethical decision making to secure their businesses by making decisions that allow for government agencies to minimize their involvement with the corporation.[6] For instance if a company follows the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for emissions on dangerous pollutants and even goes an extra step to get involved in the community and address those concerns that the public might have; they would be less likely to have the EPA investigate them for environmental concerns.[7] "A significant element of current thinking about privacy, however, stresses "self-regulation" rather than market or government mechanisms for protecting personal information".[8] According to some experts, most rules and regulations are formed due to public outcry, which threatens profit maximization and therefore the well-being of the shareholder, and that if there is not an outcry there often will be limited regulation.[9]
Some critics argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing, or "greenwashing";[10] others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful corporations though there is no systematic evidence to support these criticisms. A significant number of studies have shown no negative influence on shareholder results from CSR but rather a slightly negative correlation with improved shareholder returns.[11]
Explanation:
plzz mark me as brainlist
Technically General of the Army/Fleet Admiral, depending on which division.
(Personal opinion that Commander in Chief is higher)
