Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Answer:
"Good Taste"
Explanation:
According to my research on social terminology, I can say that based on the information provided within the question the term being defined is called "Good Taste". When someone is said to have "good taste" it is referring to the individual having very good judgement, usually having to do with being aesthetically pleasing, fashionable, polite, or socially and culturally appropriate for the specific scenario in which you are currently in.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
D.
Explanation:
Socialism describes workers owning the means of production, therefore no higher entity would be owning means, including government.
Medicalization of deviance is from the social trend that over the decades the growing influence of psychiatry and medicine transformed moral and legal issues into medical matters.
<h3>Medicalization of Deviance</h3>
- The process through which non-normative or morally abhorred characteristics of appearance (fat, unattractiveness, shortness), belief (mental disease, racism), and behavior (drinking, gambling) are brought under medical control is referred to as the medicalization of deviance.
- It is possible to describe medicalization as the process through which some parts of daily life start to be viewed as pathological rather than as medical issues.
- The process of classifying and categorizing non-normative and deviant behavior as a medical issue, usually a disease, is referred to as the "medicalization" of deviant behavior.
- The growing classification of deviance as a sickness coexists with the expanding use of medicine as a tool of social control, typically in the form of medical intervention.
To learn more about Medicalization of Deviance refer to:
brainly.com/question/4123399
#SPJ4
T---- that is pretty much the definition of immutable
