Answer:
- Employees prefer to work for highly ethical organizations.
- Research has shown a correlation between organizations’ commitment to ethics and profitability.
- Most consumers would prefer to buy products made by a company that demonstrates ethical behavior.
Explanation:
I'm not sure that these statements are all true, but I really hope they are. As an employee I would definitely prefer to work for a highly ethical business, and I think most people would share my preference. There is a strong correlation between ethics and how the business is managed, and if an ethical business is well managed (e.g. employees are treated fairly), then both their employees and customers should notice and that should increase their efficiency and total sales. An increase in efficiency should usually result in lower costs + higher sales = higher profits.
The answer should be D) a higher income pays a higher percentage in taxes or the fourth option.
Answer:
The correct answer is a) stock price.
Explanation:
The optimal capital structure is the mix of debt, equity, and preferred stock that maximizes the company's stock price. Debt financing supposes a low cost of capital, debt financing raises the risk to shareholders. In conclusion, the enterprise should find an equilibrium point to avoid a crisis.
Answer:
Variable costs
Explanation:
Variable costs are those that vary with the level of activity of the company. For example, raw materials are a variable cost. If you sell 10 units at $1 per unit, the variable cost is $10. If you sell 15 units it's $15. Fixed cost remains the same regardless of the number of units sold.
According to my conclusion, Ling's can be blamed for carelessness. By definition, a tort of carelessness happens when somebody endures damage on account of another's inability to surrender over to a required obligation of care. In our case, by owning an open space, the administration is at risk to ensure that clients and workers have a protected domain. The supervisor realized that the water on the floor may be a potential safety risk and did not take any measures to caution the client. So, this way, the chief broke the obligation of care. Kim endured legitimately unmistakable damage (in the event that she got a specialist's note) caused by the director's carelessness.
