According to me, "profit" is not a dirty word, at all. Is just one aspect of starting and running a business. It becomes bad just when it is the only aim of one's actions and strategies.
Profit can be considered as one of the objectives of a firm, but it implies other aspects, like a successful and useful service for customers. It is a good word if obtained in a right way, by collaboration and communication between the entrepreneur, the employees and people who are bound to consume the product.
Annalisa Carosi, Francesca Di Carlo, Arianna Samuele, Giulia Zanatta
No, in most cases it isn´t. Profit is one of the many aspects of a successful organization. It could be seen as a positive result of hard work and as a source to motivate the workers for their future work in the company. From the stakeholders point of view, profit may not always be related to something positive (environment pollution, third world countries problems,ect..) . But, in my opinion, many firms like Apple, Skype, Facebook, Hi tech industries, solar power industries, where able to change our life thanks to these profits. In other words, they used part of their profits in further research so that we are now able to use products and services that in many aspects transformed our life in a more comfortable and better way. Fabio Ballasina
In my opinion “profit” is not a dirty word. It is one of the aspects of a business plan, but it does not have to be considered as the only objective of a business. I think that it is right that entrepreneurs, whose aim was to offer a good service and satisfy costumers, earn profits.
I wouldn't define profit as "dirty". In my opinion, profit is the concrete and material traslation of busyness' value, as a consequence it's something necessary. By the way, I'd call the profit "dirty" just in case it becames the main and only objective of a busyness entity or an enterpreneur.
I think that profit can't be considered as a "dirty" word because has an important value in the business world and because it can represents the success of an organization . However, it should not be seen as the main objective of a business. In order to reach a good profit you should first take care about some more important stuff such as the needs of the comunity, the production of your products ecc.
I think profit is not a dirty word. You need it to go on with a business or activity. It becomes dirty when it is made without respecting laws, enviroment and workers.
First of all, every word is not dirty. People as well as their thinking make it change of meaning. Next, we need profit in order to survive in the world. It provides the essentials for life. Moreover, profit help us to ensure the two biggest needs: Physiological and safe according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The profit also helps social to develop and create many material possessions.
Finally, as a businessman, that "profit" is the word can not lack in my dictionary. Profit is never a dirty word for me.
Profit itself is not a dirty word, in my opinion profit must not be the main goal of a company. If companies sell thier products and services honestly, profit will be normal. If these variables are satisfied the word "profit" would be not defined as a dirty word. Gianluca Tanzi
Make money or make the world a better place? Personally i think that you can do both. Service and making a profit should work in partnership so we have resources to innovate products that meet real human needs. To sum up, business should not be considered as a "dirty world"
It depends on how the profit is made. Profit can be a dirty word if you make your money by not taking care about the environment around you and if you treat your employees unfairly and not under the right conditions. But normally profit is not considered as a dirty word since they gain profit by satisfying our needs and wants.
For what concern the word 'profit', I think it has not be a dirty word, because we have to remind that without investing and spending money there is no economy. It only depends on how this word really means for us.
As I have already said answering “Before Starting”, I don’t consider “profit” as a dirty word. When does a company start to have profit? When it works in a good way. When it is well organazied. When it has found a good way to satisfy its costums needs and wants. A well-directed company will have constant profit. So, to me, this word just indicates the prize for a good work.
The profit not only is not a dirty word but, if its positive, it lets understand that a firm is economically sane. The profit is first of all a needs satisfaction. We need to understand how the profit is used in a firm but this is another story ...
We don’t have to consider profit as a dirty word because for some organizations it’s necessary for surviving. For example, if for public hospitals their object is patient’s cure, for private clinics, is profit instead.
1) Is the objective of a hospital equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services? Why? 2) What are, in your opinion, the main differences between these two organizations?
Of course, public hospitals and private clinics have the same objective, or slightly. I mean they are all built to medicate sick clients so their objective is to heal, to help people have good health. Now, the fact is the public ones don't usually work for money/profit (at least here in Italy) and the private clinics usually work to be paid (heavily paid in some cases).
The main difference (here in Italy) is that if you ask medications to the public hospitals you have to wait for a long time to be satisfied, instead, if you go to the private clinics you can get their services right away. You pay and you'll be satisfied.
1)I think the aim of both a hospital and a private clinic is the good health of the pacients, because they have the same structures, staff and equipment. 2)The differences are, of course, financial. I’m not well acquainted with other countries’ health-care systems, but in Italy hospital care is “free” (not completely, since we pay taxes), while in a private clinic you have to pay for your own treatments. I my mind, I see a private clinic very similar to a firm.
1. Is the objective of a hospital equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services? Why? - Objective is the same, because both have the same goal of taking care of patients health.
2. What are, in your opinion, the main differences between these two organizations? - Services are usually more expensive at private clinic because of the private clinics want to make profit - The employees might be little bit more skillful and motivated at the private clinic compared to the public hospital - Hospitals mostly concentrate to patients and do not need to make profit when private clinics are trying to make profit while treating patients.
In a certain way it is. To offer a good service and take care of their patiences should be their common objective. Although it is well known that private clinics do in many cases offer a higher standard, mostly for those who are private insured. Private clinics do also improve research as they often tend to buy high tech equipment and other expensive tools. This way they guarantee a profit to many other organizations who are involved in research fields, which in my opinion is highly important for the future. besides that, private clinics have to make themselves more attractive (e.g. higher specialized staff) in order to run their business in a proper way. Hospitals instead, from the way I see it , are less focused on the quality of the structure and its equipment, but in many cases are still able to offer a good care to a larger number of patiences has in most cases their structures are larger. I also do think that that they may require a much more complicated managing and planning work behind the scenes in order to guarantee the functionality of the organization. Fabio Ballasina
I belive that the objectives of a public hospital are the same as a private hospital. Both want to provide services to their patiences that can ensure their well-being. The main differences between these two organizations are that the private hospital often guarantees the best quality services, even if at a higher cost than a public hospital where every hospital treatment is free. Anyway this doesn't mean that public hospitals can't guarantee the same services that are just as good.
According to my opinion, the objective of a public hospital and a private clinic is the same : both want to help and medicate sick patients. By the way, from a financial point of view, they're really different. A private clinic works for the profit and usually offers really good treatments to their patients, while a public hospital doesn't work for profit and most of times is not well organized ( I'm talking about italian medical-system).
I believe that the aim of the hospital and of the clinic is basically the same in fact both cure people.. The huge difference between the 2 institutes is that the hospital is open to every person and actually help much more people than the clinic since is free. In the clinic instead you have to pay to have a treatment and to have additional services. Finally we can see that the hospital is fundamental while clinics give people (that can afford it ) additional services .
according to me while a hospital is a non profit organization, a private clinic is a profit organization. so the aim isn't Always the same. they both take care of people but while the first (theoretically) is only interested in health's patients the second one have to run a business so needs funds to support the charges and invest in equipment and staff. However hospitals and clinics are among the structure that allow to measure the level of civilization of a modern society. Here, in italy, the law offers the possibility to choose between a public and a private organization whose objective are more or less the same. arianna samuele
1)Hospital and private clinic have the same objective, because they both take care of the health of patients. 2)Private clinics are for those who want to receive a treatment selecting a specific doctor, a comfortable room, and can afford the payment. Hospitals are free but this doesn’t mean that staff, who works in them, is less experienced than the private clinics one. Another difference is that hospitals receive subventions from Regions so they do not care about wasting founds as much as private clinics, whose profits come from patients, do.
Hospitals and private clinics are similar entities because they provide services to improve our health. The main difference is how they provide those services. Hospital is financed from a public account so it is ruled from a specific and strict regulation to reach the standard that it needs. Furthermore the hospital can have some division which is not economically bearable but however it can have those divisions because the State pays for those services. Instead the private clinics have to manage with the rules of global market so they must reach some profitable level of accountability
I believe that the objective of a hospital is the same objective of a privite clinic because their job is to take care about the health of their patients. However, the hospital aim to offer a service which can be accessible by everyone without having to pay a certain amout of money and this can be possible because the hospital is financed by the state. Instead the goal that the privite clinic wants to achieve is to make people pay some money in order to be able to garanteed a better service but on the other hand the private clinic is forced to do that because it has to manage and finance itself.
The objective of both is to take care the problems of people. But in the hospital the services are free, while in a private clinic we must pay to solve our problems.
The main objective of a hospital and of a private clinic is the same, treating patients. The difference is the price of the service offered by the hospital and by the private clinic. In fact, the private clinics aim to guarantee and offer the best service. Obviously customers of the private clinics are different from those of the ospital because not everyone can afford the expensive service of a private clinic
A public hospital and a private clinic have the same object: taking care of people's health. The hospital is a non-profit organization, while the clinic is a for-profit organization, so the second one is interested in providing the best cares and attenctions,in order to have an economic return. A public hospital receives money from the government to let everybody access to this kind of service, that is fundamental for every country. However, being a public establishment requires a complex organizational system because it has to deal with a greater amount of patients, so in a large number of cases the service is not guarenteed in a short time. The private clinic is a good oppurtinity to solve this prolblem providing a fast and leisured intervent. On the other hand we have to consider the major amount of money that it requires to let this machine work well and efficiently.
A public hospital and a private clinic have the same object; both take care of patiens, help them to be healthy. But are differences: the hospital being a public structure, doesn't need profit; while private clinic needs profits otherwise it would close. The hospital is cheap but doesn't have the same quality,treatments...of clinic. For example in a private clinic, the patients have to pay but will receive the date of the medical visit soon respect to hospital.
Both the hospital and the private clinic have the same object. They take care of people. The differences are that an hospital is a public structure and you pay less (a Ticket), while the other one is private and you pay more for the services. Not always private structures are better than public, and vice versa. To pay for something doesn't necessary mean to recive a better service. it should be, but it isn't sure.
The main objective of both these organizations is to provide medical assistance even though they achieve this result in different ways: while the hospital offers that service free of charge, a private clinic always has an income in its every operation.
Even if we talk about a private clinic or a public hospital the objective remain the same , healing and patient care . The only difference between those two organisations it is the system . When we talk about private system we talk about our expectations
In my opinion, the most important aim of both organizations is to take care of their patients, but they have many dfferences, because a private clinic is more comfortable and if you want to reserve a visit with a doctor, you don't have to wait too much time.
Is the one that the other has the same objective, they take care of their patients health, but if in the hospital the employees are payed by the gouvernment , in the private clinics they are payed according to the work they perform. So I think the only difference is that the private clinics are focused on profit and they offer a better service , even if the aim is the same.
1. I think that the objective of a hospital is equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services. Because both of them have the same goal of taking care of patients health.
2. The main differences between these two organizations is profit. While the hospital is run the capital of government, the private clinic have to manage money in order to maintain their organization. Therefore, the cost of treatment in private clinic is more expensive than the hospital. So, the hospital is more popular in social than the other.
Is truth they offer the same services but with different objectives.Public hospital is interested for to cure the health of people because they are paid by the governmant. Meanwhile private clinic is interested to get profit from its services. If we do not pay we don't get the services.
They have the same objective to take care of the health of the patients, but a private clinic is a for profit organisation and a hospital is a non profit organisation is controlled by the government. For profit organisations always have the objective to make a profit, so they have partly the same objective. Private clinics can be more expensive, but it is easier for them to invest in new equipment. Hospitals will need approval or subsidy from the government.
They have a same aim but a prvite clinic has usually a better service or better quality( food for example) because it earns more money,while a hospital doesn't need money in order to save people's life because it is approved and financed by the government
A private clinic and a hospital have both the same objectives and they want to cure there customer in whatever they have ,but there are differences in the comfort and luxuries of the hospitals. A private clinic offers better comfort , service, better food and hygiene, while this is not given in a normal hospital.
Hospitals and private clinics have both the same objectives, of course. Their job is to take care about people or patient. But the fundamental difference between them is that clinics request an amount of money for their services, while hospitals do it for free in Italy (actually, we pay them through taxes). So while the former can be surely classified as a for-profit firm, instead the latter is a for no-profit one.
I think the first aim hospitals and private clinics have is the same: the healt of people. However, hospitals are public structures and they have not to consider the money-factor (not considering the amministration of the financing) while a private clinic does. Consequently, a private clinic has to consider more factors –quality of the services, quality of the structure, quality of machines - in order to have more patiens whom payments it needs to survive.
The hospitals and the private clinics have the same health service objectives but in the meantime they have different way in managing their infrastructures. The hospitals have a higher reimbursement from the Ministry of Health and their finances are certainly different than a private clinics. They have to manage more employees and more medical equipment covering most health departments for various types of diseases. The private clinics instead can be smaller and take care of the quality of service.
Andrea Gaudiomonte The objective of a private clinic overlaps with that one of a hospital as they both provide health care services. While the former is a business entity that operates in the market the latter is a non business entity. Thus the main difference between these entities is related to their different primary interest: For what concern the private clinic, meeting human needs is necessary but not sufficient as the entity must generate a positive net income (net profit) in order to survive and develop. The primary interest of a Hospital is based on social motivations and altruism. Its development and survival are usually financed by the State where it was established.
Objective of hospitals and clinics is health care. The main difference between these two structures is in which way they provide cures. In the first case, the public structure and public services are financed by the government, thus by Italians taxes. In the second case the clinic can be seen more as a profit-firm since it’s not owned by the State but by a single owner; so it’s clear to identify the primary interest of a clinic, that is maximizing profit through providing patients of efficient ( sometimes mediocre) cures.
In my opinion the two organizations are very different because a hospital can offer only a free service promoted by the govern instead a private clinic with its gain can also provide a better service and better structures but unfortunately for it there is the need to make people pay an amount of money. So the objective can be the same, but two different way to reach it.
In my opinion the hospital's and clinic's objective should be the same and its about providing health and medical services. Therefore clinic aims also to keep the high reputation to they keep their profits high and keep the clinic functional so the twork is done is there is more efficient , this thing doesnt happen in hospital because the employees are not motivated they know that if they dont do their jobs well it doesnt matter ...
In my opinion the objective of both the associations is to solve the problems of the patients. The main difference is that the private clinique requests money for the therapies instead of the hospital.
Firms should use renewable energy, mainly, because the environment deserves respect and safety. Moreover, people’s awareness of pollution is slowly growing, it means that some of the most purchased products will be, probably, eco-friendly. Then, sustainable production systems could represent a competitive feature and an entrepreneur should consider, leaving aside ratings about the higher cost of renewable energy, all the aspects of this kind of choice, indeed, incentives have been increased and it could be considered a long-term investment.
I think that the firms should use renewable energy for three reason: 1) the renewable energy respect the environment and it's safe for the population 2)using renewable energy should be, in these days, a very effective strategy to increase the profit. in fact even if this kind of energy is more expensive than other non renewable energies, if the customer is aware of the fact that your industry is using renewable energy he will probably choose your product instead of the one of another industry that is not respecting the environment. 3)As we said yesterday the economic problem consist to have unlimited needs and wants and limited resources: an example of this problem I guess should be the fossil fuels that are going some day to finish on earth. On the other hand we have the renewable energy that is unlimited and impact 0 on the environment.
Market and costumers are always more focused on the environment. So they would like have relation with eco-friendly firms and the latter have to keep up with this
Firms should use renewable energy because it is important for everyone to survive. I mean, using unrenewable energy is very dangerous for all of us even if it is really difficult to controll all firms. I think that it should be a must for every firm in order to guarantee a good environment. After all, we all have seen what happen to our natural resources because of firms.
I think that firms should use renewable energy in order to respect the environment and to eliminate the risk of breathing harmful substances. Even if using renewable energy has a major cost than non- renewable energy, this choice can give to the organization a better look and impression because we always have to think about the community where we live in.
Firms should use renewable energy to increase public health and environmental quality because using all that other forms of energy destroying our atmosphere and increasing the global warming at some point in the future it will have a bad impact on everyone, now we can't see it but with the rhythm the damage increases, the problem grows bigger and bigger each day. Therefore running a business with clean energy will work as a "good-advertisement" and will attract more costumers by the time, because if you can say that you run something big with just clean energy and don't destroying the environment this will only give you benefits and from time you will have more "supporters" on what you do because people starts to realise how harmful energy production is to the envirioment so that is a big plus for your firm
Using renewable energy means invest in the future. The respect for the environment improves social conditions and allows a new economic development whose objective is broaden horizons and increase competition. Firms must use renewable energy, one of their aim is, in fact, satisfy the users and in a society where people are becoming aware of the issue's importance invest in renewable energy may be the right way.
In my opinion, firms should use this kind of energy to add a value to their organization and product. Sustainibility is one of the most discussed factors of today economy : having respect for our environment is really important especially if we do not look just to the present and we take care and think about our future and our son' and daughters' llives. If you are want a product and you do not usually just see at the price, but you believe in other values as respecting nature, a eco- sustainable good is what you you're looking for. So having this special attention can allow the firm to enlarge his market. At last but not at least, receiving economic founds and helps from government or specilized entities,that promote renewable energy, is a valid motivation.
To use renewable energy is important to reduce the pollution, to safe the enviroment and the life. Who produce something thinking about the future of the world is responsable, and people usually appreciate this. A firm that put the welfare of all at first is a firm that you can trust and thanks to the renewable energy it can save money too, and invest it in their future.
zhan xu The renewable-energy costs have declined, it still remains more expensive than power from coal or natural-gas power,but it is not a convenient way for firms.i think now the word renewable energy is also a good bussiness plan(advertisment) for each firm because now the people appreciate this. and its also very important for our future to use renewable energy.
Gianluca Tanzi. Renuable energy is the future. Polution is sickening our world. Countermeasurments must be got. In my opinion the cure for this illness is renuable energy.
Ethically, I think that every firm should use renewable energy, because while profit comes and goes, this is the only Earth we have. Moreover, as we said during the class, nowdays customers pay attention to the environmental impact of business activities, so using renewable energy could be a competitive advantage for the firm.
Renewable energy : wind , solar , geothermal , hydroelectric and biomass - provides substantial benefits for our climate , our health , and our economy . Even if renewable-energy is more expensive than power from coal or natural gas , I think that more corporations should invest in it , because like this , they will help to nurture the young renewable-energy industry , lower the price of wind and solar and promote the use of clean power .
Because our future and the future of our children depends on it since we are destroying a pianet...for example climate change as a result of pollution can have catastrophic consequences on us all
It depends. Obviously, it would be better if every azienda or economic activities used renewable energy, but nowdays it is difficult to find this type of entity. Almost the majority of them is created only to make profit at every conditions. On the contrary, as we said during the lessons, sustainability is a strong competitive factor in the market that customers take always into consideration.
Of corse, to keep our planet the better clean we can for the future generations. However, sometimes this reason is too weak and company chose to use exhaustibale energy which are cheaper. To me, it’s not a good choise. Perhaps, the costs are less but the company might gain a dark image in our eco-era. Nowadays, people are more aware of the problems which attack the healt of our planet. So, they are starting to prefer buying eco-stuff even if they are more expensive. So, even if they are more expensive, renewable energy might make the company get a good reputation towards its costumers. We know the first rule in the commerce is “to spend, to earn”.
The firms, and I would say everybody because of the ethical responsibilities, should use the renewable energy for many reasons. First of all it will not be used exhaustible energy (resource) anymore, less pollution, lower costs, etc. Actually, the energy that we use, more than 35% comes from a renewable resource, like hydropower. This is one of the resource that has to be developed for better quality of life.
Because renewable energy respects nature, in this way we can also have and mantain more resources for the next generations, One day resources will finish or will be less , for the sustainability of a firm is better using renewable enrgy
Firms should use renewable energy in order to respect the enviroment from whom humans get their sustainment. Being ethical by managing waste, recycling and respecting natural resources is a way to take a long-term view, remembering that today's decisions will influence tomorrow's choices.
Using renewable energy could represent a strong point both for the efficiency and life-duration of a firm. Nowadays we should take care of the environment as a whole because pollution is growing more and more and the negative effects coming from that can constitute a danger for our health and for nature. Moreover basing a business on an eco-friendly system is the basis of ethical firms, which could also be more motivated, in not wasting energy and in running a long-term company, by environmental associations. It’s clear that also if the results of these aspects can be imperceptible, one day can be appreciate by our children.
The good ability on cooking of the chef. We go to restaurants to eat good food so every restaurant should have a good chef in order to offer consumers delicious food.
As well as a skilled chef, the most important input of a restaurant is a good atmosphere and comfort. In fact a restaurant with a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere is more successful than a restaurant with a better kitchen, but with less comfortables.
The most important input of a restaurant is his chef, because with his ability he creats the special and original dishes that are the basis of this kind of organization. People can choose where to eat, but they have a preference for a certain restaurant if they know the quality and standards it can offer. The signature of the chef, that distinguishes his plates from the others, is a garantee for the customer. So the role of the chef affects the aspects of the inputs but also the one of outputs.
The most important input of a restaurant is the choice of the best chef, but also the quality of the food, because the taste of the dishes depends on these elements.
A good chef , a nice atmosphere,the kindness of the employees , cheap prices and the quality of food. It' s impossible consider the quality of a restaurant focusing only on one aspect.
For my personal opinion the most important input in a restaurant is the head chef, but the answer can not be just limited to that. How can a head chef be unique and satisfy certain determinated needs? For example using different products that can stimulate people and improving the output, like using sustainable food or following movement like " SLOW FOOD " ( movement born in italy in 1986 founded by Carlo Petrini) that promotes forgotten and sustainable products from small producers and that goes against the globalization of agricoltural products. Head chef's skills and quality of products are the most important things that well combine with a nice atmosphere can valorise so much the output.
Important input of a restaurant are a good chef, good quality of the food and a beauty location, because if there were not these input, in the restaurant there would be no customers and it would close.
I don't think there is only one fundamental input in a restaurant, but two: a good chef and high-quality food. Of course the chef is one of the most important parts of managing a business like a restaurant, but without raw material he/she would be pretty useless. On the other hand, good food treated by a mediocre chef wouldn't have good feedbacks from the customers as well.
Productivity is the measure of production efficiency in business. Productivity reflects the relationship between input and output in the operations. That is why in my opinion for a restaurant to be efficient and productive , the most important input it is the chef .
Input is a priority of any azienda and in the case of restaurant, in my point of view, important input are the quality of food and service. It's foundamental to stablish exactly how much you're spending on food or how many finances you have. Of course, it's also important to keep an open eye on how your food's being prepared in the kitchen. Moreover, service is another aspect to be considered for a excellent business. In fact, servics can make o break a restaurant.
The most important input of a restaurant is a good chef cook, since you go to an restaurant to eat delicious food. In Addition, the comfort , atmosphere and hygiene also play an very important role in the input of the restaurant.
The best input to carry on a restaurant is a managerial skilled employee. Yes, because beyond having a good chef and service, this type of activity involves having a manager that takes into consideration every single aspects of the external environment and of the society, of course, in order to make pure profit. Then the choice of an excellent chef, the menu, the location and so on is secondary and suggested under manager's control.
To me, it depends on the restaurant. If a restaurant wants to have an high-level costumers, I would say the chef. A good chef will attract people who are looking for good and special meals. If a restaurant doesn’t really care about the speciality of its meals, I would say the services. An example of this kind of restaurants is McDonald’s. Here, only the service worths and it must be good and fast. In this way, McDonald’s gain a worldwide commerce and it has no so good chef in its restaurants.
the most important input of a restaurant is a really expert chef. Since the main restaurant's purpose is to provide customers delicious and quality food, the first need has to be the chef's choice.
In my opinion the most important input of a restaurant is the chef, because mainly thanks to him, but also to a cozy location, a restaurant can be appreciated a lot and published through word of mouth by clients. A good chef has to be able to satisfy also the expectations of discriminating taste clients, so the owner of the restaurant must make an accurate selection between eminent schools of kitchen chefs.
Labour is different to capital since by labor human effort is being used in oder to produce a product, while by capital an investment is made into a good to have the good produce the product.
Mainly capital is an inanimate object in opposite with the labour which is composite from men and women who have illimited needs. So labour is completely different from capital because to manage it we have to figure out some mental processes which incur when employees work.
Labour is different from capital. Labour/human capital is, maybe, the most important part of a firm. Why? Because without human capital, firms can ever work and can ever produce. In other words, firms need human capital in order to produce. Instead, capital could give profit to firms/entrepreneurs without involving workers (like for example, doing investments).
Labour is the most important part of the production becouse is formed by people and not machines. Capital can be used, trasformed,moved, the workers have needs as the consumers and behind the singol person there is a family, so the emloyer has also to consider all these things.
Labour is different from capital because the first one is formed by workers and the second one is just something that can be removed, transferred, invested and changed into something else. Workers are humans beings and they need to receive respect and rights in order to feel satisfied about their job. We also have to remember that behind every worker there is a family.
Labour is human efforts used in the creation of goods and services well as capital can be the factors of production that are used to create goods and services or can be money invested at the beginning of a business to generate income.
Labour is the human effort that allows the firm to create physically the product. The capital allows the firm to invest in future products, such as machinery, factories and updating courses. They are two fundamental inputs for the organization and the organization has to take care of both of them. The company has to remember the importance of his employees and that behind each of them there is always a family with needs to respect. The firm has to invest his money carefully in order to let everybody gain the best.
Labour is different from capital, because the former is any human effort (mental or physical) to produce goods or services, while the latter is an investement and a resource to produce products such as machineries, factories, buildings.
zhan xu The capital's means invest the money in goods and than it will product other good in the future . The labour are humans to product goods and service .
capital is an investment in a business and has concern with profit or loss. while labour is only in transformation process and used to produce goods from raw material and they have no cocern with profit. they simply rely on wages.
Labour and capital are the "instruments" used by the firm in order to achieve its objective, but they are different. Labour can be considered even "human capital" (without wanting to consider it as an objectification of the human being), or the human effort to create value. "Capital", instead, are inanimate goods used for the same purpose.
Labour and capital are two types of different resources. While with capital to increase the productivity you should invest in improvement to raise it, beacuse is made from machinery that need to be updated with the market requests, labour is a resource where you can invest not just in terms of money but you can raise productivity working on the mental skills of workers.
It is different in the sense that labour which is human effort doesn't necessarily means capital. and that capital is not always increased by increasing the labour
Labor and capital are both fundamental factors in carrying on an economic activity. But each of them has specific functions. Capital is an amount of immaterial goods that are going to be invested in order to make fortune. On the other hand, labor is embodied by the entire team of employees whose effort is extremely important for the entity itself. They are the pillars of the firm, because without capital there is no activity, but without labor there is no production. So it is strongly essential protecting both of them.
To me, they are both kinds of richness and resources. They are both used to produce value. However, it is more easy to evaluate a capital because it is formed by things –money and/or stuffs- while it is more complex to evaluate the value of the labour since it is an action and it is linked to men, which can be dominated by emotions or the effort which can probably infulence the labour itself.
Capital is something inanimate which is invested in order to produce goods and can be always increased or decreased depending on the firms/enterpreneur disponibility and wants. While the labour is a human effort whereby an organization produces outputs and it's something limited because of its nature.
No, it isn't. Wind is managed and controlled by an another big entity that acquired it in 2011. Its name is VimpelCom, a Russian azienda, that created a great group. This group has got a business in providing telecommunication services and it contains other European and Asiatic smaller entities such as Beeline, Ydjezzy, Kyivstar, Mobilink, Telecel, Leo and Banglalink. So Wind is part of Vimpelcom : it hasn't any decision-making authonomy and it is a sub-system of the Russian entity. This fact doesn't directly lead to the statement that Wind doesn't have some kind of freedom to choose its strategy to pursue its objective. But in this case only VimpelCom can be defined an Azienda because it respects the three attributes.
I'm agree with Annalisa, because Wind company isn't an azienda. It's controlled and managed by an another big Russian entity of telecommunication called Vimpelcom. So, it's a subsystem and it doesn't respect the essential attributes and characteristics of the concept of azienda.
Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA is an Italian telecom operator which offers integrated mobile, fixed and Internet services. In 2011 Wind became part of Vimpelcom group so being coordinated by Vimpelcom group I dont think that Wind possess the required characteristics of an azienda .
I can only agree with you. An azienda is an economy entity which is characterized by systemic coordination, decision-making autonomy and economicity. However, Wind is controlled by the Russian azienda VimpelCom. It doesn’t have a fundamental characteristic of the azienda: the decision-making authonomy. So, it is better saying it is a part of a bigger azienda.
Wind is not an azienda because the structure of wind doesn't respect the caracteristics of an azienda , wind is controlled by an other azienda , so we can say that wind is a sub azienda.
I totally agree to what Annalisa Carosi said. It is a big company but we can't consider it as an "azienda", Francesco Bollini, since it doesn't have the three important attributes of the concept of the "aziende".
Wind is not an Azienda since it belongs to another big russian company named VimpelCom and , as a consequence, it doesn't have the decision-making autonomy, one of the three azienda's attributes.
No it isn't in fact in May 2011 wind joined the vimpelcom. It was created at the end of 1997 thanks to the investements of Enel, France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. Although in 2010 the Telenor shareholders refused the fusion program in 2011 it belongs to the russian company. so beacause of a limitated decision-making autonomy it isn't an azienda. It doesn't doesn't meet the three attributes of an azienda.
No because interests of vimpel and wind are the same. They may have different areas of work, but having the same interest makes one a part of the other
False - sometimes a single firm owns all of the market for a certain kind of service or product. When competition is absent, because a single firm can satisfy a given need, that firm owns a monopoly. Nowadays, it is rare to find a monopoly, because governments do not allow them or regulate them through laws.
False. I would add to Francesca's answer that there are some non-profit firms that have a monopoly by law. Just because a State or an entity gives them such privilege.
There are companies that are not having competitors , those are monopolistic type .The monopoly can be characterized as a situation of a company that provides all branch production .
In my opinion, every firm must have competitors, because in so doing entrepreneurs are brought to think new and original business strategies, remaining in the legality.
To me, it is true. For instace, you start producing a completely new item, never seen in the global market. Perhaps, the first months you won’t have competitors. But, as soon as the others will understand the mechanism of your product they will start producing it too. So, even in this case, you will have competitors. However, I think that comperitors are important in commerce. They oblige the company to do better and to always be competitive. Maybe, we wouldn’t have this technological development if Apple didn’t compate with Microsoft. Or, going out from the economic subject, maybe no one would walk on the Moon if America didn’t compete with Russia.
True. Each producing company competes with a limited number of rival firms; the main weapon of competition is advertasing that describes the product offered as a good quality superior to that offered by any other competitor.
Well, we can say that...it depends upon the situation. As Michele Di Sorbo said, firms must have competitors. Usually new firms are built because maybe it has better products to offer, or it's making the product of a firm better and offer it in the market. It is what usually happens among the business entities. However, sometimes a firm could have no competitors if it discovers a product that doesn't exist yet, some innovative product, just like the seabag product.
False, since many firms are allowed by the law to sell a specific good or service adopting the monopoly form of market by finding themselves in a market's form without competitors.
It depends. In fact if we are talking about firms that have monopoly, no it doesnt because may be by the law tey're the only one in that specific Sector dealing with a particular product. So it isn't true that a firm has Always a comnpetitor.
False. Not always firms have competitors, in fast it could happen that a firm decided to focus on the sell of products that satisfy important human needs and that no other companies produce; in this case we’d say that we are dealing with a monopoly.
It depends. If we are talking about a firm with a monopoly, no it doesen't. Anyway, in the free market, I think that there are competitors, because once an idea is successful there will be always someone who wants to try it out.
I'm agree with Federica, because only in the case of a monopoly, a firm hasn't competitors otherwise everybody wants to imitate your successful product.
I do appreciate the contributions of all respondents
Very good the answer of Chrisanthos Theodorou23 September 2014 19:41; Annalisa Carosi24 September 2014 18:20...even if you should specify this sentence "VimpelCom can be defined an Azienda". Do you mean only Vimpelcom or Vimpelcom plus Wind?
I would like ask a question on it. We told if a firm is controlled by someone else it can't be considered an 'azienda' because it don't have autonomy but what about ones which have huge liabilities, for example with banks and the boards of the banks have great influence on it, can they be considered 'aziende' if their decision-making power is lessened from external entities?
In my view and also as we said in class, a firm can be called "azienda" if it has decision-making autonomy,yes. In particular, if an "azienda" has no autonomy in taking decision about its WHY, it is important that it is free to determine the HOW of the imposed objectives. I think this is the essential difference. Hope I was useful.
I would have one more question about needs and wants. Needs and wants are variable and needs refer to something necessary to survive, but if someone said his needs are cigarettes, alcohol and iphone, could they be considered needs?
About cigarettes, alcohol and iphone i think there are needs, but that depends from the person. Because for someone cigarettes, alcohol, iphone etc... are very important needs. They may prefer for example cigarettes before food... But for a non-smoking person, a non-alcohol user... those cannot be considered as needs.
A need is something essential to your survival, then, in my opinion, addictions cannot be classified as needs. Certainly the discontinuation of its use may create discomfort, but with the passage of time this vanishes and the chances of survival even multiply.
Usually banks are publicly owned which means they have different owners and management is apart .So i think that is an Azienda because managers take autonomous decisions.
Hi everyone, i would have a question to raise. In the third chapter, where it speaks about how the technology influences the business structure (pag 177), the book says:" In general the more routine the technology the more mechanistic the structure can be". But in the table 29 pag 178, Process Production, which should be the most technological, is linked to the Organic Structure and not to a Mechanistic Structure. Is there someone that can give me an answer?
Is profit a dirty word? Why?
ReplyDeleteIt's normal doing something for a profit, not necessary it has to be a financial profit. Financial profits are another kind of profits.
DeleteAccording to me, "profit" is not a dirty word, at all. Is just one aspect of starting and running a business. It becomes bad just when it is the only aim of one's actions and strategies.
DeleteProfit can be considered as one of the objectives of a firm, but it implies other aspects, like a successful and useful service for customers. It is a good word if obtained in a right way, by collaboration and communication between the entrepreneur, the employees and people who are bound to consume the product.
DeleteAnnalisa Carosi, Francesca Di Carlo, Arianna Samuele, Giulia Zanatta
No, in most cases it isn´t. Profit is one of the many aspects of a successful organization. It could be seen as a positive result of hard work and as a source to motivate the workers for their future work in the company. From the stakeholders point of view, profit may not always be related to something positive (environment pollution, third world countries problems,ect..) . But, in my opinion, many firms like Apple, Skype, Facebook, Hi tech industries, solar power industries, where able to change our life thanks to these profits. In other words, they used part of their profits in further research so that we are now able to use products and services that in many aspects transformed our life in a more comfortable and better way. Fabio Ballasina
DeleteIn my opinion “profit” is not a dirty word.
DeleteIt is one of the aspects of a business plan, but it does not have to be considered as the only objective of a business.
I think that it is right that entrepreneurs, whose aim was to offer a good service and satisfy costumers, earn profits.
I wouldn't define profit as "dirty". In my opinion, profit is the concrete and material traslation of busyness' value, as a consequence it's something necessary. By the way, I'd call the profit "dirty" just in case it becames the main and only objective of a busyness entity or an enterpreneur.
DeleteI think that profit can't be considered as a "dirty" word because has an important value in the business world and because it can represents the success of an organization . However, it should not be seen as the main objective of a business. In order to reach a good profit you should first take care about some more important stuff such as the needs of the comunity, the production of your products ecc.
DeleteI think profit it is not a dirty word, because it fixes a condition of a firm. So, we must satisfy needs of people to increase profit.
DeleteIn my opinion prof is not a negative word, neither a dirty one. It must represent the success that a business entity has achieved.
DeleteI think profit is not a dirty word. You need it to go on with a business or activity. It becomes dirty when it is made without respecting laws, enviroment and workers.
DeleteI think profit is not a dirty word, our world is based on an economic system , it follow a continuos flow of money , so profit is necessary.
DeleteI do not think that "profit" is a dirty word.
DeleteFirst of all, every word is not dirty. People as well as their thinking make it change of meaning. Next, we need profit in order to survive in the world. It provides the essentials for life. Moreover, profit help us to ensure the two biggest needs: Physiological and safe according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The profit also helps social to develop and create many material possessions.
Finally, as a businessman, that "profit" is the word can not lack in my dictionary. Profit is never a dirty word for me.
Profit itself is not a dirty word, in my opinion profit must not be the main goal of a company. If companies sell thier products and services honestly, profit will be normal. If these variables are satisfied the word "profit" would be not defined as a dirty word. Gianluca Tanzi
DeleteMake money or make the world a better place? Personally i think that you can do both. Service and making a profit should work in partnership so we have resources to innovate products that meet real human needs. To sum up, business should not be considered as a "dirty world"
DeleteGreat all!!!
Deleteno it isn't,altough money isn't the primary objective of a firm,it is an index of wheter the clients needs are being satisfied or not.
DeleteIt depends on how the profit is made. Profit can be a dirty word if you make your money by not taking care about the environment around you and if you treat your employees unfairly and not under the right conditions. But normally profit is not considered as a dirty word since they gain profit by satisfying our needs and wants.
DeleteFor what concern the word 'profit', I think it has not be a dirty word, because we have to remind that without investing and spending money there is no economy. It only depends on how this word really means for us.
DeleteAs I have already said answering “Before Starting”, I don’t consider “profit” as a dirty word. When does a company start to have profit? When it works in a good way. When it is well organazied. When it has found a good way to satisfy its costums needs and wants. A well-directed company will have constant profit. So, to me, this word just indicates the prize for a good work.
DeleteThe profit not only is not a dirty word but, if its positive, it lets understand that a firm is economically sane. The profit is first of all a needs satisfaction. We need to understand how the profit is used in a firm but this is another story ...
DeleteWe don’t have to consider profit as a dirty word because for some organizations it’s necessary for surviving.
DeleteFor example, if for public hospitals their object is patient’s cure, for private clinics, is profit instead.
1) Is the objective of a hospital equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services? Why?
ReplyDelete2) What are, in your opinion, the main differences between these two organizations?
Profit is not a dirty word ,because profit are the object of major of companies.
DeleteOf course, public hospitals and private clinics have the same objective, or slightly. I mean they are all built to medicate sick clients so their objective is to heal, to help people have good health. Now, the fact is the public ones don't usually work for money/profit (at least here in Italy) and the private clinics usually work to be paid (heavily paid in some cases).
DeleteThe main difference (here in Italy) is that if you ask medications to the public hospitals you have to wait for a long time to be satisfied, instead, if you go to the private clinics you can get their services right away. You pay and you'll be satisfied.
1)I think the aim of both a hospital and a private clinic is the good health of the pacients, because they have the same structures, staff and equipment.
Delete2)The differences are, of course, financial. I’m not well acquainted with other countries’ health-care systems, but in Italy hospital care is “free” (not completely, since we pay taxes), while in a private clinic you have to pay for your own treatments. I my mind, I see a private clinic very similar to a firm.
1. Is the objective of a hospital equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services? Why?
Delete- Objective is the same, because both have the same goal of taking care of patients health.
2. What are, in your opinion, the main differences between these two organizations?
- Services are usually more expensive at private clinic because of the private clinics want to make profit
- The employees might be little bit more skillful and motivated at the private clinic compared to the public hospital
- Hospitals mostly concentrate to patients and do not need to make profit when private clinics are trying to make profit while treating patients.
In a certain way it is. To offer a good service and take care of their patiences should be their common objective. Although it is well known that private clinics do in many cases offer a higher standard, mostly for those who are private insured. Private clinics do also improve research as they often tend to buy high tech equipment and other expensive tools. This way they guarantee a profit to many other organizations who are involved in research fields, which in my opinion is highly important for the future. besides that, private clinics have to make themselves more attractive (e.g. higher specialized staff) in order to run their business in a proper way. Hospitals instead, from the way I see it , are less focused on the quality of the structure and its equipment, but in many cases are still able to offer a good care to a larger number of patiences has in most cases their structures are larger. I also do think that that they may require a much more complicated managing and planning work behind the scenes in order to guarantee the functionality of the organization. Fabio Ballasina
DeleteI belive that the objectives of a public hospital are the same as a private hospital. Both want to provide services to their patiences that can ensure their well-being. The main differences between these two organizations are that the private hospital often guarantees the best quality services, even if at a higher cost than a public hospital where every hospital treatment is free. Anyway this doesn't mean that public hospitals can't guarantee the same services that are just as good.
DeleteAccording to my opinion, the objective of a public hospital and a private clinic is the same : both want to help and medicate sick patients.
DeleteBy the way, from a financial point of view, they're really different. A private clinic works for the profit and usually offers really good treatments to their patients, while a public hospital doesn't work for profit and most of times is not well organized ( I'm talking about italian medical-system).
I believe that the aim of the hospital and of the clinic is basically the same in fact both cure people.. The huge difference between the 2 institutes is that the hospital is open to every person and actually help much more people than the clinic since is free. In the clinic instead you have to pay to have a treatment and to have additional services. Finally we can see that the hospital is fundamental while clinics give people (that can afford it ) additional services .
Deleteaccording to me while a hospital is a non profit organization, a private clinic is a profit organization. so the aim isn't Always the same. they both take care of people but while the first (theoretically) is only interested in health's patients the second one have to run a business so needs funds to support the charges and invest in equipment and staff. However hospitals and clinics are among the structure that allow to measure the level of civilization of a modern society. Here, in italy, the law offers the possibility to choose between a public and a private organization whose objective are more or less the same. arianna samuele
Delete1)Hospital and private clinic have the same objective, because they both take care of the health of patients.
Delete2)Private clinics are for those who want to receive a treatment selecting a specific doctor, a comfortable room, and can afford the payment.
Hospitals are free but this doesn’t mean that staff, who works in them, is less experienced than the private clinics one.
Another difference is that hospitals receive subventions from Regions so they do not care about wasting founds as much as private clinics, whose profits come from patients, do.
Hospitals and private clinics are similar entities because they provide services to improve our health. The main difference is how they provide those services. Hospital is financed from a public account so it is ruled from a specific and strict regulation to reach the standard that it needs. Furthermore the hospital can have some division which is not economically bearable but however it can have those divisions because the State pays for those services. Instead the private clinics have to manage with the rules of global market so they must reach some profitable level of accountability
DeleteI believe that the objective of a hospital is the same objective of a privite clinic because their job is to take care about the health of their patients. However, the hospital aim to offer a service which can be accessible by everyone without having to pay a certain amout of money and this can be possible because the hospital is financed by the state. Instead the goal that the privite clinic wants to achieve is to make people pay some money in order to be able to garanteed a better service but on the other hand the private clinic is forced to do that because it has to manage and finance itself.
DeleteThe objective of both is to take care the problems of people. But in the hospital the services are free, while in a private clinic we must pay to solve our problems.
DeleteThe main objective of a hospital and of a private clinic is the same, treating patients. The difference is the price of the service offered by the hospital and by the private clinic. In fact, the private clinics aim to guarantee and offer the best service. Obviously customers of the private clinics are different from those of the ospital because not everyone can afford the expensive service of a private clinic
DeleteA public hospital and a private clinic have the same object: taking care of people's health. The hospital is a non-profit organization, while the clinic is a for-profit organization, so the second one is interested in providing the best cares and attenctions,in order to have an economic return. A public hospital receives money from the government to let everybody access to this kind of service, that is fundamental for every country. However, being a public establishment requires a complex organizational system because it has to deal with a greater amount of patients, so in a large number of cases the service is not guarenteed in a short time. The private clinic is a good oppurtinity to solve this prolblem providing a fast and leisured intervent. On the other hand we have to consider the major amount of money that it requires to let this machine work well and efficiently.
DeleteA public hospital and a private clinic have the same object; both take care of patiens, help them to be healthy.
DeleteBut are differences: the hospital being a public structure, doesn't need profit; while private clinic needs profits otherwise it would close.
The hospital is cheap but doesn't have the same quality,treatments...of clinic.
For example in a private clinic, the patients have to pay but will receive the date of the medical visit soon respect to hospital.
Both the hospital and the private clinic have the same object. They take care of people. The differences are that an hospital is a public structure and you pay less (a Ticket), while the other one is private and you pay more for the services. Not always private structures are better than public, and vice versa. To pay for something doesn't necessary mean to recive a better service. it should be, but it isn't sure.
DeleteThe main objective of both these organizations is to provide medical assistance even though they achieve this result in different ways: while the hospital offers that service free of charge, a private clinic always has an income in its every operation.
DeleteEven if we talk about a private clinic or a public hospital the objective remain the same , healing and patient care . The only difference between those two organisations it is the system . When we talk about private system we talk about our expectations
DeleteIn my opinion, the most important aim of both organizations is to take care of their patients, but they have many dfferences, because a private clinic is more comfortable and if you want to reserve a visit with a doctor, you don't have to wait too much time.
DeleteIs the one that the other has the same objective, they take care of their patients health, but if in the hospital the employees are payed by the gouvernment , in the private clinics they are payed according to the work they perform.
DeleteSo I think the only difference is that the private clinics are focused on profit and they offer a better service , even if the aim is the same.
1. I think that the objective of a hospital is equal to that of a private clinic which provides the same services. Because both of them have the same goal of taking care of patients health.
Delete2. The main differences between these two organizations is profit. While the hospital is run the capital of government, the private clinic have to manage money in order to maintain their organization. Therefore, the cost of treatment in private clinic is more expensive than the hospital. So, the hospital is more popular in social than the other.
Is truth they offer the same services but with different objectives.Public hospital is interested for to cure the health of people because they are paid by the governmant. Meanwhile private clinic is interested to get profit from its services. If we do not pay we don't get the services.
DeleteThey have the same objective to take care of the health of the patients, but a private clinic is a for profit organisation and a hospital is a non profit organisation is controlled by the government. For profit organisations always have the objective to make a profit, so they have partly the same objective. Private clinics can be more expensive, but it is easier for them to invest in new equipment. Hospitals will need approval or subsidy from the government.
DeleteThey have a same aim but a prvite clinic has usually a better service or better quality( food for example) because it earns more money,while a hospital doesn't need money in order to save people's life because it is approved and financed by the government
DeleteA private clinic and a hospital have both the same objectives and they want to cure there customer in whatever they have ,but there are differences in the comfort and luxuries of the hospitals. A private clinic offers better comfort , service, better food and hygiene, while this is not given in a normal hospital.
DeleteHospitals and private clinics have both the same objectives, of course. Their job is to take care about people or patient. But the fundamental difference between them is that clinics request an amount of money for their services, while hospitals do it for free in Italy (actually, we pay them through taxes). So while the former can be surely classified as a for-profit firm, instead the latter is a for no-profit one.
DeleteI think the first aim hospitals and private clinics have is the same: the healt of people. However, hospitals are public structures and they have not to consider the money-factor (not considering the amministration of the financing) while a private clinic does. Consequently, a private clinic has to consider more factors –quality of the services, quality of the structure, quality of machines - in order to have more patiens whom payments it needs to survive.
DeleteThe hospitals and the private clinics have the same health service objectives but in the meantime they have different way in managing their infrastructures. The hospitals have a higher reimbursement from the Ministry of Health and their finances are certainly different than a private clinics. They have to manage more employees and more medical equipment covering most health departments for various types of diseases. The private clinics instead can be smaller and take care of the quality of service.
DeleteAndrea Gaudiomonte
DeleteThe objective of a private clinic overlaps with that one of a hospital as they both provide health care services.
While the former is a business entity that operates in the market the latter is a non business entity. Thus the main difference between these entities is related to their different primary interest:
For what concern the private clinic, meeting human needs is necessary but not sufficient as the entity must generate a positive net income (net profit) in order to survive and develop.
The primary interest of a Hospital is based on social motivations and altruism. Its development and survival are usually financed by the State where it was established.
Objective of hospitals and clinics is health care. The main difference between these two structures is in which way they provide cures.
DeleteIn the first case, the public structure and public services are financed by the government, thus by Italians taxes.
In the second case the clinic can be seen more as a profit-firm since it’s not owned by the State but by a single owner; so it’s clear to identify the primary interest of a clinic, that is maximizing profit through providing patients of efficient ( sometimes mediocre) cures.
The objective is the same, because both They cure people in a building and They have both medics.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the two organizations are very different because a hospital can offer only a free service promoted by the govern instead a private clinic with its gain can also provide a better service and better structures but unfortunately for it there is the need to make people pay an amount of money. So the objective can be the same, but two different way to reach it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the hospital's and clinic's objective should be the same and its about providing health and medical services. Therefore clinic aims also to keep the high reputation to they keep their profits high and keep the clinic functional so the twork is done is there is more efficient , this thing doesnt happen in hospital because the employees are not motivated they know that if they dont do their jobs well it doesnt matter ...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the objective of both the associations is to solve the problems of the patients. The main difference is that the private clinique requests money for the therapies instead of the hospital.
ReplyDeleteWhy firms should use renewable energy
ReplyDeleteFirms should use renewable energy, mainly, because the environment deserves respect and safety.
DeleteMoreover, people’s awareness of pollution is slowly growing, it means that some of the most purchased products will be, probably, eco-friendly.
Then, sustainable production systems could represent a competitive feature and an entrepreneur should consider, leaving aside ratings about the higher cost of renewable energy, all the aspects of this kind of choice, indeed, incentives have been increased and it could be considered a long-term investment.
I think that the firms should use renewable energy for three reason:
Delete1) the renewable energy respect the environment and it's safe for the population
2)using renewable energy should be, in these days, a very effective strategy to increase the profit. in fact even if this kind of energy is more expensive than other non renewable energies, if the customer is aware of the fact that your industry is using renewable energy he will probably choose your product instead of the one of another industry that is not respecting the environment.
3)As we said yesterday the economic problem consist to have unlimited needs and wants and limited resources: an example of this problem I guess should be the fossil fuels that are going some day to finish on earth. On the other hand we have the renewable energy that is unlimited and impact 0 on the environment.
Market and costumers are always more focused on the environment. So they would like have relation with eco-friendly firms and the latter have to keep up with this
DeleteFirms should use renewable energy because it is important for everyone to survive. I mean, using unrenewable energy is very dangerous for all of us even if it is really difficult to controll all firms. I think that it should be a must for every firm in order to guarantee a good environment. After all, we all have seen what happen to our natural resources because of firms.
DeleteI think that firms should use renewable energy in order to respect the environment and to eliminate the risk of breathing harmful substances. Even if using renewable energy has a major cost than non- renewable energy, this choice can give to the organization a better look and impression because we always have to think about the community where we live in.
DeleteFirms should use renewable energy to increase public health and environmental quality because using all that other forms of energy destroying our atmosphere and increasing the global warming at some point in the future it will have a bad impact on everyone, now we can't see it but with the rhythm the damage increases, the problem grows bigger and bigger each day. Therefore running a business with clean energy will work as a "good-advertisement" and will attract more costumers by the time, because if you can say that you run something big with just clean energy and don't destroying the environment this will only give you benefits and from time you will have more "supporters" on what you do because people starts to realise how harmful energy production is to the envirioment so that is a big plus for your firm
DeleteUsing renewable energy means invest in the future. The respect for the environment improves social conditions and allows a new economic development whose objective is broaden horizons and increase competition. Firms must use renewable energy, one of their aim is, in fact, satisfy the users and in a society where people are becoming aware of the issue's importance invest in renewable energy may be the right way.
DeleteIn my opinion, firms should use this kind of energy to add a value to their organization and product. Sustainibility is one of the most discussed factors of today economy : having respect for our environment is really important especially if we do not look just to the present and we take care and think about our future and our son' and daughters' llives.
DeleteIf you are want a product and you do not usually just see at the price, but you believe in other values as respecting nature, a eco- sustainable good is what you you're looking for. So having this special attention can allow the firm to enlarge his market. At last but not at least, receiving economic founds and helps from government or specilized entities,that promote renewable energy, is a valid motivation.
To use renewable energy is important to reduce the pollution, to safe the enviroment and the life. Who produce something thinking about the future of the world is responsable, and people usually appreciate this. A firm that put the welfare of all at first is a firm that you can trust and thanks to the renewable energy it can save money too, and invest it in their future.
Deletezhan xu
DeleteThe renewable-energy costs have declined, it still remains more expensive than power from coal or natural-gas power,but it is not a convenient way for firms.i think now the word renewable energy is also a good bussiness plan(advertisment) for each firm because now the people appreciate this. and its also very important for our future to use renewable energy.
Gianluca Tanzi. Renuable energy is the future. Polution is sickening our world. Countermeasurments must be got. In my opinion the cure for this illness is renuable energy.
DeleteEthically, I think that every firm should use renewable energy, because while profit comes and goes, this is the only Earth we have.
DeleteMoreover, as we said during the class, nowdays customers pay attention to the environmental impact of business activities, so using renewable energy could be a competitive advantage for the firm.
Renewable energy : wind , solar , geothermal , hydroelectric and biomass - provides substantial benefits for our climate , our health , and our economy .
DeleteEven if renewable-energy is more expensive than power from coal or natural gas , I think that more corporations should invest in it , because like this , they will help to nurture the young renewable-energy industry , lower the price of wind and solar and promote the use of clean power .
Because our future and the future of our children depends on it since we are destroying a pianet...for example climate change as a result of pollution can have catastrophic consequences on us all
DeleteIt depends. Obviously, it would be better if every azienda or economic activities used renewable energy, but nowdays it is difficult to find this type of entity. Almost the majority of them is created only to make profit at every conditions. On the contrary, as we said during the lessons, sustainability is a strong competitive factor in the market that customers take always into consideration.
DeleteOf corse, to keep our planet the better clean we can for the future generations. However, sometimes this reason is too weak and company chose to use exhaustibale energy which are cheaper. To me, it’s not a good choise. Perhaps, the costs are less but the company might gain a dark image in our eco-era. Nowadays, people are more aware of the problems which attack the healt of our planet. So, they are starting to prefer buying eco-stuff even if they are more expensive. So, even if they are more expensive, renewable energy might make the company get a good reputation towards its costumers. We know the first rule in the commerce is “to spend, to earn”.
DeleteThe firms, and I would say everybody because of the ethical responsibilities, should use the renewable energy for many reasons. First of all it will not be used exhaustible energy (resource) anymore, less pollution, lower costs, etc.
DeleteActually, the energy that we use, more than 35% comes from a renewable resource, like hydropower. This is one of the resource that has to be developed for better quality of life.
Because renewable energy respects nature, in this way we can also have and mantain more resources for the next generations, One day resources will finish or will be less , for the sustainability of a firm is better using renewable enrgy
DeleteFirms should use renewable energy in order to respect the enviroment from whom humans get their sustainment.
DeleteBeing ethical by managing waste, recycling and respecting natural resources is a way to take a long-term view, remembering that today's decisions will influence tomorrow's choices.
Because they will earn something in reputation and also from the state. The cost of use is still high so it's difficult to use it.
DeleteUsing renewable energy could represent a strong point both for the efficiency and life-duration of a firm.
DeleteNowadays we should take care of the environment as a whole because pollution is growing more and more and the negative effects coming from that can constitute a danger for our health and for nature.
Moreover basing a business on an eco-friendly system is the basis of ethical firms, which could also be more motivated, in not wasting energy and in running a long-term company, by environmental associations.
It’s clear that also if the results of these aspects can be imperceptible, one day can be appreciate by our children.
What is the most important input of a restaurant? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe good ability on cooking of the chef. We go to restaurants to eat good food so every restaurant should have a good chef in order to offer consumers delicious food.
DeleteAs well as a skilled chef, the most important input of a restaurant is a good atmosphere and comfort. In fact a restaurant with a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere is more successful than a restaurant with a better kitchen, but with less comfortables.
DeleteThe most important input of a restaurant is his chef, because with his ability he creats the special and original dishes that are the basis of this kind of organization. People can choose where to eat, but they have a preference for a certain restaurant if they know the quality and standards it can offer. The signature of the chef, that distinguishes his plates from the others, is a garantee for the customer. So the role of the chef affects the aspects of the inputs but also the one of outputs.
DeleteThe most important input of a restaurant is the choice of the best chef, but also the quality of the food, because the taste of the dishes depends on these elements.
DeleteA good chef , a nice atmosphere,the kindness of the employees , cheap prices and the quality of food.
DeleteIt' s impossible consider the quality of a restaurant focusing only on one aspect.
zhan xu
DeleteThe high qualities of food , good chef,and locations.
For my personal opinion the most important input in a restaurant is the head chef, but the answer can not be just limited to that.
DeleteHow can a head chef be unique and satisfy certain determinated needs? For example using different products that can stimulate people and improving the output, like using sustainable food or following movement like " SLOW FOOD " ( movement born in italy in 1986 founded by Carlo Petrini) that promotes forgotten and sustainable products from small producers and that goes against the globalization of agricoltural products.
Head chef's skills and quality of products are the most important things that well combine with a nice atmosphere can valorise so much the output.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteImportant input of a restaurant are a good chef, good quality of the food and a beauty location, because if there were not these input, in the restaurant there would be no customers and it would close.
DeleteI don't think there is only one fundamental input in a restaurant, but two: a good chef and high-quality food.
DeleteOf course the chef is one of the most important parts of managing a business like a restaurant, but without raw material he/she would be pretty useless. On the other hand, good food treated by a mediocre chef wouldn't have good feedbacks from the customers as well.
Productivity is the measure of production efficiency in business. Productivity reflects the relationship between input and output in the operations. That is why in my opinion for a restaurant to be efficient and productive , the most important input it is the chef .
DeleteInput is a priority of any azienda and in the case of restaurant, in my point of view, important input are the quality of food and service. It's foundamental to stablish exactly how much you're spending on food or how many finances you have. Of course, it's also important to keep an open eye on how your food's being prepared in the kitchen. Moreover, service is another aspect to be considered for a excellent business. In fact, servics can make o break a restaurant.
DeleteGood
DeleteFood,location,overall quality of the service
DeleteThe most important input of a restaurant is a good chef cook, since you go to an restaurant to eat delicious food. In Addition, the comfort , atmosphere and hygiene also play an very important role in the input of the restaurant.
DeleteThe best input to carry on a restaurant is a managerial skilled employee. Yes, because beyond having a good chef and service, this type of activity involves having a manager that takes into consideration every single aspects of the external environment and of the society, of course, in order to make pure profit. Then the choice of an excellent chef, the menu, the location and so on is secondary and suggested under manager's control.
DeleteTo me, it depends on the restaurant. If a restaurant wants to have an high-level costumers, I would say the chef. A good chef will attract people who are looking for good and special meals. If a restaurant doesn’t really care about the speciality of its meals, I would say the services. An example of this kind of restaurants is McDonald’s. Here, only the service worths and it must be good and fast. In this way, McDonald’s gain a worldwide commerce and it has no so good chef in its restaurants.
Deletethe most important input of a restaurant is a really expert chef. Since the main restaurant's purpose is to provide customers delicious and quality food, the first need has to be the chef's choice.
DeleteChef and locations, are important, a good skilled chef in wrong location cannot be so useful.
DeleteIn my opinion the most important input of a restaurant is the chef, because mainly thanks to him, but also to a cozy location, a restaurant can be appreciated a lot and published through word of mouth by clients.
DeleteA good chef has to be able to satisfy also the expectations of discriminating taste clients, so the owner of the restaurant must make an accurate selection between eminent schools of kitchen chefs.
Why labour is different from capital?
ReplyDeleteLabour is different to capital since by labor human effort is being used in oder to produce a product, while by capital an investment is made into a good to have the good produce the product.
DeleteMainly capital is an inanimate object in opposite with the labour which is composite from men and women who have illimited needs. So labour is completely different from capital because to manage it we have to figure out some mental processes which incur when employees work.
DeleteLabour is different from capital. Labour/human capital is, maybe, the most important part of a firm. Why? Because without human capital, firms can ever work and can ever produce. In other words, firms need human capital in order to produce. Instead, capital could give profit to firms/entrepreneurs without involving workers (like for example, doing investments).
DeleteLabour is the most important part of the production becouse is formed by people and not machines. Capital can be used, trasformed,moved, the workers have needs as the consumers and behind the singol person there is a family, so the emloyer has also to consider all these things.
DeleteLabour is different from capital because the first one is formed by workers and the second one is just something that can be removed, transferred, invested and changed into something else. Workers are humans beings and they need to receive respect and rights in order to feel satisfied about their job. We also have to remember that behind every worker there is a family.
DeleteLabour is human efforts used in the creation of goods and services well as capital can be the factors of production that are used to create goods and services or can be money invested at the beginning of a business to generate income.
DeleteLabour is the human effort that allows the firm to create physically the product. The capital allows the firm to invest in future products, such as machinery, factories and updating courses.
DeleteThey are two fundamental inputs for the organization and the organization has to take care of both of them. The company has to remember the importance of his employees and that behind each of them there is always a family with needs to respect. The firm has to invest his money carefully in order to let everybody gain the best.
Labour is different from capital, because the former is any human effort (mental or physical) to produce goods or services, while the latter is an investement and a resource to produce products such as machineries, factories, buildings.
DeleteLabour is something wich depends on human capacity , instead of the capital that depends on the enterpreneur disponibility.
Deletezhan xu
DeleteThe capital's means invest the money in goods and than it will product other good in the future .
The labour are humans to product goods and service .
capital is an investment in a business and has concern with profit or loss.
Deletewhile labour is only in transformation process and used to produce goods from raw material and they have no cocern with profit. they simply rely on wages.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLabour and capital are the "instruments" used by the firm in order to achieve its objective, but they are different. Labour can be considered even "human capital" (without wanting to consider it as an objectification of the human being), or the human effort to create value. "Capital", instead, are inanimate goods used for the same purpose.
DeleteLabour and capital are two types of different resources. While with capital to increase the productivity you should invest in improvement to raise it, beacuse is made from machinery that need to be updated with the market requests, labour is a resource where you can invest not just in terms of money but you can raise productivity working on the mental skills of workers.
DeleteIt is different in the sense that labour which is human effort doesn't necessarily means capital. and that capital is not always increased by increasing the labour
DeleteLabor and capital are both fundamental factors in carrying on an economic activity. But each of them has specific functions. Capital is an amount of immaterial goods that are going to be invested in order to make fortune. On the other hand, labor is embodied by the entire team of employees whose effort is extremely important for the entity itself. They are the pillars of the firm, because without capital there is no activity, but without labor there is no production. So it is strongly essential protecting both of them.
DeleteTo me, they are both kinds of richness and resources. They are both used to produce value. However, it is more easy to evaluate a capital because it is formed by things –money and/or stuffs- while it is more complex to evaluate the value of the labour since it is an action and it is linked to men, which can be dominated by emotions or the effort which can probably infulence the labour itself.
DeleteBecause they need to be payed. Also the costs are different, people are not machines.
DeleteCapital is something inanimate which is invested in order to produce goods and can be always increased or decreased depending on the firms/enterpreneur disponibility and wants. While the labour is a human effort whereby an organization produces outputs and it's something limited because of its nature.
ReplyDeleteLabor is an active factor connected with production while factors like capital and other things are only passive.
ReplyDeleteIs wind company an Azienda? Why?
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. Wind is managed and controlled by an another big entity that acquired it in 2011. Its name is VimpelCom, a Russian azienda, that created a great group. This group has got a business in providing telecommunication services and it contains other European and Asiatic smaller entities such as Beeline, Ydjezzy, Kyivstar, Mobilink, Telecel, Leo and Banglalink. So Wind is part of Vimpelcom : it hasn't any decision-making authonomy and it is a sub-system of the Russian entity. This fact doesn't directly lead to the statement that Wind doesn't have some kind of freedom to choose its strategy to pursue its objective. But in this case only VimpelCom can be defined an Azienda because it respects the three attributes.
DeleteI'm agree with Annalisa, because Wind company isn't an azienda. It's controlled and managed by an another big Russian entity of telecommunication called Vimpelcom. So, it's a subsystem and it doesn't respect the essential attributes and characteristics of the concept of azienda.
DeleteI share your opinion. Wind company isn't an azienda because is dependent on VimpelCom, one of the pricipal telecommunication operators in the world.
Deleteit is,but it doesn't have autonomy since it is dependent on a much bigger azienda that acquired it
DeleteWind Telecomunicazioni SpA is an Italian telecom operator which offers integrated mobile, fixed and Internet services. In 2011 Wind became part of Vimpelcom group so being coordinated by Vimpelcom group I dont think that Wind possess the required characteristics of an azienda .
DeleteI can only agree with you. An azienda is an economy entity which is characterized by systemic coordination, decision-making autonomy and economicity. However, Wind is controlled by the Russian azienda VimpelCom. It doesn’t have a fundamental characteristic of the azienda: the decision-making authonomy. So, it is better saying it is a part of a bigger azienda.
DeleteWind is not an azienda because the structure of wind doesn't respect the caracteristics of an azienda , wind is controlled by an other azienda , so we can say that wind is a sub azienda.
DeleteI totally agree to what Annalisa Carosi said. It is a big company but we can't consider it as an "azienda", Francesco Bollini, since it doesn't have the three important attributes of the concept of the "aziende".
DeleteWind is not an Azienda since it belongs to another big russian company named VimpelCom and , as a consequence, it doesn't have the decision-making autonomy, one of the three azienda's attributes.
DeleteNo it isn't in fact in May 2011 wind joined the vimpelcom. It was created at the end of 1997 thanks to the investements of Enel, France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. Although in 2010 the Telenor shareholders refused the fusion program in 2011 it belongs to the russian company. so beacause of a limitated decision-making autonomy it isn't an azienda. It doesn't doesn't meet the three attributes of an azienda.
DeleteNo because interests of vimpel and wind are the same. They may have different areas of work, but having the same interest makes one a part of the other
DeleteA firm has always competitors. True or false? Why?
ReplyDeleteFalse - sometimes a single firm owns all of the market for a certain kind of service or product. When competition is absent, because a single firm can satisfy a given need, that firm owns a monopoly. Nowadays, it is rare to find a monopoly, because governments do not allow them or regulate them through laws.
DeleteFalse. I would add to Francesca's answer that there are some non-profit firms that have a monopoly by law. Just because a State or an entity gives them such privilege.
DeleteFalse,entrepreneurs should infact focus on a specific targeted niche where there are no competitors like apple for example
DeleteThere are companies that are not having competitors , those are monopolistic type .The monopoly can be characterized as a situation of a company that provides all branch production .
DeleteIn my opinion, every firm must have competitors, because in so doing entrepreneurs are brought to think new and original business strategies, remaining in the legality.
DeleteTo me, it is true. For instace, you start producing a completely new item, never seen in the global market. Perhaps, the first months you won’t have competitors. But, as soon as the others will understand the mechanism of your product they will start producing it too. So, even in this case, you will have competitors. However, I think that comperitors are important in commerce. They oblige the company to do better and to always be competitive. Maybe, we wouldn’t have this technological development if Apple didn’t compate with Microsoft. Or, going out from the economic subject, maybe no one would walk on the Moon if America didn’t compete with Russia.
DeleteTrue. Each producing company competes with a limited number of rival firms; the main weapon of competition is advertasing that describes the product offered as a good quality superior to that offered by any other competitor.
DeleteBecause there are lots of firms that sell same needs and wants , rarely there is something innovative so it is normal for a firm having competitors.
DeleteWell, we can say that...it depends upon the situation.
DeleteAs Michele Di Sorbo said, firms must have competitors. Usually new firms are built because maybe it has better products to offer, or it's making the product of a firm better and offer it in the market. It is what usually happens among the business entities.
However, sometimes a firm could have no competitors if it discovers a product that doesn't exist yet, some innovative product, just like the seabag product.
False, since many firms are allowed by the law to sell a specific good or service adopting the monopoly form of market by finding themselves in a market's form without competitors.
DeleteIt depends. In fact if we are talking about firms that have monopoly, no it doesnt because may be by the law tey're the only one in that specific Sector dealing with a particular product. So it isn't true that a firm has Always a comnpetitor.
DeleteWhen the idea is innovative there are not competitors, but they are going to arrive. it depends about the newest and most original idea.
DeleteFalse. Not always firms have competitors, in fast it could happen that a firm decided to focus on the sell of products that satisfy important human needs and that no other companies produce; in this case we’d say that we are dealing with a monopoly.
DeleteIt depends. If we are talking about a firm with a monopoly, no it doesen't. Anyway, in the free market, I think that there are competitors, because once an idea is successful there will be always someone who wants to try it out.
ReplyDeleteI'm agree with Federica, because only in the case of a monopoly, a firm hasn't competitors otherwise everybody wants to imitate your successful product.
ReplyDeleteGreat all!
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate the contributions of all respondents
Very good the answer of
Chrisanthos Theodorou23 September 2014 19:41;
Annalisa Carosi24 September 2014 18:20...even if you should specify this sentence "VimpelCom can be defined an Azienda". Do you mean only Vimpelcom or Vimpelcom plus Wind?
I was talking about VimpelCom plus Wind.
DeleteI do appreciate if you ask questions to each other
ReplyDeleteI would like ask a question on it. We told if a firm is controlled by someone else it can't be considered an 'azienda' because it don't have autonomy but what about ones which have huge liabilities, for example with banks and the boards of the banks have great influence on it, can they be considered 'aziende' if their decision-making power is lessened from external entities?
ReplyDeleteIn my view and also as we said in class, a firm can be called "azienda" if it has decision-making autonomy,yes. In particular, if an "azienda" has no autonomy in taking decision about its WHY, it is important that it is free to determine the HOW of the imposed objectives. I think this is the essential difference. Hope I was useful.
DeleteI would have one more question about needs and wants. Needs and wants are variable and needs refer to something necessary to survive, but if someone said his needs are cigarettes, alcohol and iphone, could they be considered needs?
ReplyDeleteAbout cigarettes, alcohol and iphone i think there are needs, but that depends from the person. Because for someone cigarettes, alcohol, iphone etc... are very important needs. They may prefer for example cigarettes before food...
DeleteBut for a non-smoking person, a non-alcohol user... those cannot be considered as needs.
A need is something essential to your survival, then, in my opinion, addictions cannot be classified as needs.
DeleteCertainly the discontinuation of its use may create discomfort, but with the passage of time this vanishes and the chances of survival even multiply.
Usually banks are publicly owned which means they have different owners and management is apart .So i think that is an Azienda because managers take autonomous decisions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, i would have a question to raise. In the third chapter, where it speaks about how the technology influences the business structure (pag 177), the book says:" In general the more routine the technology the more mechanistic the structure can be". But in the table 29 pag 178, Process Production, which should be the most technological, is linked to the Organic Structure and not to a Mechanistic Structure. Is there someone that can give me an answer?
ReplyDeletei think profit is a good word. we know the seller must get the profit when we get something which we need.
ReplyDelete