论美国风险投资维护金融安全的经验及启示

风险投资对于维护金融安全而言有利也有弊,而美国风险投资却趋利避害,不仅促进了美国实体经济的发展,也为稳定美国金融安全作出了贡献。究其原因,美国风险投资有科学的组织模式、广泛的资金来源、谨慎的投资方式的选择、健全的服务与监管体系,而且还有美国政府的大力支持。本文以美国的成功经验为鉴提出了发展我国风险投资的一些看法。     

我国草地的发展观

本文通过对我国草原起源的追溯和现代草原不可持续性的分析,指出以人为主的因素加速了草地退化,导致草畜矛盾的加剧、抗灾能力及生态系统服务功能的减弱,影响了我国的粮食安全和生态安全。文章认为,亟须建立产业化与集约化经营的现代人工草地畜牧业,实现草地的可持续发展。     

地球资源与资源安全战略

介绍了地球资源目前存在的主要问题，特别是矿产资源、土地资源、水资源面临的严峻形势，提出了一些确实可行的资源安全战略。     

试论建筑施工企业施工现场安全生产和文明施工的保证体系及其运行机制的建立和完善

章阐述了建筑施工企业建立施工现场安全生产和明施工保证体系的需要和条件。论述了体系的指导思想、原则和基本构架，管理要素与运行功能以及相应的职责权限，以及体系及其运行机制的有效运行和进一步完善的四项工作重点。     

综合系统的安全管理

应用综合的系统的方法将全面的质量管理应用到安全管理中，形成全员参与、全过程管理、全方位保证的安全管理新局面，有组织有系统的完成我们的安全管理工作。     

存款保险法律制度利弊之研究

存款保险法律制度是直接针对银行挤兑和破产倒闭而设计的,目的在于保护存款人的利益,增强公众对银行体系的信心,减少挤兑的可能性。我国建立该制度,将有利于维护金融安全,营造公平竞争的市场环境,完善银行的退出机制,从而提高金融业的效率。     

技术服务企业实施QHSE管理体系的探讨

QHSE管理体系是质量、健康、安全、环境为一体的管理模式。该管理体系的建立使企业内的职责和权限更明确、清晰．为企业节省了大量的审核时间及审核经费，为企业带来了经济效益。结合企业管理现状，通过对管理体系的具体分析．提出企业实施QHSE管理体系的几点建议。     

对我国石油企业质量、安全管理模式的思考

随着我国加入WTO和市场经济体制的逐步完善、石油石化的上市与重组，我国油田企业的经营环境发生了很大变化如何在国内国际市场竞争中获胜，对我国油田企业的质量、安全、环境管理水平提出了更高的要求。主要探讨了我国石油企业质量安全管理问题．为我国石油企业选择质量安全管理模式提供理论依据。     

重油催化裂化装置安全评价

运用道化学公司火灾、爆炸危险指数评价方法对广州石化重油催化裂化装置进行安全评价，定量地认识该装置的危险性，提出安全建议。     

Measuring and improving safety culture in organisations: an exploration of tools developed and used in Belgium

To support organisations in addressing their safety culture, practical tools have been developed worldwide. Based on such practical tools, it is possible to measure where an organisation is situated regarding its safety culture in order to identify priority areas, formulate appropriate improvement strategies and determine changes over time. In this paper, it is examined which practical tools to measure and improve safety culture are provided on the Belgian market. In total, 15 Belgian tools were identified, of which 8 agreed to cooperate. Amongst the included tools, there is a lot of variation regarding the methods to diagnose the safety culture and the overall procedure to improve the safety culture. The importance to adapt the tool to the specific needs and context of organisations is acknowledged in most of the tools, as well as the importance to use a multi-method approach to measure the safety culture. Also, it is recognised that all hierarchic levels should participate during the process of diagnosing the safety culture. A point of attention is this overall participation during the validation of the results of the diagnosis, and the priority setting of the recommendations, which is mainly done by the higher management. The development of the Belgian tools is based on experience with a focus on direct practical application, which leads to the fact that none of the tools are validated through scientific evidence. Another point of attention is that organisations pay too little attention at the continuity of safety culture research. And finally, the question can be raised if the safety culture tools actually address the concept ‘safety culture’, or if they address only a subset of the concept. When safety culture is addressed, a comprehensive approach should be used, where technological, organisational, human and external aspects are taken into account as interacting and interrelating elements.