关于水资源价值的三个问题

近年来,关于水资源价值方面的研究日益受到重视,也出了不少研究成果,本文就人们所关心的三个问题进行分析探讨.     

关于水资源价值的三个问题

近年来,关于水资源价值方面的研究日益受到重视,也出了不少研究成果,本文就人们所关心的三个问题进行分析探讨.     

基于实物期权理论的水资源价值研究

引入水权交易机制、建立水权交易市场是有效率地配置我国水资源的必然趋势和有效途径,因此对水资源价值的研究具有极其重要的现实意义。回顾了近年来国内外水资源价值研究的几种典型理论模型,运用实物期权的思维方法,建立起水资源投资的决策树,并对水权交易过程中的水资源价值进行定性分析,得出基于期权定价理论的水权价值的公式,以期为当前进行的水价、水市场改革提供参考。     

水资源的现状与价格对策

本文立足于水资源的现状,从价格的角度作一些探讨,以期有利于水资源的开发、利用、节约和保护. 一、水资源的特性及现状 水,是人类的生命之源,人体的70%是水,没有水,人类就无法生存.水是最基本的物质资料,没有水,人类就无法生产.水如此重要,而水资源的现状又如何呢?一言以弊之:不容乐观.     

关于水价改革的思考

全面分析我国水资源的利用现状，找出现存水价中存在的问题，有针对性探索出适合我国国情的水价改革方案，真正实现以市场为导向，以价格为杠杆，达到对水资源的合理配置和有效利用，才能缓解目前水资源短缺带来的问题。     

水到用时方恨少——关于我国节水问题的思考

<正> 水是生命之源,是社会和经济发展的生命线。没有水是不可想象的。随着人口的增加和经济的发展,缺水已越来越成为许多国家严重的社会问题,特别是对像我国这样一个严重缺水的国家来说,更是如此。为了解决缺水问题,我们不得不修建南水北调。引滦入津等大型水利工程;为了解决农业灌溉用水,我们不得不修建了许多水库,对河流实行全流域调剂用水;为了保证居民生活用水,许多城市不得不超采地下水,形成一个个巨大的地下漏斗区……这样一种缺水的形势,自然会给政府、企业、居民提出一个严峻而又现实的问题——节约用水,保护水资源。     

南昌市水资源、水价、污水处理收费存在的问题及建议

水资源费、污水处理费征收、水价管理涉及千家万户的切身利益。也关系到投资环境改善、招商引资与经济发展。     

The questions we ask and the questions we care about: reformulating some problems in entrepreneurship research

Both history of science and creativity research have shown that reformulating the questions we ask can lead to breakthroughs more often than trying harder to search for more rigorous answers. In such a spirit of creative play, I suggest we throw away our obsession with dividing the world into entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs and focus instead on categories within entrepreneurs. In particular, (a) those who want to become entrepreneurs but do not suggest compelling research questions about barriers to entrepreneurship; while, (b) those who do become entrepreneurs need to develop expertise, impelling our research to focus on the rubric of design.     

关于企业战略管理的几个问题的思考

目前国内有效实施战略管理的企业寥寥无几,许多红极一时的企业或因战略选择失误,或因战略实施不当而陷入了困境,如巨人、秦池、爱多……。那么,企业在进行战略管理时,应该以什么作为思维出发点,充分考虑哪些因素,遵循什么原则呢?一、选择正确的战略思维是企业战略管理的前提企业战略管理考虑的是如何利用自身的有效资源,在充满竞争的环境中满足顾客的需求,从而实现价值的创造。这样,资源、竞争和顾客三者就构成了企业战略管理的战略思维出发点。所谓选择正确的战略思维是指企业综合考虑其所处的环境以及企业自身的实力,选择资源、竞争和顾客…     

The value of human resource management for organizational performance

All executives would like to see their organizations perform better, and most search for tools that can help make this happen. For decades, human resource managers have believed that their function enhances performance. This contention has been met with skepticism on the part of executives, who wonder whether funds allocated to the human resource function are good investments. Dozens of studies have examined this issue, but their inconsistent results have provided no conclusions. To resolve a long-standing and controversial question – does human resource management matter for organizational performance? – we take stock of the available evidence. Based on data from over 19,000 organizations, we conclude that human resource management adds significant value for organizations. In addition, the value added is strongest when human resource systems are emphasized rather than individual practices, when human resource management decisions are tied to strategy, and among manufacturing firms.     

三问“官方背景助推品牌”的市场效应

对于自主品牌而言，要参与危机中的市场竞争。品牌建设尤为关键，品牌的建立有助于企业建立长效的发展战略，好品牌的公信度和说服力，能帮助企业缩短产品销售运作周期，为企业提供不竭的上升动力。     

Introduction: On raising value questions in business

This essay is an attempt to stress the need to understand and evaluate the human issues or values, which are implicit in business, on the one hand, and which arise in the course of business activity, on the other: e.g., freedom, responsibility, and human well-being. Business is a social institution; as such, it affects and is affected by our values as a cultured society.Michael H. Mitias is Professor of Philosophy at Millsaps College. He is the author of numerous essays in the areas of aesthetics and social and political philosophy.     

Three questions about engagement and exclusion in responsible investment

There is a move towards more use of engagement strategies in responsible investment. This change in strategies is motivated by a number of claims about the effectiveness of engagement versus exclusion of companies from the investment universe (the set of investment objects available to an investor). This paper examines the basis for three central claims: (1) That engagement, in contrast to exclusion, does not reduce the investment universe; (2) That exclusion reduces an investor's influence on a company; and (3) That engagement with exclusion is necessarily a more effective means of influencing companies than pure exclusion. All three claims are argued to be open to challenge. It is possible that the move towards more engagement reflects bureaucratic incentives and political considerations among institutional investors, rather than arguments about the effectiveness and efficiency of engagement.