Search results

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to count the number of international program accreditations at universities in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan; and second, to understand why Kazakhstan has dramatically more such accreditations.

The methodology included identifying agencies working in each country, reviewing data on their websites, and analyzing government documents and relevant literature.

Findings were that Kazakhstan has 645 international program accreditations and Kyrgyzstan has 9. Analysis of the reasons for this difference includes strong government support and incentives for internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan, furthering the government’s goal of becoming one of the world’s 30 most developed economies by 2050; Kazakhstan’s financial wherewithal to support internationalization policies; and its membership in the Bologna Process. In Kyrgyzstan, on the other hand, few rewards result from the costly and time-consuming process of international accreditation; only programs with existing international connections or institutions with large international student populations seem interested.

Limitations are that the research was based on document analysis and did not include interviews with staff of programs seeking international accreditation.

One implication, i.e., international program accreditation, while an indicator of program quality, also denotes the financial and infrastructural wherewithal to carry it out, plus the perceived benefits and costs of doing so.

The value of this research is that it analyzes the reasons for divergence and different results in two countries that, 25 years ago, were part of the same higher education system.

The following annotated bibliography of materials on orienting users to libraries and on instructing them in the use of reference and other resources covers publications from 1981. A few items from 1980 have been included because information about them was not available in time for the 1980 listing. A few items have not been annotated because the compiler was unable to secure copies of these items.

It is indubitable that society expects organizations “to employ their assets in a socially responsible manner” (Cordeiro, 1997, p. 1390) and also to be seen to be doing so. BP is a case of interest as in July 2000 the company launched a public relations campaign to appeal to the public as an environmentally-friendly “green” energy company. The company rebranded with “Beyond Petroleum” as a tagline, alongside a new logo of a fresh sunburst replacing the solid shield of BP. In the wake of the consumer boycotts of Exxon and Shell that clearly demonstrated how intense public feeling was about environmental issues, BP made a decision to invest in renewable energy. Although it was only a small investment compared to their commitment to fossil fuels, it was widely promoted. Their stated quest was to produce the cleanest burning fossil fuels and to become a producer of solar energy that would provide sustainable fuel to reduce carbon emission levels with products that were “safe, practical and affordable” (Verschoor, 2010).

This chapter examines the linkage between strategy and ethics in business.

We examine the implicit assumptions underlying the “business‐as‐war” versus the “business as value creation” models of business strategy. Drawing on the work of sociologists, we lay out the consequences those implicit assumptions have on the conduct of business.

We find that the “business‐as‐war” mindset sees corporations as sovereign states engaged in battle against other sovereign states, while the “value creation” mindset sees corporations as institutions engaged in an ongoing journey toward realizing potential, both in terms of capability and service. We further show how these two mindsets evoke different moral systems – a “guardian syndrome” for the “business‐as‐war” mindset and a “commercial syndrome” for the “value creation” mindset. Since both mindsets represent legitimate, though divergent moralities, we conclude that the recent crises in American business do not reflect the lack of morality or ethics. Rather, they reflect an application of an inappropriate morality/ethic dictated by the wrong model of business strategy.

This chapter serves executives by advocating a strategic mindset that that is more conducive to ethical business activity, and at the same time, is better suited to meeting the profit imperative and pressure from Wall Street. This chapter serves policy makers by showing that ethical reforms are unlikely to be effective if they simply add stiffer penalties without “changing the game” that executives are playing.

Corporate reputation has never been more valuable – or more vulnerable. All of the corporate malfeasance of the past few years in the US not only showed how precious and fleeting reputation is, but it also demonstrated how one company’s misdeeds taint an entire industry. Some businesses with superb reputations have found themselves unfairly lumped with the pack of fraudulent companies, and some executives have been dismayed to learn that they are viewed as greedy and unprincipled. One of the most important rules of reputation management is the need for constant vigilance. Companies today are exposed to unprecedented scrutiny through the Internet and 24‐hour all‐news television channels. Business is truly global and information, especially gossip, travels fast. Many people mistakenly equate reputation with corporate social responsibility and ethical behavior. While certainly of growing importance, ethics and social responsibility are but two elements of the equation. Financial performance, the workplace, quality of products and services, corporate leadership, and vision also figure into reputation. There’s also that elusive emotional bond between a company and its stakeholders that is central to the most enduring reputations. If they ever hope to maximize the value of their reputations, companies must make reputation management a fundamental part of the corporate culture and value system. Companies must spread the message of reputation management throughout the organization and make employees cognizant of how each and every one of them affects reputation on a daily basis. Reputation must be central to the corporate identity, not merely clever image advertising and manipulative public‐relations ploys.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.