Feeds for [ ]
1. ISCP - Imuniti Nutritional Supplement Combo pack
2. 100% Natural Food package for people living with AIDS (LOW GI)
Are you Hiv positive and have the desire to live a long and happy life? Do one of your close friends or family members have AIDS? The secret is your Immune system. Enable your natural immune system to protect you aginst HIV and live a full live. 100% natural Imuniti nutrition and supplement Combo food and medicine pack available for the first time. Visit our shop Today. Dont wait, its your life!
Visit the Imuniti Online Store Today!
3. The World in One Place
Are you already helping someone less fortunate than yourself? The World in One Place (wi1p.com) is a community of people like you and me, who care about those who lives with less that $1 a day. Join us today at The World in One Place Social Network
The Africa Forum partnered with Edge2Edge Global Investments and Edge2Edge Social LLC to provide the world’s first 100% natural "Antiretroviral" to those who need it the most. Through the Agriculture Self-reliance Program 49 African countries has donated large pieces of land for agricultural purposes. The Edge2Edge Group and Imuniti holdings with all their subsidiaries are providing a food package that includes Food, medicine and drinkable water agent for $1 a day. The ISCP is medically tested and approved to better quality of live, especially for those who live with AIDS. (HIV-AIDS) Read more about how you can get involve or start distributing the food combo pack in your area. This is a Global initiative and we urge each person possible to get involve. Join us today at the World in One Place Social Network
4. CSR Europe
Latest news from CSR Europe CSR Europe Water: Supply strains are source of problem Water receives less attention than other environmental issues such as the climate and pollution, but the problem of water scarcity is at least as important – and, arguably, more pressing – than that of global warming, the Financial Times reports. Water has never been more under threat in modern history: pressure from a rising global population, industrialisation, pollution, and climate change itself are all putting fresh water supplies under strain. If we are to safeguard our wealth and prosperity, taking care of our water supplies will be essential… read more
5. Wellness Gift pack
Become part of a worldwide group of people that care about those less fortunate. Those people who do not have the privilege to have one Square meal a day. Most of us go to a restaurant 2 to 4 times a month and spend more than it would cost to provide 1 square meal a day for 30 days. To supply one person with 1 balanced meal per day cost USD $1 per day. By sponsoring a person with a wellness pack of USD $30 you will be able to change that person’s life drastically. All of us are concern about losing weight whilst still eating too much on a daily basis. All we suggest is that you cut back on your normal eating routine and support a person in Africa that do not have food every day. The Wellness pack is a well balanced combination of all necessary minerals and vitamins to boost any person’s immune system back to normal in 3 to 4 months. There are approximately 127 ml people living with aids in Africa alone. The Imuniti Wellness pack is specific design to strengthen the immune system to a level where any person living with aids can look forward to a full and long life. By Sponsoring one Aids victim with a wellness gift pack you provide then not only with food but you also give them back their life. All human beings has the right to live until they die of age and not of AIDS. We formed a Social platform where all sponsors can share their experiences while sponsoring food to less fortunate people. You might not believe it but there are a lot of dignity and many other benefits arising from the feeling when you see and read about modern miracles happening daily. People with no hope suddenly have the change to study and become more, have a family and marry, to grow old with their Kids. Aids have stripped 23ml children from their parents in Africa alone. Please think careful about this, save a Childs parents by providing them with the change to live a full life.
6. Wi1P CSR network
Edge2Edge Global and The Africa Forum consortium, announced a Social network with a difference. The network, The World in 1 Place (Wi1P), is a social network in a total different class. Where most of the social networks today have no serious purpose, Wi1P is all about Social commitment, No poking, kissing or waving for fun, but a network where the hard realities of today’s global environment is exposed. There are 137 million people that live from less that $1 per day, and they need help. The concept makes it possible for every person on this planet that is fortunate to have more than one balanced meal per day, to contribute towards this poverty stricken humans. The Africa Forum and Edge2Edge global has also launched a self reliance agriculture project to ensure that aids sufferers have a balanced meal per day. Read more about this amazing new Social network at http://www.e2esocialnetwork.com
7. Itunes
8. Be Social responsible!
Edge2Edge Global and The Africa Forum consortium, announced a Social network with a difference. The network, The World in 1 Place (Wi1P), is a social network in a total different class.
Where most of the social networks today have no serious purpose, Wi1P is all about Social commitment, No poking, kissing or waving for fun, but a network where the hard realities of today’s global environment is exposed. There are 137 million people that live from less that $1 per day, and they need help. The concept makes it possible for every person on this planet that is fortunate to have more than one balanced meal per day, to contribute towards this poverty stricken humans.
The Africa Forum and Edge2Edge global has also launched a self reliance agriculture project to ensure that aids sufferers have a balanced meal per day. Read more about this amazing new Social network at Edge2Edge Social Network - Wi1P
9. Corporate Social Responsibility as Business Strategy
By: James Rowe, University of California, Santa Cruz
I argue that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), particularly the corporate code of conduct, has been one of global business’ preferred strategies for quelling popular discontent with corporate power. By “business strategy” I mean organized responses, through organizations like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), to the threat public regulation poses to business’s collective self-interest. Attention to CSR’s historical development reveals it has flourished as discourse and practice at times when corporations became subject to intense public scrutiny. In this essay I outline two periods of corporate crisis, and account for the role codes have played in quieting public concern over increasing corporate power: 1) When developing countries along with Western unions and social activists were calling for a ‘New International Economic Order’ that would more tightly regulate the activity of Transnational Corporations (1960-1976); and 2) When mass anti-globalization demonstrations and high profile corporate scandals are increasing the demand for regulation (1998-Present).
10. Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate responsibility, corporate citizenship, and responsible business) is a concept whereby organizations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment. This obligation is seen to extend beyond the statutory obligation to comply with legislation and sees organizations voluntarily taking further steps to improve the quality of life for employees and their families as well as for the local community and society at large.
The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; still others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.
Business benefits
The scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to adopt measures beyond financial ones (e.g., Deming's Fourteen Points, balanced scorecards). Orlizty, Schmidt, and Rynes[4] found a correlation between social/environmental performance and financial performance. However, businesses may not be looking at short-run financial returns when developing their CSR strategy.
The definition of CSR used within an organization can vary from the strict "stakeholder impacts" definition used by many CSR advocates and will often include charitable efforts and volunteering. CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public relations departments of an organisation, or may be given a separate unit reporting to the CEO or in some cases directly to the board. Some companies may implement CSR-type values without a clearly defined team or programme.
The business case for CSR within a company will likely rest on one or more of these arguments:
Human resources
A CSR programme can be seen as an aid to recruitment and retention,[6] particularly within the competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often ask about a firm's CSR policy during an interview, and having a comprehensive policy can give an advantage. CSR can also help to improve the perception of a company among its staff, particularly when staff can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or community volunteering.
Risk management
Managing risk is a central part of many corporate strategies. Reputations that take decades to build up can be ruined in hours through incidents such as corruption scandals or environmental accidents. These events can also draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. Building a genuine culture of 'doing the right thing' within a corporation can offset these risks.
Brand differentiation
In crowded marketplaces, companies strive for a unique selling proposition which can separate them from the competition in the minds of consumers. CSR can play a role in building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. Several major brands, such as The Co-operative Group and The Body Shop are built on ethical values. Business service organisations can benefit too from building a reputation for integrity and best practice.
License to operate
Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or regulations. By taking substantive voluntary steps, they can persuade governments and the wider public that they are taking issues such as health and safety, diversity or the environment seriously, and so avoid intervention. This also applies to firms seeking to justify eye-catching profits and high levels of boardroom pay. Those operating away from their home country can make sure they stay welcome by being good corporate citizens with respect to labour standards and impacts on the environment.
11. Social responsibility WiKi
Social responsibility is an ethical or ideological theory that an entity whether it is a government, corporation, organization or individual has a responsibility to society. This responsibility can be "negative," in that it is a responsibility to refrain from acting (resistance stance) or it can be "positive," meaning there is a responsibility to act (proactive stance). While primarily associated with business and governmental practices, activist groups and local communities can also be associated with social responsibility, not only business or governmental entities. There is a large inequality in the means and roles of different entities to fulfill their claimed responsibility. This would imply the different entities have different responsibilities, in so much as states should ensure the civil rights of their citizens, that corporations should respect and encourage the human rights of their employees and that citizens should abide with written laws. But social responsibility can mean more than these examples. Many NGOs accept that their role and the responsibility of their members as citizens is to help improve society by taking a proactive stance in their societal roles. It can also imply that corporations have an implicit obligation to give back to society (such as is claimed as part of corporate social responsibility and/or stakeholder theory). Social responsibility is voluntary; it is about going above and beyond what is called for by the law(legal responsibility). It involves an idea that it is better to be proactive towards a problem rather than reactive to it. Social responsibility means eliminating corrupt, irresponsible or unethical behavior that might bring harm to the community, its people, or the environment before the behavior happens. In today’s society a business must maintain ethical principles in order to be successful. (Kaliski, 2001) Businesses can use ethical decision making to strengthen their businesses in three main ways. The first way is to use their ethical decision making to increase productivity. This can be done through programs that employees feel directly enhance their benefits given by the corporation, like better health care or a better pension program. One thing that all companies must keep in mind is that employees are stakeholders in the business. They have a vested interest in what the company does and how it is run. When the company is perceived to feel that their employees are a valuable asset and the employees feel they are being treated and such, productivity increases.
12. What makes for leadership in CSR?
An Article from Business Respect, Issue Number 131, dated 5 Jul 2008 By Mallen Baker Having run three workshops on corporate social responsibility across three very different countries in the South Caucasus during the last week, the key theme again and again has been leadership. Unfortunately, to be precise, the lack of it. It is always more difficult to get a head of steam behind CSR in business environments that are dominated by the activities of foreign multinationals. These companies will often have a well developed approach to social and environmental issues, developing top leadership responsibility, corporate policies and processes, measuring and reporting performance. But these activities take place at head office. What happens then in each of the outlying countries on the ground is, hopefully, some evidence that the companies are generally well managed (that carries no label or tag whatsoever) and what they do under the name of 'CSR' is pretty much writing cheques to give to local community initiatives.
13. What is corporate responsibility?
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines corporate responsibility as the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families and the local community and society at large. More than goodwill, corporate community involvement or strategic corporate philanthropy, corporate responsibility is a genuine attempt by a company to build meaningful relationships between the corporate sector and the rest of society. Corporate responsibility is achieved when a business adapts all of its practices to ensure that it operates in ways that meet, or exceed, the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business. To be considered effective, corporate responsibility must be an integrated part of day-to-day business, engaging all stakeholders and including strategies to support individual managers to make socially responsible decisions, conform to ethical behaviour and obey the law.
14. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.
Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He ma}. feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. Ifwe wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibilities," they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business.
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.
In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.
The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.
But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.
This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public–after all, "taxation without representation" was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.
Here the businessman–self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders–is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and, jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds–all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.
The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for "social" purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of a private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants–insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window-dressing–should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be elected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster "social" objectives, then political machinery must be set up to make the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.
This is the basic reason why the doctrine of "social responsibility" involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.
On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged "social responsibilities?" On the other hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders' or customers' or employees' money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company–in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his hold ing down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?
And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders', customers' or employees' money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employees can desert him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.
This facet of "social responsibility" doc trine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank-and-file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders–at least in the U.S.–have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.
The difficulty of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good–but only at their own expense.
Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of Government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such "social" purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.
Aside from the question of fact–I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from "those who affected to trade for the public good"–this argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for "evil" people to do "evil," especially since one man's good is another's evil.
I have, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M crusade for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employees) to contribute against their will to "social" causes favored by the activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.
The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his "social responsibility," he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employees and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.
Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.
To illustrate, it may well be in the long run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to attract desirable employees, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.
In each of these–and many similar–cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of "social responsibility." In the present climate of opinion, with its wide spread aversion to "capitalism," "profits," the "soulless corporation" and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self-interest.
It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window-dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise a "social responsibility"! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express admiration for those individual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stockholders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.
Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddleheaded in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.
The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.
The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.
The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve a more general social interest–whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.
Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mechanism altogether.
But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
15. Homes plan for India Aids orphans
The Indian authorities have given approval for the establishment of orphanages for children whose parents have died of Aids. The National Aids Control Organisation is to set up 10 homes across India to care for and educate the orphans. A spokesman for the organisation said it was possible to find families willing to take in Aids orphans if they were healthy. But that was not the case if the orphans were HIV positive.
16. Proffesional SEO & SMO Advice and Training
Being a Platinum Control Captain is a leadership position not just among the ranks of Veretekk, and not just among the Netizens of the Internet, but the world at large. As the globalization of the world continues and the economic shift becomes more pronounced you are positioning your self to be a force of positive change to be reckoned with.
There are several major benefits the Platinum Control Panel represents. Let me list them here for your perusal.
- Being an SEO professional: This is the primary purpose of this system. SEO has become the primary goal of Veretekk. To be able to control unlimited SEO assists (blogs, rss feeds, social networks, mailing lists, classifieds, search engines, forms, etc.). Ad to that 1000's of Veretekk assets built right into the system, like the Blogger Drones, Blogger template files you download, Super Forums, and you can easily see that using the Platinum Control Panel to run an SEO campaign is the only manageable solution on the Internet.
- Being a team captain: If you have an opportunity within a down line of distributors, start a team and delegate. Use the Platinum Control Panel to manage their Veretekk Gold systems and delegate duties to them, mostly blogging. You can take care of the swarming, configuration, mailing etc. in minutes compared to your team members learning curve to do all of this. Therefore your marketing effort is leveraged and your team prospers!
- Being a Veretekk leader: Do you have a lot of Silvers in your front line? How about Gold's? Contact them and let them know you can configure their systems for them in record time. That way they can concentrate on marketing, not the learning curve. It is your choice if you want to offer this service for a cost. Think of the benefits, did you know most Gold accounts that cancel due so because of the time constraints? Help them save time and build more Gold accounts.
- The entrepreneurial capabilities wrapped around the Platinum Control Panel: Start an online business promoting Veretekk with the added benefit of setting their account up for them if they upgrade to Gold.
Interact on the Beta team:
You have the distinct advantage of being on the BETA team! You imput will ad additional value to this system as it is built. Bug reports, suggestions, not to mention when we launch this thing, you will be way ahead of the curve. Think about the marketing advantages as we get close to launching.
You also have direct access to Mike Darling and myself:
- Join the Beta Skype group.
- Join the Platinum Control Panel Beta Forum.
We invite you to join today, to join the most successful Marketing group on the Internet...Today! Thomas Prendergast
and
Mike Darling
17. AFRICA FORUM AGRICULTURE FOR SELF-RELIANCE PROJECT (ASRP) Liberia Flag Ship Project: Leadership for Sustainable Agriculture and
The Forum for Former African Heads of State and Government, commonly known as the Africa Forum (AF), has decided to initiate a tripartite partnership involving the Forum, African countries emerging from conflicts, and the Private Sector to jointly play a major advocacy and facilitation role in promoting agriculture for self-reliance in Africa. In this regard, the Africa Forum with technical support from Edge2Edge Global Investment Limited (“E2E”) has designed and elaborated the Agriculture for Self-Reliance Project (ASRP). The Edge2Edge Global Investments will provide the initial resources for a Pilot Project/Flag Ship Project in the Republic of Liberia. The Liberian Government will be requested through a consultative process to allocate the land required for the ASRP/LFSP.
The ASRP aims at addressing the root causes of conflict in these countries through national dialogue and reconstruction, promoting agriculture for self reliance through community based agriculture projects and mobilizing national and international support to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The ASRP takes into account the reality that post conflict reconstruction and development in most African countries emerging from conflict cannot be sustained without an environment of peace and security, food self-reliance, and capacity to restore confidence among those who had lost hope as a result of conflicts as well as the social and economic impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This document introduced the ASRP/Liberia Flag Ship Project and outlines both the content and the process related to this initiative by Africa Forum.
18. AIDS ORPHANS - AFRICA
Country responses to the AIDS orphan crisis: Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia
In many countries with a high prevalence of HIV, efforts to provide care and support for AIDS orphans have been underway for many years. Although existing initiatives are encouraging, many of these are small scale and are struggling with the increasing number of children that require care. Three of the Africa countries that have been worst affected by HIV and AIDS are Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia.
Botswana
In Botswana, it is estimated that 120,000 children had lost their parent(s) to AIDS by the end of 2005. 24
A National Orphan Programme was established in April 1999 to respond to the immediate needs of orphaned children, and a comprehensive policy for helping AIDS orphans was established under this programme. 25 The government currently runs a ‘food basket’ scheme, where a basket of food is provided to orphaned households once a month. Orphans are also provided with school uniforms and are subsidised for transportation fees to get to school, among other things. 26 By December 2005, 50,557 orphans were registered to receive support from the government. 27
House of Hope Day Care Centre.
An example of the programme in action is the rural district of Bobirwa, where district authorities have contracted the Bobirwa Orphan Trust to deliver essential services to orphans in the area. The Trust is made up of community volunteers and government paid employees, including social workers and family welfare educators. Members of the Trust register orphans in the district and identify their needs through home visits, schools and churches. They also initiate community-based foster placements, and support the provision of food and clothing to orphans through local groups. On top of this, needy orphans are assisted with blankets, counselling, toys, bus fares to and from school, school uniforms and other educational needs. 28
Traditionally, orphaned children in Botswana have been cared for by extended families. However, due to social and economic strain some families are no longer willing - or indeed able - to do this. Even when they are, the level of care orphans receive is sometimes unacceptable. In some cases, families have been known to take on orphans merely to benefit from government orphan packages. 29
A variety of different community organisations do now provide support for orphans, and the government does encourage communities to provide care for orphans within the community, and to rely on institutional care only as a last resort.
The Kgaitsadi Society in Gabarone is an example of a community organisation set up to care for and educate AIDS orphans. Established in 2002, it assists with their basic needs and provides basic and primary school level education through a flexible school programme. It also provides support for children caring for family members and for those that are working. Other examples of community organisations are the Maun Counselling Centre, and the House of Hope in Palapye both of which provide day care support for orphans. 30 31
Read more about HIV & AIDS in Botswana.
Malawi
AIDS, extreme poverty and food shortages have all taken their toll on Malawi in recent years. By the end of 2005, it was estimated that Malawi had over half a million children orphaned by AIDS. 32
As early as 1991, the Government of Malawi established a National Orphan Care Task Force. The Task Force is made up of various representatives and organisations, which are responsible for planning, monitoring and revising all programmes on orphan care. One year later, in 1992, National Orphan Care Guidelines were established. The guidelines serve as a broad blueprint to encourage and co-ordinate regional and community efforts. The Task Force has also established a subcommittee that is reviewing existing laws and legal procedures to provide greater protection to vulnerable children. 33
An important aspect of the government's strategy has been to promote and support community based programmes. In both rural and urban areas across Malawi, communities are developing a variety of ways to cope with the growing crisis of AIDS orphans. In many villages orphan committees have been established to monitor the local situation and to take collective action to assist those in need. 34
The Government furthered its commitment to AIDS orphans in June 2005 when President Mutharika launched The National Plan of Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children. This plan, which is due to run until 2009, aims to increase access to essential services - such as education, health, nutrition, water and sanitation - amongst AIDS orphans and other vulnerable children. It also aims to help families and communities provide support for such children. 35
The large number of children losing parents to AIDS in Malawi presents a daunting challenge to both the government and regional communities. A severe lack of human and financial resources continues to hold back Malawi’s fight against AIDS, including efforts to support AIDS orphans.
“Orphans have little food, few clothes, no bedding and no soap...and as a whole, community care because of HIV/AIDS is overwhelmed and breaking down.” 36
Read more about HIV & AIDS in Malawi.
19. JOIN Responsible Business Network - against poverty
Worldwide, it is estimated that more than 15 million children under 18 have been orphaned as a result of AIDS. More than 12 million of these children live in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it is currently estimated that 9% of all children have lost at least one parent to AIDS. 1 As HIV infections become increasingly common among the adult population of the region, the brunt of HIV-associated mortality is expected to occur within this decade; as a result, millions of children will lose parents to AIDS. By 2010, it is predicted that there will be around 15.7 million AIDS orphans in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2 The number of orphans in some Sub-Saharan African countries exceeds half a million, and, in some countries, children who have been orphaned by AIDS comprise half or more of all orphans nationally. 3 Number of orphans due to AIDS, alive in 2005 South Africa 1,200,000 Tanzania 1,100,000 Zimbabwe 1,100,000 Kenya 1,100,000 Uganda 1,000,000 Nigeria 930,000 Zambia 710,000 DR Congo 680,000 Malawi 550,000 AIDS orphans as a percentage of all orphans, 2005 Zimbabwe 77% Botswana 76% Swaziland 66% Lesotho 64% Malawi 57% Zambia 57% South Africa 49% Kenya 46% Uganda 45% AIDS is responsible for leaving vast numbers of children across Africa without one or both parents. The first table above shows the countries with the largest numbers of AIDS orphans. In some countries, a larger proportion of orphans have lost their parents to AIDS than to any other cause of death - meaning that, were it not for the AIDS epidemic, these children would not have been orphaned. The second table shows the countries in which the children who lost their parents to AIDS make up the highest proportion of the total national number of orphans. 4 Most of the AIDS orphans who live outside of Africa live in Asia, where the total number of orphans - orphaned for all reasons - exceeds 73 million. 5 There is, however, insufficient information available to provide figures for the number of AIDS orphans in individual Asian countries. The rest of this page concentrates on AIDS orphans in Africa, although the issues described here are present to some extent in many countries around the world. WHAT IS YOUR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, Think about your posible contribution, while you and your family enjoy your 3rd meal for the day, tonight when saying your prayers at Supper.
20. The Social Media Gender Gap
by: Auren Hoffman If Slide and RockYou, two of the fastest-growing Web businesses, are any barometer for the future, the Internet is going to look pink. In other words, the future of social media is going to be all about the women. So if you're going to create the next hot Web 2.0 site and you want it to go viral, you'll target women. It's no shock that men and women act differently online, just as they do in everyday life. The Web is an extremely social medium, and Web 2.0 is all about being social. Traditionally, men are the early adopters of new technologies. But when it comes to social media, women are at the forefront. At Rapleaf we conducted a study of 13.2 million people and how they're using social media. While the trends indicate both sexes are using social media in huge numbers, our findings show that women far outpace the men. As a result, with the next wave of innovation likely to target women more than men, this gender gap on social networks (and increasingly in all of social media) will only widen. Naturally, male adoption of social media will grow as well. It just won't keep pace with the expanding engagement among female users. The reason why at my blog, follow the link:
21. Women Outpace Men in Social Media Use
According to a recent social media study by Rapleaf,
while both men and woman use social media, use among women was well above that of men. Not only are women more likely to be social network users, they are much more active in their online social environments, as well.
Because women comprise their core audience, the prediction is that social networks will continue to court women, while further alienating the male demographic.
22. SMO & SEO Web site and Blog services for Women
TOP LINKS Free Listing Free Search Engine Listing
