please paraphrase the following in your own words;

1. Sustainability reporting policy: Shell first voluntarily reported sustainability starting the year 1997 before others were practically forced. The reports on sustainability in line with the guidelines of GRI G3 and IPIECA. On the GRI reporting scale, the corporation is considered an A+ level on a scale of six grades going from C to A+. It means Shell reports on specific core and sector-related indicators and it also provides management disclosure together with explanations for indicators not calculated. GRI is an independent network-based sustainability reporting framework that was established in 1997 by a not-for-profit organization called CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) in partnership with UN’s Environment Programme. Shell is an organizational stakeholder, in other words, a member whose rights include election of members of the Board of Directors or the Stakeholder Council. Shell is also a member of IPIECA, who together with OGP (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers) and API (American Petroleum Institute) formulated the oil and gas industry’s sustainability reporting framework called the IPIECA standards. According to Shell, they are collaborating with GRI in further developing the sector specific indicators for the oil and gas industry. While this initiative is admirable, it raises a question of how objective the company can be in designing indicators that will be used to measure its own sustainability engagement. In addition to the guidelines followed, the annual Sustainability report is audited by an external reviewing committee. This has been done for the past six years in order to ensure transparency. The committee, whose members are changed every year, are experts in fields, such as environmental, conservation, sustainability or ethics. Their job is to assess the ‘content and the process of producing the Sustainability report’, not to verify its accuracy. Although this practice is good, the extension of duties of the external reviewing committee is not sufficient. On one hand, the efforts of alignment to several reporting standards place Shell in a favorable light. On the other hand, the fact that it is voting member in some makes the effort to seem less objective. In addition, the reporting standards of GRI and IPIECA come with three major faults: ‘there is no minimum reporting standard’; companies do not report on targets; and ‘they do not provide a vision’ and a plan for dealing with energy and other concerns in the future.

3. Investment in sustainable research initiatives: The investment in sustainable research is not calculated separately from the total R&D (Research & Development) expense. It amounted to $1.0 billion in 2010. However, Shell highlights that $2.1 billion has been spent on sustainable research (developing alternative energies and CCS) in the past five years. This means that Shell invested 5% of its net income of 2010 in R&D. Over the past 5 years, sustainable research represented 2% of its total net income of $117.89 billion from 2006-2010. Although there is no guideline on how much a company such as Shell should invest in research or sustainable research, there should be a clear report that includes all sustainable research initiatives and the resources allocated to them. 4. Partnerships and alliances in research for sustainable innovations Shell is involved in partnerships with different scientific institutions and companies for the development of alternative energy technologies and sustainable solutions for the future. For instance, Shell has contributed $25 million to a 5-year research project at the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in 2010. The research looks into nanotechnology, biofuels, and CO2 management. In addition, Shell was one of the first energy companies to have invested in biofuel research. Given this, it dedicates a lot of time and money in research for more efficient biofuels, such as biofuels from non-edible crops and crop waste. For example, Shell partnered with the Canadian biotechnology company Iogen Energy for the development of a technology that uses enzymes to break down cellulose and turns it to ethanol. It also has another partnership regarding enzymes and ethanol with the American corporation Codexis. In this case, the enzymes are destined for the faster conversion of non-edible crops or plant waste to ethanol and similar chemical components. Another partnership in the US is with Virent. Shell and Virent work together on a technology that transforms sugars directly into fuels. Shell also invests in CCS research since it believes it is one of the main ways of reducing CO2 emissions into the future. According to IEA (International Energy Agency) it is estimated that the rapid development of CCS technologies up to 2020, might lead to a reduction of up to 19% of CO2 emissions by 2050. On one hand, Shell contribution to such research is important and its usage will have a positive impact on the environment. But on the other hand, some environmentalists might argue that developing CCS technologies will lead to an incentive to emit more CO2 with the hopes of capturing it later. As an observation, most research is done in North America. Shell should try to balance the placement of research with the location of its most important operations. In this way, it would be able to share the benefits with the community, while utilizing its resources. It is also important to note that Shell sold its interest in a joint-venture designed to research technologies that convert algae into biofuel. The reason for this is that the corporation wants to focus on other biofuel research that better fits their strategy and vision. Algae are considered to be one of the main prime materials for biofuels of the future. There is a sense of high hopes in the research community regarding its potential, thus many alike companies invest in algae research projects. The corporation’s decision is unpleasantly surprising. Although Shell has research projects in other biofuel materials, this could be seen as a step back on the path of sustainability. In our view, the corporation should invest even more in algae research, because of its potential to improve our future. We believe they made a compromise between medium and long-term interests.

5. Number of patents in sustainable innovations: Like any other large corporation that invests billion of dollars in R&D, Shell holds my patents worldwide. However, it does not make any reference to patents in its Sustainability report for 2010. Research on the corporate website, led to the conclusion that there is no global account of the patents held. In our view, it is understandable that the company does not aggregate at global level its patent holdings, since the size of the company and everyday activities would make this process challenging. However, we also find it concerning that Shell does not refer to any patents, more or less sustainable in its Sustainability report, which is a document that should contain a company’s most important sustainable achievements. Due to this, in our view, we believe the number of patents for sustainable innovations to be small relative to all patents held. One of the latest and most important patents is owned by Shell Oil, the American subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The patent is for the invention of a new catalyst that removes sulfur from oil and gas, thus making the fuel less harmful for the environment. Although it is a beneficial invention, some environmentalists might argue that this technology would only decrease CO2 emissions while promoting the use of even more fossil fuel. Thus, more investments and patents are needed in renewable energies, rather than improvement of non-renewables.

6. Long-term energy plan The long-term energy plan includes a mix of cleaner non-renewables and renewables. Unfortunately, the focus is on producing more of the former, not the latter. This is because it is estimated that the energy demand will go up as more countries continue to develop.

According to some agencies, most of the energy will be provided from non-renewable sources, namely fossil fuels. Thus, Shell’s strategic energy plan resonates in accordance with this expectation. For instance, deep water extraction of oil and gas ‘will remain crucial’ to Shell. In addition, the natural gas production will be gradually increased, since it is the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning natural gas produces 50-70% less CO2 emissions than a coal plant. In addition, if this is combined with CCS technologies, then CO2 emissions fall by 90% when compared to coal. By 2012, natural gas will account for 50% of Shell’s total energy output. Moreover, it is estimated that the supplies of natural gas are abundant, meaning that they can be exploited at the current rate for another 250 years. To sum up, the long term-energy plan is a mix of the following: natural gas, deep water extractions, advanced biofuels, CCS projects, and improved energy efficiency of own operations. It is worrying that there is no reference made to renewable sources of energy, such as wind or solar power. Although renewables are a part of the strategy, their proportion is very small, making their impact almost negligible. In other view, the corporation’s energy plan for the future resumes to producing cleaner fossil fuel rather than clean energies. So, they are tacking sustainability by exploiting more non-renewables. Although, it is much cleaner, in our eyes, this approach only contributes to the global problems.

If a perfectly competitive market moved toward monopolistic competition, we might expect

• less advertising.

• a smaller range of product differentiation, but a lower price.

• a greater range of product innovation and a lower price.

• a greater range of product differentiation, but a higher price.

You had to look for information regarding five recent innovations i.e. airbnb, telegram messenger, Apple, Skip the dishes and Uber.

1. Who is the founder and when did the innovation come about?
2. Why did the need arise for these innovations?

There are four areas in the Balanced Scorecard:

1. Financial Perspective
2. Customer Perspective
3. Internal Business Perspective
4. Innovation and Learning Perspective

• Please provide perspective for each.
• Insert two company goals for each perspective.
• Insert two measures or matrices for these two goals

1. Describe the ways technological innovation has changed since the 18th and 19th centuries.

2. The main factors influencing technological change.

Please write 400 words for first question and 250 words (as bullet points). Please no plagiarism Thanks

Apply all of these concepts (Client-center marketing, Movement from mass production to customized products, Disruptive Innovation, Building Brand Value) to understand what happened to Apple and what may be the likely outcome now that Jobs has “passed away”.

In the Connect and Develop article, Huston and Sakkab describe a "radical strategy of open innovation." Let's assume that Dell is interested in pursuing such as strategy. What would that look like? If you were a member of the management team, would you have any concerns?

Calculate the GDP for the following two examples. Show your work.

1. (1 point) Using the information below, calculate the nominal GDP.

2. (4 points) GDP is the sum of the market value of all final goods and services produced in an economy in a given year. In the following scenario, compute the value added at each stage of production, and compare this figure to the final value of the product produced and in 1 page or less, explain why we only include either the value-added or the final value of the product in GDP. Report your results in a table.

Scenario: Suppose a dairy farm produces raw milk, which it sells for $800 to a dairy. The dairy produces milk which it sells or $2500 to a cheese manufacturer. The cheese manufacturer uses the milk to make cheese, which it sells for $6000 to a grocery store. The grocery store sells the cheese to consumers for $9,000.

3. (3 points) Suppose a single product economy produced 2000 pounds of beef in 2010. The price of a pound of beef was $3 in 2010. The price of beef was $5 per pound in 2015 and the economy produced 4300 pounds.
   1. Calculate the nominal GDP for 2010 and 2015
   2. Calculate the real GDP for 2010 and 2015, assuming 2010 as the base year.
   3. Calculate the GDP price index for 2010, using 2015 as the base year.

4. (2 points) In ½ page or less explain why a country should use real GDP rather than nominal GDP to measure the economic well-being of the country?

I am having a bunch of trouble trying to figure these out each time I think I have the inputs right with these questions I keep coming up with the wrong answers can someone walk me through this?

Mobile Application Security What is the basic purpose of this technology? In what types of mobile applications can this technology be effectively used and why? What are the pros and cons of this technology? Are there any other important aspects of this technology that should be provided?