Questions
Calculate openness as a percentage for Paraguay and Poland. Explain how you calculated openness, i.e., write...

Calculate openness as a percentage for Paraguay and Poland. Explain how you calculated openness, i.e., write down the formula. Using a graph of Openness (as a percentage) versus time, explain in up to 200 words how openness has changed for these countries from 2001 to 2014. Put Paraguay and Poland in the same graph and make sure your graph is properly labelled.

Country Name Country Code Series Name Series Code 2001 [YR2001] 2002 [YR2002] 2003 [YR2003] 2004 [YR2004] 2005 [YR2005] 2006 [YR2006] 2007 [YR2007] 2008 [YR2008] 2009 [YR2009] 2010 [YR2010] 2011 [YR2011] 2012 [YR2012] 2013 [YR2013] 2014 [YR2014]
Paraguay PRY Exports of goods and services (current US$) NE.EXP.GNFS.CD 3459319570 3402825624 3625989129 4371893087 5083809323 6252319090 7818347667 9993980610 8210295841 11036468064 13186264509 12278348692 14356651476 13954911448
Paraguay PRY GDP (current US$) NY.GDP.MKTP.CD 7662595076 6325151760 6588103836 8033877360 8734653809 10646157920 13794910634 18504130753 15929902138 20030528043 25099681461 24595319574 28965906502 30881166852
Paraguay PRY GDP per capita (current US$) NY.GDP.PCAP.CD 1417 1148 1175 1409 1507 1810 2312 3060 2600 3226 3988 3856 4480 4713
Paraguay PRY GINI index (World Bank estimate) SI.POV.GINI 55 57 56 53 51 54 52 51 50 52 53 48 48 52
Paraguay PRY Imports of goods and services (current US$) NE.IMP.GNFS.CD 2727373823 2298406126 2623501714 3307792347 4018039423 5221045741 6461917817 9166237324 7130137358 10313046052 12621883682 11979621541 12983600420 13242370791
Poland POL Exports of goods and services (current US$) NE.EXP.GNFS.CD 51878648721 57137009804 72632296220 87410323710 105952277925 130565028203 165538367008 202086584758 163740453116 191967370760 225042181278 222344181762 242809098962 259386390289
Poland POL GDP (current US$) NY.GDP.MKTP.CD 190521263343 198680637255 217518642325 255102252843 306134635594 344826430298 429249647595 533815789474 440346575958 479257883742 528725113046 500284003684 524201151607 545075908846
Poland POL GDP per capita (current US$) NY.GDP.PCAP.CD 4981 5197 5694 6681 8021 9041 11260 14001 11542 12598 13891 13144 13780 14340
Poland POL GINI index (World Bank estimate) SI.POV.GINI 33 34 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 33 32
Poland POL Imports of goods and services (current US$) NE.IMP.GNFS.CD 58766945944 63908088235 78406788377 94256069554 109183717624 137680257857 180703003578 228993441806 167514280213 201543256955 235386043059 224546822229 232598709188 251529270071

In: Economics

Explain in up to 200 words the relationship between Openness and economic development by calculating the...

Explain in up to 200 words the relationship between Openness and economic development by calculating the correlation coefficient between GDP per capita (proxy for economic development) and Openness for Paraguay and Poland, respectively. [Here you have to use the CORREL command in Excel].

Country Name Country Code Series Name Series Code 2001 [YR2001] 2002 [YR2002] 2003 [YR2003] 2004 [YR2004] 2005 [YR2005] 2006 [YR2006] 2007 [YR2007] 2008 [YR2008] 2009 [YR2009] 2010 [YR2010] 2011 [YR2011] 2012 [YR2012] 2013 [YR2013] 2014 [YR2014]
Paraguay PRY Exports of goods and services (current US$) NE.EXP.GNFS.CD 3459319570 3402825624 3625989129 4371893087 5083809323 6252319090 7818347667 9993980610 8210295841 11036468064 13186264509 12278348692 14356651476 13954911448
Paraguay PRY GDP (current US$) NY.GDP.MKTP.CD 7662595076 6325151760 6588103836 8033877360 8734653809 10646157920 13794910634 18504130753 15929902138 20030528043 25099681461 24595319574 28965906502 30881166852
Paraguay PRY GDP per capita (current US$) NY.GDP.PCAP.CD 1417 1148 1175 1409 1507 1810 2312 3060 2600 3226 3988 3856 4480 4713
Paraguay PRY GINI index (World Bank estimate) SI.POV.GINI 55 57 56 53 51 54 52 51 50 52 53 48 48 52
Paraguay PRY Imports of goods and services (current US$) NE.IMP.GNFS.CD 2727373823 2298406126 2623501714 3307792347 4018039423 5221045741 6461917817 9166237324 7130137358 10313046052 12621883682 11979621541 12983600420 13242370791
Poland POL Exports of goods and services (current US$) NE.EXP.GNFS.CD 51878648721 57137009804 72632296220 87410323710 105952277925 130565028203 165538367008 202086584758 163740453116 191967370760 225042181278 222344181762 242809098962 259386390289
Poland POL GDP (current US$) NY.GDP.MKTP.CD 190521263343 198680637255 217518642325 255102252843 306134635594 344826430298 429249647595 533815789474 440346575958 479257883742 528725113046 500284003684 524201151607 545075908846
Poland POL GDP per capita (current US$) NY.GDP.PCAP.CD 4981 5197 5694 6681 8021 9041 11260 14001 11542 12598 13891 13144 13780 14340
Poland POL GINI index (World Bank estimate) SI.POV.GINI 33 34 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 33 32
Poland POL Imports of goods and services (current US$) NE.IMP.GNFS.CD 58766945944 63908088235 78406788377 94256069554 109183717624 137680257857 180703003578 228993441806 167514280213 201543256955 235386043059 224546822229 232598709188 251529270071

In: Economics

Asylum Applications and GDP Economic research provides evidence for a positive relationship between Gross Domestic Product...

Asylum Applications and GDP

Economic research provides evidence for a positive relationship between Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Asylum Applications across the EU. This provides support for the view that a strong economy tend to have higher level of asylum applications.

The Table below gives Asylum Applications and an index of GDP per capita (written as GDP for short) for each year from 2003 to 2014. A regression analysis with Asylum Applications as the response variable and GDP as the predictor variable is shown at the end of the question.

Table: Asylum Applications and GDP in each year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

GDP

140

145

147

148

148

134

129

130

131

132

133

137

Asylum Applications

7,483

4,766

4,323

4,314

3,985

3,866

2,860

1,935

1,290

955

945

1,450

Regression Analysis: Asylum Applications versus GDP (GDP per Capita (index))

  1. Discuss the interpretation of the panel in the Regression Analysis output below which relates to the regression coefficients stating the Null Hypothesis
  2. Obtain and interpret a confidence interval for the slope parameter and explain how it relates to the corresponding t-test of part (a)

  1. How would you interpret the expected response of the Asylum Applications to an increase of 1 unit in GDP per capita?

  1. The output contains intervals corresponding to values for GDP of 140 and 177 respectively. Explain how the two types of interval should be interpreted for both levels of absences

  1. Given the true GDP value in 2015 turned out to be 177 and the actual level of Asylum Applications was 3,276, would you be willing to use this model for future predictions?Explain your answer taking into consideration the Adj-R squared value

Explain your answer taking into consideration the Adj-R squared value

Regression Equation

Asylum Applications = -19.720 + 166 GDP

Predictor

Coef

SE Coef

T-Value

P-Value

Constant

-19,720

9,104

-2.16

0.06

GDP

166

66

2.51

0.03

Adj-R-Squared

33%

Analysis of Variance

Source

DF

SS (000)

MS(000)

F-Value

P-Value

GDP

1

16,695

16,695

6.33

0.031

Error

10

26,355

2,635

Total

11

43,050

Predicted Values for New Observations

GDP

Fit

SE Fit

95% CI

95% PI

140

3,526

469

(2,440, 4,611)

(-235, 7,305)

177

9,668

2,634

(3,839, 15,499)

(2,806, 16,351) XX

XX denotes an extremely unusual point relative to predictor levels used to fit the model

In: Statistics and Probability

The following data relates to the size of the electricity bill sent to 7 randomly selected...

The following data relates to the size of the electricity bill sent to 7 randomly selected customers and the
time the customers took to pay the bills.
Customer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Size of bill($) 1500 1800 2300 2700 3300 3700 4600
Time to pay (days) 16 21 19 20 24 30 27
a) State the dependent variable and independent variable of the data set.
b) Plot the data on a scatter graph and add a trend line on the scatter graph.
c) Find the correlation coefficient and comment on it.
d) Determine the linear regression equation that can be used to predict how long a bill of a given size
will take to pay.
e) Interpret your equation.
f) Use your equation to predict how long it will take a customer to pay:
i. A bill of $1050, and
ii. A bill of $8000.
What reservations do you have about these predictions?

In: Statistics and Probability

A regional electrical distributor currently has 1,000 customers who buy an average of $5,000 per year,...

A regional electrical distributor currently has 1,000 customers who buy an average of $5,000 per year, generating a 50% margin. From experience, the company knows that 20% of its customers will not return the next year and it takes an average of $500 to acquire each new customer.

Given a choice of 1) investing $50,000 in a new customer acquisition program for 100 additional customers or 2) investing $50,000 in a new retention program which would take the rate of retention from 80% to 85%, what should the company do? complete the Excel template for both scenarios (customer acquisition and customer retention) to show which option is the most profitable. Assume the new programs are in effect and you are calculating the impact for both beginning Year 1. Also, do not account for the cost of the programs since it doesn't impact the overall conclusion.

Five Year Payout
Scenario 1: New Customer Acquisition Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Incremental Customers: 100
Purchases:
Additional Annual Profits:
Cumulative Additional Annual Profits:
Scenario 2: Customer Retention Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Retained Customers @ 80%: 800
Retained Customers @ 85%: 850
Additional Retained Customers:
Incremental Annual Purchases:
Additional Annual Profits:
Cumulative Additional Annual Profits:
Conclusion:

In: Accounting

You are working for The Wellington Company on temporary assignment while one of the accountants is...

You are working for The Wellington Company on temporary assignment while one of the accountants is on family leave. You have been asked to review the company’s investment

The balance sheet caption used to report long-term investments in stocks not intended as a source of cash in the normal operations of the business.

journal entries and provide necessary information to the accountant preparing the financial statements.

PAGE 8

JOURNAL

DATE DESCRIPTION POST. REF. DEBIT CREDIT

1

Jan. 17

Investment-Red Rock Co. Stock

37,400.00

2

Cash

37,400.00

3

Feb. 5

Investment-Sunset Village Bonds

34,000.00

4

Interest Receivable

290.00

5

Cash

34,290.00

6

23

Investment-Mays and Co. Stock

25,500.00

7

Cash

25,500.00

8

Mar. 31

Cash

340.00

9

Interest Receivable

290.00

10

Interest Revenue

50.00

11

Apr. 6

Investment in Minions Corp. Stock

170,000.00

12

Cash

170,000.00

13

30

Cash

750.00

14

Dividend Revenue

750.00

15

Jul. 1

Cash

18,162.00

16

Loss on Sale of Investments

2,448.00

17

Interest Revenue

210.00

18

Investment-Sunset Village Bonds

20,400.00

19

Aug. 14

Cash

41,300.00

20

Gain on Sale of Investments

1,800.00

21

Investment-Harding Construction Stock

39,500.00

22

27

Cash

3,400.00

23

Investment in Minions Corp. Stock

3,400.00

24

Sep. 22

Cash

29,000.00

25

Gain on Sale of Investments

3,500.00

26

Investment-Mays and Co. Stock

25,500.00

27

30

Cash

130.00

28

Interest Revenue

130.00

29

Nov. 1

Investment in Minions Corp. Stock

15,300.00

30

Income of Minions Corp.

15,300.00

31

Dec. 31

Unrealized Loss on Available-For-Sale Investments

3,275.00

32

Valuation Allowance for Available-For-Sale Investments

3,275.00

33

31

Valuation Allowance for Trading Investments

2,150.00

34

Unrealized Gain on Trading Investments

2,150.00

The accountant preparing the financial statements has asked you to provide the fair value as of the end of the year for the investments. Present the information as it would be shown on the financial statements. Last year, The Wellington Company reported costs of $68,000 in trading investments and $82,000 in available-for-sale investments. Refer to the journal entries shown on The Wellington Company panel. Assume that all investments sold during this year were trading investments and that purchases during the year were new investments.

Trading Securities
Trading investments at cost ?
Plus valuation allowance for trading investments 2150
Trading investments at fair value ?
Available-For-Sale Securities
Available-for-sale investments at cost ?
Less valuation allowance for available-for-sale investments 3275
Available-for-sale investments at fair value ?

In: Accounting

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME Year Ended December 31, 2008 2007 2006...

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
Year Ended December 31, 2008 2007 2006
(In millions except per share data)
NET OPERATING REVENUES $31,944 $ 28,857 $ 24088
Cost of goods sold 11,374 10,406 8,164
GROSS PROFIT 20,570 18,451 15,924
Selling, general and administrative expenses 11,774 10,945 9,431
Other operating charges 350 254 185
OPERATING INCOME 8,446 7,252 6,308
Interest income 333 236 193
Interest expense 438 456 220
Equity income (loss) — net (874) 668 102
Other income (loss) — net (28) 173 195
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES 7,439 7,873 6,578
Income taxes 1,632 1,892 1,498
NET INCOME $ 5,807 $ 5,981 $ 5,080
BASIC NET INCOME PER SHARE $ 2.51 $ 2.59 $ 2.16
DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE $ 2.49 $ 2.57 $ 2.16
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING 2,315 2,313 2,348
Effect of dilutive securities 21 18 2
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING ASSUMING DILUTION 2,336 2,331 2,350

Refer to Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Review Coca-Cola's financial statements and answer the following questions:

1. How are Coke's numbers reported (in what denomination)?

For items 2-4, enter the answers as presented (e.g. $24,088 not $24,088,000).

2. What is Coke's net operating revenue for 2008?
$

3. What is Coke's cost of goods sold for 2008?
$

4. What is Coke’s net income 2008?
$

5. What is Coke’s percent of interest expense to net operating revenue on its 2008 income statement? Rounding your answer to two decimal places.
%

6. What is Coke's percent of increase in net operating revenue from 2007 to 2008? Rounding your answer to one decimal place.
%

In: Accounting

True or False? 1. Merchandise inventory consists of products that a company acquires to resell to...

True or False?

1. Merchandise inventory consists of products that a company acquires to resell to customers.

2. A service company earns net income by buying and selling merchandise.

3. Gross profit is the same as gross margin.

4. Cost of goods sold is also called cost of sales.

5. A wholesaler is an intermediary that buys products from a manufacturers or other wholesalers and sells them to consumers.

6. Goods in transit are automatically included in a company's inventory account.

7. If damaged & obsolete goods cannot be sold they are not included in inventory.

8. Goods on consignment are goods shipped by their owner, called the consignee, to a party called the consignor.

9. If obsolete or damaged goods can be sold, they will be included in inventory for realizable value.

10. If the seller is responsible for paying freight charges, then ownerships is passed when goods arrive at their destination.

11. A properly designed internal control system is a key part of accounting information systems design, analysis and performances.

12. The use of internal controls provides guaranteed protection against losses due to operating activities.

13. Internal control policies and procedures are the same for all companies

14. Maintaining adequate business records is an important internal control principle.

15. Proper internal control means that the responsibility for a task is clearly established and assigned to one person.

16. Accounts receivables occur from credit sales to customers

17. Credit sales are recorded by crediting an account receivable for the specific customer who is making the purchase

18. As long as a company accurately records total credit sales information, it is not necessary to have separate accounts for specific customers

19. If a customer owes interest on accounts receivable, the interest revenue account is debited and account receivable is credited

20. If a credit card sale is made, the seller can either debit cash or debit accounts receivable when the sale occurs.

In: Accounting

Coca-Cola 2.1. Coca-Cola’s profile Coca-Cola started its business in 1886 as a local soda producer in...


Coca-Cola
2.1. Coca-Cola’s profile
Coca-Cola started its business in 1886 as a local soda producer in Atlanta, Georgia (US) selling about nine beverages per day. By the 1920s, the company had begun expanding internationally, selling its products first in the Caribbean and Canadian markets and then moving in consecutive decades to Asia, Europe, South America and the Soviet Union. By the end of the 20th century, the company was selling its products in almost every country in the world. In 2005 it became the largest manufacturer, distributor and marketer of non-alcoholic beverages and syrups in the world. Coca-Cola is a publicly-held company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
2.2. Coca-Cola’s CSR policies and reporting
In 2007 Coca-Cola launched its sustainability framework Live Positively embedded in the system at all levels, from production and packaging to distribution. The company’s CSR policy Live Positively establishes seven core areas where the company sets itself measurable goals to
improve the business’ sustainability practices. The core areas are beverage benefits, active healthy living, the community, energy and climate, sustainable packaging, water stewardship and the workplace.
Coca-Cola has a Code of Business Conduct which aims at providing guidelines to its employees on –amongst other things – competition issues and anti-corruption. The company has adopted international CSR guidelines such as Global Compact and Ruggie’s Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework (Ruggie’s Framework), but these guidelines do not seem to be integrated into the Code of Business. However, these CSR initiatives are included in other activities or policies of the company. For instance, the UN Global Compact principles are cross- referenced in the company’s annual Sustainability Reviews and Ruggie’s Framework is partly adopted in the company’s ‘Human Right Statement’. After the conflict in India, in 2007 Coca- Cola formed a partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)21 and became a member of the CEO Water Mandate, as water is one of the company’s main concerns.
Every year Coca-Cola publishes a directors’ report denominated ‘The Coca-Cola Company Annual Report’; the last one was published in March 2011 and comprises the company’s activities during 2010.22 In this report there is a small section dedicated to CSR and it includes a brief description of the initiatives in community development and water preservation that the company has developed. Since 2001, Coca-Cola also annually publishes a separate report devoted to CSR called ‘The Coca-Cola Company Sustainability Review’. These reviews, which are published every two years, are verified and assured by a third party, the sustainability rating firm FIRA Sustainability Ltd. This verification provides ‘moderate assurance’ on the reliability of the information reported by Coca-Cola. Both reports – the annual company review and the sustainability reports – are elaborated based on the GRI G3 guidelines, which were adopted by the company in 2001. Due to its relevance to Coca-Cola’s business, the company also annually reports on the progress of the water stewardship programme’s targets.
2.3. Coca-Cola’s conflicts
Several campaigns and demonstrations followed the publication of a report issued by the Indian NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2003. The report provided evidence of the presence of pesticides, to a level exceeding European standards, in a sample of a dozen Coca- Cola and PepsiCo beverages sold in India. With that evidence at hand, the CSE called on the Indian government to implement legally enforceable water standards. The report gained ample public and media attention, resulting in almost immediate effects on Coca-Cola revenues.
The main allegations made by the NGO against Coca-Cola were that it sold products containing unacceptable levels of pesticides, it extracted large amounts of groundwater and it had polluted water sources. These conflicts will be discussed under 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
2.3.1. The presence of pesticides
Regarding the allegation about Coca-Cola beverages containing high levels of pesticide residues, the Indian government undertook various investigations. The government set up a Joint Committee to carry out its own tests on the beverages. The tests also found the presence of pesticides that failed to meet European standards, but they were still considered safe under local standards. Therefore, it was concluded that Coca-Cola had not violated any national laws. However, the Indian government acknowledged the need to adopt appropriate and enforceable standards for carbonated beverages.
In 2006, after almost three years of ongoing allegations, the CSE published its second test on Coca-Cola drinks, also resulting in a high content of pesticide residues (24 times higher than European Union standards, which were proposed by the Bureau of Indian Standards to be implemented in India as well). CSE published this test to prove that nothing had changed, alleging that the stricter standards for carbonated drinks and other beverages had either been

lost in committees or blocked by powerful interests in the government. Finally, in 2008 an independent study undertaken by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) ended the long- standing allegations by concluding that the water used in Coca-Cola in India is free of pesticides. However, because the institute did not test the final product, other ingredients could have contained pesticides.
2.3.2. Water pollution and the over-extraction of groundwater.
Coca-Cola was also accused of causing water shortages in – among other areas – the community of Plachimada in Kerala, southern India. In addition, Coca-Cola was accused of water pollution by discharging wastewater into fields and rivers surrounding Coca-Cola’s plants in the same community. Groundwater and soil were polluted to an extent that Indian public health authorities saw the need to post signs around wells and hand pumps advising the community that the water was unfit for human consumption.
In 2000, the company established its production operations in Plachimada. Local people claimed that they started experiencing water scarcity soon after the operations began. The state government initiated proceedings against Coca-Cola in 2003, and soon after that the High Court of Kerala prohibited Coca-Cola from over-extracting groundwater. By 2004 the company had suspended its production operations, while it attempted to renew its licence to operate. Coca- Cola argued that patterns of decreasing rainfall were the main cause of the draught conditions experienced in the area. After a long judicial procedure and ongoing demonstrations, the company succeeded in obtaining the licence renewal to resume its operations. In 2006 Coca- Cola’s successful re-establishment of operations was reversed when the government of Kerala banned the manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola products in Kerala on the ground that it was unsafe due to its high content of pesticides. However, the ban did not last for long and later that same year the High Court of India overturned Kerala’s Court decision. More recently, in March 2010, a state government panel recommended fining Coca-Cola’s Indian subsidiary a total of $47 million because of the damage caused to the water and soil in Kerala. Also, a special committee in charge of looking into claims by community members affected by the water pollution was set up.
The long legal procedures against the Indian government that Coca-Cola had to face were not the only consequence of the conflict. The brand suffered a great loss of consumer trust and reputational damage in India and abroad. In India there was an overall sales drop of 40% within two weeks after the release of the 2003 CSE report. The impact in annual sales was a decline of 15% in overall sales in 2003– in comparison to prior annual growth rates of 25-30%. This highly publicised conflict in India also caught the attention of consumers in the US. After a series of demonstrations by students who joined two activist groups in the US, ten American universities temporarily stopped selling Coca-Cola products at their campus facilities.
2.4. Coca-Cola’s CSR policies post-conflicts
Two years before the water conflict in India in 2003, Coca-Cola adopted the GRI Guidelines and started reporting on sustainability. By 2003, the company had already experienced a few CSR- related conflicts in other parts of the world. However, none of them had the grave consequence of a loss of trust in the company and its products by consumers and the public in general.
According to Pirson and Malhotra, the main reason why this controversy ended so badly for Coca-Cola lies in its response to the problem. Coca-Cola denied having produced beverages containing Elevated levels of pesticides, as well as having over-exploited and polluted water resources. By denying all claims and trying to prove its integrity, instead of demonstrating concern towards the situation, Coca-Cola failed to regain consumers’ trust. The Indian population viewed Coca-Cola as a corporate villain who cared more about profits than public

health. In comparison, previous conflicts experienced by the company in the US and Belgium were better handled because it included stakeholder engagement in its strategy.
It appears that the company became aware of its mistake after the controversy had been ongoing for a couple of years. In 2008 Jeff Seabright, Coca-Cola’s vice president of environment and water resources, recognized that the company had not adequately handled the controversy. He acknowledged that local communities’ perception of their operation matters, and that for the company ‘(...) having goodwill in the community is an important thing’.
Although Coca-Cola still denies most of the allegations, the reputational damage experienced after the controversy in India pushed Coca-Cola to take damage-control measures. Those measures at first consisted of statements to confirm Coca-Cola’s integrity. For example, Coca-Cola dedicated a page in the Corporate Responsibility Review of 2006 to address the controversy. The statement consisted mainly of providing information supporting its good practices and water management of its operations in India. But this statement did little to combat the declining sales and increasing losses exceeding investments. Coca-Cola gradually changed its strategy to include damage-control measures that addressed the Indian communities’ grievances. In 2008 the company published its first environmental performance report on operations in India, which covered activities from 2004 to 2007.53 It also created the Coca-Cola India Foundation, Anandana, which works with local communities and NGOs to address local water problems. But perhaps the most outstanding change of strategy by Coca-Cola consisted of launching various community water projects in India. An example is the rainwater harvesting project, where Coca-Cola’s operations partnered with the Central Ground Water Authority, the State Ground Water Boards, NGOs and communities to address water scarcity and depleting groundwater levels through rainwater harvesting techniques across 17 states in India. These techniques consist mainly of collecting and storing rainwater while preventing its evaporation and runoff for its efficient utilisation and conservation. The idea behind this is to capture large quantities of good quality water that could otherwise go to waste. By returning to the ecosystem the water used in its operations in India through water harvesting, the company expected that this project could eventually turn the company into a ‘net zero’ user of groundwater by 2009.55 In the 2012 Water Stewardship and Replenish Report, Coca-Cola stated that its operations in India have ‘achieved full balance between groundwater used in beverage production and that replenished to nature and communities – ahead of the global target’.
It appears that the controversy in India was a learning experience for the company, and that it motivated the company to adopt a more proactive CSR policy on a global scale that focuses on water management. In June 2007, Coca-Cola implemented a water stewardship programme and committed itself to reduce its operational water footprint and to offset the water used in the Company’s products through locally relevant projects. To achieve those commitments Coca-Cola established three measurable objectives:
(1) Reducing water use by improving water efficiency by 20% over 2004 levels by 2012. The latest data available from 2010 shows a 16% improvement over the 2004 baseline.
(2) Recycling water through wastewater treatment and returning all water used in manufacturing processes to the environment at a level that supports aquatic life and agriculture by the end of 2010. By September 2011, the progress observed concerning this target was 96%.59
(3) Replenishing water used by offsetting the litres of water used in finished beverages by 2020 through local projects that support communities and nature (i.e. watershed protection and rainwater harvesting). Currently, Coca-Cola reports that it holds a global portfolio of 386 community water partnerships or community-based replenish projects. By 2011, about 35% of the water used in finished beverages was replenished.
It is noteworthy that Coca-Cola publishes, in addition and separate to the sustainability reports, an annual water report. In these reports the company publishes assessments of and the

progress in its water initiatives. Some of the assessments are made by the Global Environment & Technology Foundation, an American NGO experienced in facilitating the creation of public- private partnerships.
Also, in 2007, Coca-Cola entered into a partnership with WWF. Its core objectives are increasing understanding on watersheds and water cycles to improve Coca-Cola’s water usage, working with local communities in various locations worldwide, and developing a common framework to preserve water sources. Finally, and also in the same year, the company became a member of the public-private initiative CEO Water Mandate, which is a public-private initiative that assists companies in the development, implementation and disclosure of water sustainability policies and practices.
ELEMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED
-Sustainability
-Accountability
-Transparency
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
-What are the principles od CSR involved in this case?
-What are the environmental issues and their effects and implications? -Should CSR be a voluntary Activity?
-What is the relation between CSR and profit?

In: Economics

8. A professor tests whether the loudness of noise during an exam (low, medium, and high)...

8. A professor tests whether the loudness of noise during an exam (low, medium, and high) is independent of exam grades (pass, fail). The following table shows the observed frequencies for this test.

Noise Level
Low Medium High
Exam Pass 21 17 9 47
Fail 9 6 12 27
30 23 21 N = 74

Part A) Conduct a chi-square test for independence at a 0.05 level of significance. (Round your answer to two decimal places.)

Decide whether to retain or reject the null hypothesis.

Part B) Compute effect size using Cramer's V. (Round your answer to two decimal places.)

9. What is Cramer's V for each of the following values for the chi-square test for independence? (Round your answers to two decimal places.)

Part A) X2 = 3.63, n = 50, dfsmaller = 1

Part B) X2 = 9.27, n = 120, dfsmaller = 2

Part C) X2 = 12.23, n = 160, dfsmaller = 3

In: Statistics and Probability