Archive search

Fraud has metamorphosed into a major global concern. Regardless of size, profitability, or industry, organizations currently face severe challenges concerning economic and operational sustainability in the wake of deliberate and unethical fraudulent acts. The PricewaterhouseCoopers (hereinafter referred to as PwC) (2020) survey revealed that 47% of international firms were affected by fraud compared to 49% in 2018, 36% in 2016, 37% in 2014, and 34% in 2011. The PwC’s (2020) survey respondents reported total losses of 42 billion USD owing to fraud that negatively impacted brands, reputations, and market shares. Ironically, only 56% of the affected organizations conducted investigations, whereas barely one-third of these companies reported fraudulent outcomes to their boards.

The relationship between a company and a supplier is a strategic resource for both parties. However, not every such relationship can be considered strategic. In order for a relationship to assume strategic importance, it must be special (or unique) in some terms and difficult to imitate. Otherwise, it will not contribute to making the company stand out against the competition. Such relationships may be formed in two areas. Firstly, they may be intended to increase the company’s access to financial resources; secondly, they facilitate investment (Tyszkiewicz, 2017b). It is noteworthy that partnership is based on such elements as trust and communication. These factors produce a continuous and deepening effect to ensure long-term results satisfactory for both parties involved. It is also significant to define the roles, tasks, and responsibilities of the suppliers and the clients, as well as to fairly share risks, costs, and profits arising from implementation of new initiatives (Christopher, 2000).

Understanding of the reasons of destructive relationships in work environment is a big step towards the solution of the problem. In recent years, there are a growing number of studies which analyse various aspects of such relations in the work environment. Mobbing and harassment take a significant place. However, when analysing academic literature, there is a dual problem: in many studies mobbing and single cases of harassment are researched separately.

Interest in diversification has largely focused on three topics: the way in which business diversification can be measured, the relationship between diversification and business results and the factors that determine diversification. However, less attention has been paid to the impact of ownership structure (concentration and main shareholder) on degree of business diversification.

Observations of animal behaviour show the natural origin of mobbing phenomenon, which later has been compared with people behaviour, which later acquires rather sophisticated forms within people communities.

Tento příspěvek přináší shrnutí výzkumu, který autorka prováděla na podzim roku 2012. Příspěvek je zaměřen na téma microfranchisingu.Tento pojem vyjadřuje užití franchisingového podnikatelského konceptu jako nástroje rozvojové pomoci (definice autorky). Hlavním východiskem a důvodem pro zaměření článku je fakt, že početné publikace a studie zahraničních i domácích autorů přiinesly v poslední době kritiku nefunkčních modelů a typů oficiální a tradiční rozvojové pomoci.

Since the first publication of the article about the Balanced Scorecard system (BSC) by the authors Kaplan and Norton [21], there was publicized many books and professional and scientific reports related to this topic [6], [7], [17]. Empirical researches of practical applications that exist within them refer to identical statement that states: “there exist only few experimental papers with this topic” [2], [3], [8], [15], [27], [28]. This was the reason for substantiation of the solution meaning for a performance measurement of the BSC system in Slovakia, where there has not been realized any complex study of the BSC system implementation yet.

A cohesive work group is perhaps one of the most sought after organizational phenomena as it is associated with numerous individual and organizational level outcomes. While no “Holy Grail”, cohesive groups have been shown to be better performers in both a process (via better communication) and a goal achievement sense.