Example collocations logo

Firms in sentence

3712 examples of Firms in a sentence

To meet this demand, the world’s agribusiness firms will attempt to boost their annual meat output from 300 million tons today to 480 million tons by 2050, generating serious social challenges and ecological pressures at virtually every stage of the value chain (feed supply, production, processing, and retail).
Two-thirds of the recent growth of banks’ balance sheets in the UK represents internal claims among banks rather than claims between banks and non-financial firms – a clear case of money breeding money.
Lower borrowing and capital investment by firms reduces future productivity growth and growth in real incomes.
But in MENA countries, the conditions for doing business with the government – including tendering requirements, payment schedules, and bureaucratic demands – tend to be prohibitive for small firms (10-50 employees).
While firms can quickly shed workers during hard times, this then results in labor shortages when conditions improve.
Maybe the collapse stems from lousy internal controls in financial firms that, swaddled by implicit government guarantees, lavish their employees with enormous rewards for risky behavior.
So is buying or holding equity in firms that may be holding risky assets, regardless of how “safe” a firm’s stock was previously thought to be.
Unfortunately, faced with a choice between protecting the long-term interests and human rights of their customers and complying with laws implemented by unelected power-holders, technology firms like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google seem to have embraced the Ah Q spirit.
Numerous honest owners of privatized firms and new private businesses are included.
Monetary easing and fiscal stimulus, combined with structural measures to restore private firms to financial health, would stimulate household expenditure and business investment.
And these data refer to formal changes in laws and regulations; no data are available on the extent to which unchanged laws and regulations are implemented in a more restrictive manner, increasing informal barriers to the entry and operations of foreign firms.
The financial crisis and recession may dampen the rise of FDI protectionism, as countries seek capital to shore up local firms and increase investment to help them promote economic recovery.
On one hand, emerging-market multinationals are excelling even in high-value-added and technology-intensive sectors; on the other hand, firms from OECD countries are increasingly re-importing innovation from emerging-market companies.
Many countries provide investors in publicly traded firms with levels of protection that are patently inadequate.
They have the power to direct their firms’ campaign contributions, to offer positions or business to politicians’ relatives or associates (or to politicians upon retirement), and to use their businesses to support issues and causes that politicians seek to advance.
Because insiders gain the full benefits that arise through lobbying for lax corporate governance rules, while their firms bear most of the costs of such lobbying, insiders have an advantage in the competition for influence over politicians.
Some institutional investors are part of publicly traded firms, and are consequently under the control of corporate insiders whose interests are not served by new constraints.
Its violations include maintaining nontariff barriers to keep out foreign competition; subsidizing exports; tilting the domestic market in favor of Chinese companies; pirating intellectual property; using antitrust laws to extort concessions; and underwriting acquisitions of foreign firms to bring home their technologies.
The 40 largest firms listed in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are predominantly “owned” by foreign institutional investors.
The problem, however, is not only the firms that exist; equally important are those that do not, because they were never founded or did not expand (if they had, South Africa would not be lacking the nine million jobs its people are seeking).
Another line of reasoning is that businesses that depend heavily on continuity – for example, hospitals, outsourcing firms in India, and stock exchanges – will invest in their own backup systems.
In fact, such firms are emerging – almost unnoticed – everywhere, from Asian megalopolises like Singapore and Shanghai to small European cities like Espoo in Finland and Dwingeloo in the Netherlands.
It counts influential Silicon Valley firms such as Sequoia Capital, Northgate Capital, and Comcast Ventures as investors.
On the other hand, foreign banks were always falling short in assuring an adequate supply of credit to small and medium sized Argentine firms.
This tendency at times of economic downturn suggests that SWFs are not the long-term, stable shareholders of foreign firms that they (and some commentators) claim themselves to be.
Beyond the obvious violation of individuals’ privacy implied by such activities lies the danger that these firms will later make a deal with authoritarian regimes in Russia or China, where little, if any, effort is made to preserve even the illusion of privacy.
A private actor with a new idea often needs government approval to start up; and firms that enter an existing industry must compete with incumbents that usually already have government support.
Likewise, cutting fiscal support (via government-directed bank lending) to zombie firms would free up fiscal capacity and enable resources to be redirected to new sectors that facilitate services and urban employment; but this would exacerbate – at least at first – today’s demand shortfall.
Apart from capital injections for construction work, support could take the form of subsidized rents or assistance for firms that employ refugees.
In particular, their executives operate highly opaque firms, with risks effectively masked from outsiders and very little in the way of loss-absorbing shareholder equity.
BackNext