Example collocations logo

Firms in sentence

3712 examples of Firms in a sentence

Only a small handful of international bonds are denominated in SDRs, because banks and firms do not find this option particularly attractive.
If Chinese banks and firms are slow to adjust, liberalizing international capital flows will lead only to more volatility, fewer offshore deposits, and less reliance on the renminbi for settling merchandise transactions – exactly as has been the case recently.
Concerns about bankruptcy - that the high interest rates pushed by the IMF in East Asia would force firms into distress, even adversely effect the exchange rates while destroying economies and making countries less attractive to investors - derived from a theory of corporate finance, itself derived from theories of asymmetric information.
According to the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), a coordinated effort by South African construction firms, banks, financial institutions, and government ministries – in partnership with their counterparts in other African countries – could triple this share, potentially creating 80,000 new domestic jobs from exports of construction services by 2030.
Moreover, Assad has stated explicitly that European companies are not welcome to help with the reconstruction, and that preference should be given to Russian firms.
In order to shift firms’ emphasis from minimizing initial costs to maximizing total value, while ensuring the protection of people’s health and well-being, governments should change their tendering processes by implementing requirements for circularity, thereby helping to drive demand for new solutions.
Reforming Employment ProtectionThere may be no labor market institution more controversial than employment protection regulation--the complex set of laws and procedures that govern how firms hire and fire workers.
Firms complain not only about the direct cost, but also about the complexity and the uncertainty introduced by such regulation.
Workers, on the other hand, focus on the pain of unemployment, and argue that such pain should be taken into account by firms when they consider closing a plant or laying off a worker.
Under pressure from firms to decrease protection, and from workers to maintain it, European governments have navigated carefully, looking for politically acceptable reforms.
Economically, easier recourse to temporary contracts gives firms more flexibility in adjusting to changing market conditions.
Firms are typically reluctant to keep workers on when their temporary contracts end, as this would imply giving them high employment protection.
From a political point of view, the fact that the majority of workers remains highly protected, and that firms have more flexibility than before, decreases the pressure for coherent, across-the-board reform.
Simply put, if firms find it more profitable to close a job or a plant even after paying the social costs of their decision, then it does not make sense to keep that job or plant open.
This means that firms that lay off more workers do not pay more.
But firms that lay off more workers should pay more.
Higher layoff taxes, which force firms to think twice before laying off, would be welcomed by workers, while lighter and more predictable regulation of employment relations would surely be welcomed by firms.
A stronger renminbi lowers the cost to Chinese consumers and Chinese firms of imported products as expressed in renminbi.
Major firms are begging for government handouts to tide them over.
They develop new norms by directly pressing governments and businesses to change policies, and indirectly by altering public perceptions of what governments and firms should do.
This is the latest in a series of revelations of how US information-technology firms have been enlisted, knowingly or otherwise, in the “war on terror” – revelations that are threatening the American IT sector’s global dominance.
Since the scale of the NSA’s Internet eavesdropping came to light, governments and large companies outside of the United States are questioning the capacity of American IT firms to guarantee their products’ security.
Cost-plus contracting allowed what were then small technology firms like Hewlett-Packard and Fairchild Semiconductor to charge the Department of Defense for the price of research and development that none could pay on its own.
This enabled the firms to create technology products that eventually created entire new markets and economic sectors.
This undermines consumers’ faith in firms’ willingness or ability to guarantee their privacy, while making it difficult for companies to claim the moral high ground when, say, China’s government restricts their domestic operations.
But, as European and Asian IT firms catch up, America’s advantage will gradually deteriorate.
In one of the newest IT fields, cloud computing, where US firms are pioneers, firms and entrepreneurs in many countries are exploring the creation of non-US alternatives.
First and foremost, Obama, with support from Congress, must demand the release of all information regarding interactions between national security agencies and American IT firms.
The International Labor Organization defines it as comprising firms that are small enough to fall outside the labor code.
Whatever the definition, what has concerned many economists and gained policymakers’ attention is that the size distribution of firms in developing countries has a long tail.
BackNext