1. My name is Azamat. I am 21 years old. I am from Kazakhstan, particular the Almaty city. I have
already graduated from the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and my current major
specialization is International Relations. The reason for choosing that university for getting my
bachelor degree that it is the top university in Kazakhstan with a high level of education and the
first university that has been established in Kazakhstan. I decided to study international relations
because my country is a young country that has recently begun to integrate into the international
community. I am interested in developing relations of Kazakhstan with other countries.
Particularly important is the fact that today it is necessary to develop cooperation in the field of
business. For this I need to expand my knowledge of international business.
So, my choice of university for continuing my education falls on Robert Gordon University. I
really want to continue my education there because that University is recognized as one of the
top universities of United Kingdom and offers the high quality of education. I have already
visited the official website of the university and I was impressed with the infrastructure of the
university as well as the beauty of the city of Aberdeen. Moreover, I was attracted by the
possibility of learning Master's program in International Business. I am convinced that the
Business School of the University is considered one of the strongest in the UK. As for the major
reason I can definitely say that I believe that I can get a highly qualified education and
experience there that will help me in the future to contribute to the development of Kazakhstan.
Despite the fact that I have studied International Relations on my bachelor degree I would like to
broaden my knowledge by studying business, especially International Business. I expect that in
the future, knowledge of business and international relations will help me to reach a certain level
to create an enabling environment in my home country. I realized the fact that countries develop
most rapidly when they installed the affiliates with many states which in turn impact on
economic growth and create conditions for business. It is vital to note that Kazakhstan has all
conditions for successful international business. And I like a man who loves his country hope
that getting a good education at the Robert Gordon University I will be able to help my country
to reach new heights. Now I am studying business on pre-master course in Kaplan International
College and I really hope that the basic knowledge that I receive here will help me in my further
studies of international business. Finally, I am interested in learning the specialty International
Business, because I think that in the future skills in this area will help me to make a successful
career.
One of the biggest corporate fads of the 1990s—less overpowering, no doubt, than dotcom
mania, but also longer-lived—was the flowering of “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). The
idea that it is not enough for firms to make money for their owners is one that you might expect

2. to be an article of faith among anti-globalists and eco-warriors. Many bosses now share, or say
they share, the same conviction.
In a survey of the 1,500 delegates (most of them business leaders) attending the Davos meetings,
fewer than one in five of those responding said that profitability was the most important measure
of corporate success. Admittedly, even fewer, just 5%, named CSR in its own right as the single
most important criterion; but one might add to this the additional 24% who said that the
reputation and integrity of the brand, to which good corporate citizenship presumably
contributes, matter most. (The quality of the product was the highest-scoring category, with
27%.) When asked to name the leading threat to “security and integrity of the corporate brand”,
38% of the businessmen who responded said “economics/markets”. Evidently, not all the anti-
capitalists in Davos are huddled outside the conference rooms.
There's profit in it
CSR, at any rate, is thriving. It is now an industry in itself, with full-time staff, websites,
newsletters, professional associations and massed armies of consultants. This is to say nothing of
those employed by the NGOs that started it all. Students approaching graduation attend seminars
on “Careers in Corporate Social Responsibility”. The annual reports of almost every major
company nowadays dwell on social goals advanced and good works undertaken. The FTSE and
Dow Jones have both launched indices of socially responsible companies. Greed is out.
Corporate virtue, or the appearance of it, is in.
Advocates of CSR typically respond that this misses the point: corporate virtue is good for
profits. And so it may be, on occasion. The trouble is, CSR that pays dividends, so to speak, is
unlikely to impress the people whose complaints first put CSR on the board's agenda. So there is
a dilemma. Profit-maximising CSR does not silence the critics, which was the initial aim; CSR
that is not profit-maximising might silence the critics but is, in fact, unethical.
An unusually persuasive advocate of the view that CSR—or “compassionate capitalism”, as he
calls it—benefits shareholders, employees and the needy all at once is Marc Benioff, boss of
salesforce.com, a private company (for now) that provides online customer-relationship-
management services. In a new book, co-written with Karen Southwick, Mr Benioff argues that
corporate philanthropy, done right, transforms the culture of the firm concerned*. “Employees
seeking greater levels of fulfilment in their own lives will have to look no further than their

3. workplace.” As well as doing the right thing, the firm will attract and retain better people, and
they will work more productively. He makes it seem plausible.
Unlike some advocates of CSR, Mr Benioff says he opposes government mandates to undertake
such activities. Compulsion would neutralise the gains for corporate culture, he points out. (He is
not averse to tax relief, however, and complains that America's corporate-tax code does too little
to encourage his charity.) In any case, if Mr Benioff is right, and CSR done wisely helps
businesses succeed, compulsion should not be needed. Companies like salesforce.com and the
others discussed in his book will thrive, and the model will catch on by force of example.
The report features case studies of Shell, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Coca-Cola—all
of them, it says, noted for paying lip-service to CSR while “making things worse for the
communities in which they work.” Shell, says the report, claims to be a good neighbour, but
leaves oil spills unattended to. Its community-development projects are “frequently ineffective”.
BAT, it says, claims to give farmers training and protective clothes; contract farmers in Kenya
and Brazil say otherwise. Coca-Cola promises to use natural resources responsibly. The report
accuses an Indian subsidiary of depleting village wells. So, “instead of talking about more
voluntary CSR in Davos, government...should be discussing how new laws can raise standards of
corporate behaviour.” ( ; 22/01/2004)
http://www.economist.com/node/2369912