Reading
Read the following sentences and decide which of them reflect the context of the text. Find the proof in the text.
It is known that Nike was following "sweatshop policy" and that ruined its reputation in the world of sportswear.
Some companies consider ethics just for commercial gain.
Working conditions are really important for commercial gain.
It takes a lot of time to work out the quality of cloth and the latest is a significant part of ethical manufacturing.
Martin Raymond supposes that Nike was ethically wrong in 1990s but now things are changing.
To make more money, you should consider ethics.
III. Answer the following questions:
Why did fashion brands often have a poor track record when it came to ethical conduct and social responsibility?
Why must not brand owners substantiate any ethical claims they make?
Do they also risk being criticised by consumers for cynically exploiting doing the right thing for commercial gain?
Is the fashion business uniquely suited to addressing third-world issues?
If you are behaving ethically might you as well talk about it, as long as you have made sure there are no chinks in your ethical practices?
Is it very risky simply claiming you're ethical?
IV. Find in the text the English equivalents to the following words and create your own sentences using them:
обозначить отношения
в противовес заявлению
платежеспособность
разрекламировать
политика потогонной системы
держать на плаву
повлиять на чье-либо положение
установленные бренды
промах
загадка, головоломка
V. Read the following article and summarize the main recommendations for running a successful business meal. Text II. Choosing The Wrong Meal Can Ruin a Big Deal
Revelations that Sir John Bourn, the UK auditor-general, enjoyed dinner on expenses worth £125 a head at Wiltons as well as gastronomic delights at the Ritz, Savoy and Dorchester did not sit comfortably with a man who preaches prudence.
It is a reminder that when it comes to business dining, the choice of restaurant should fit with the image of the organisation you represent. As Colin Lewis, head of sales and marketing at Aer Arann, the airline, says: "It's essential to choose a venue that represents what we stand for as an organisation."
For
something that might appear pretty straightforward, choosing a venue
for a business lunch can be an etiquette minefield. The atmosphere
needs to be appropriate; the price needs to be right; the location
needs to be easy to reach - and that's before we move to food,
service and your dining companion's dietary requirements. Get any of
these wrong and your lunch, instead of being a convivial breaking of
(wheat-free) bread, could leave a nasty taste.
"For business lunches," says Linda Zagat, co-founder of the New York-based Zagat Guides, "it's not about the most spectacular food. The key criterion is somewhere you can hear one another but not be overheard as your lunch may involve confidential discussions."
Elisabeth Marx, a partner at headhunters Heidrick & Struggles, chooses a restaurant with a discreet level of noise and a clear gap between the tables. She notes that the flashy dine-to-impress ethic of the 1980s and early 1990s is a thing of the past, and today's time-poor business people may want a restaurant where they can get in and out quickly - and where eating a single course is acceptable.
Lord Karan Bilimoria, founder and chairman of Cobra Beer says: "The days of four-hour City lunches went with the Big Bang in 1986."
Robin Jay, the Las Vegas-based author of The Art of the Business Lunch , recommends choosing a restaurant that has a business-like approach. "You need a place where the staff don't interrupt you. For instance, I had a recent lunch where the waitress asked us if everything was OK every five minutes. She stacked the plates at the table and took forever to bring the cheque."
Ms Jay adds that you will need somewhere that takes reservations and is convenient for both parties. Moreover, they should take credit cards in order to avoid awkward questions over the bill.
Perhaps in keeping with his UK property development company's company's funky image, Urban Splash co-founder Tom Bloxham says he looks for "somewhere that has atmosphere, that's exciting and buzzing - preferably full of interesting people". He adds that familiarity can be important too. "It's good if they know you, so you can get a good table."
Ms Zagat agrees: "It should be a place that you know and knows you, so that you're treated with respect as the host."
On the subject of familiarity - if you're dining with someone you don't know, take them to a restaurant you do - the wilder shores of gastronomy are for pleasure, not business.
A related consideration is that your guest may have specific dietary requirements. Here you have some leeway. For instance, real allergies and religious beliefs are important and may rule out some restaurants. Fashionable diets can be treated with a little more circumspection.
Splashing the cash is not always advisable. Andy Gilchrist's decision to spend £800 at London's Cinnamon Club while his firefighters were out on strike doubtless has much to do with his no longer being the general secretary of the UK Fire Brigades Union. Such considerations are not just for the public sector - it's worth remembering that even in banking or advertising, spending a fortune can leave others with the impression that your company wastes money.
There are exceptions to all these rules. If you know your dining companion well, you may wish to go to a restaurant that charges a fortune, doesn't take reservations, serves chilli-laced pig's trotters and accepts only cash. But even on these occasions, you should be taking them there because they would enjoy it. As Ms Marx points out, perhaps the most important thing is to demonstrate that you are thinking of your guest, not yourself.