Perevod_I

reaction to the Chancellor's annual Budget proposals: will they be good or bad for your business, and how will this affect the livelihood of local people and especially the organization's own employees?

It is important not to overlook opportunities to establish contact with local councillors. If a new factory is being opened, for example, the chairman of the local council, or the mayor if there is one, should be invited, as should the chairman of any relevant council committees, and the local councillors themselves, bearing in mind the fact that there will usually be a local and a county or regional councillor for each area. Never forget the local angle, but also never forget to invite the local MP on such occasions, or the hard work mentioned in the previous chapter could well be wasted!

Sometimes, as we shall see in the final section of this chapter, an open day for employees or local people can be good community relations, and this is another opportunity to invite councillors. As guests, councillors do need escorting and pampering and, most important of all, they thrive on media coverage, so the local newspapers should be invited – and have a photograp her with a good reputation with the local newspaper handy, just in case the newspaper photographer fails to turn up, or misses the best photographic opportunity.

Pressure groups

Many businessmen consider pressure groups to be a nuisance, but a moment's thought is required before writing off all pressure groups as nuisances. After all, many businesses belong to pressure groups, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI, or specialized groups for companies involved in a particular sector or in a particular town or city, in the case of the chambers of commerce, for instance. Not only do businesses have membership of pressure groups, but businessmen individually often do so as well, in the case of the Institute of Directors, for example.

Pressure groups can also become respectable and even pillars of society in other ways. Many do not realize that the National Trust in England and Wales started as a pressure group but then became a more obviously functional organization owning large tracts of land and many historic buildings. But it can still be active in lobbying and media relations, as and when the need arises. Pressure groups are not simply agitators, they are often 'doers' as well, providing services.Other good examples include the two British motoring organizations, the RAC and the AA, who lobby as well as providing breakdown and other services.

Perhaps we should also remember that we are ourselves at differing times users of public transport and pedestrians. We are all environmentalists when it comes to our own neighbourhood or our favourite weekend or holiday retreat.

There are two ways to cope with pressure groups. The first is to oppose them and make strenuous efforts to put forward your organization's case, bypassingthem if necessary in a bid for media and public support. The second way, which is better if at all possible, is to attempt co-operation.

It would be unrealistic to argue here that all pressure groups are amenable to friendly co-operation, since sometimes the divergence in opinion is too large to bridge or find any common ground, especially if the pressure group contains politically motivated activists. Yet it would also be misguided to assume that every pressure group comprises cranks and anarchists, even though there are examples of these in abundance. Nevertheless, co-operation can produce surprising results. One railway manager was put in charge of a main line with the brief to preside over its eventual closure, which was against the wishes of a well-entrenched pressure group. Contact led to co-operation, with the result that revenue quadrupled, services were doubled, and eight stations along the 72-mile route re-opened! Earning four times as much revenue on twice as many trains can only be regarded as a commercial success.

Regardless of differences in opinion, attempting contact with pressure groups is important if any media or public sympathy is desired. The essentials are that contact should be attempted, otherwise the failure to attempt even this will be construed by the public, politicians and the media as an admission of guilt on the part of the organization. It may not be possible to convince the hard core of any pressure group that they are wrong and your organization is right, but it may be possible to convince many inside the group, and many more outside it, that the organization has a strong case. Criticism must be countered, using facts and statistics, but above all reacting openly and honestly, never seeking to confuse or fudge issues, since one can only mislead the media, and through them the public and politicians, once. Credibility, once lost, is hard to re-establish. If there is an incident, a mistake or an accident, the facts must be established and admitted to immediately, otherwise one is simply serving the purposes of those who would attack the organization. Unanswered criticism also has a severe impact on credibility.

31

Contact with the leaders of pressure groups should not be delegated too low in the organization. Those who have to meet such people must have the experience, authority and first-hand knowledge to be able to discuss issues wisely and sensibly, and, of course, they must be able to communicate well, being approachable and articulate, and patient enough to accept that outsiders will frequently misunderstand industrial processes, legislation or market forces.

There may sometimes be the offer of a public debate or an open meeting. Such invitations can be useful, but they can also be fraught with dangers. One needs to be assured that the meeting will attract people who are open-minded on the subject, and that the chair will be experienced, objective and have the necessary authority. Even this is not enough, since the representatives of the organization must be good debaters, in full possession of their facts, able to appreciate the point being raised by often inexpert and not always articulate questioners, and answer directly and simply, with some charm, not condescension or abruptness. The audience can also be prepared as they arrive for a public meeting if a small exhibition is mounted in the entrance hall.

Of course, some organizations have no option but to face public inquiry and present themselves at this kind of open meeting. Good examples of those who have local answerability are the police and education or health authorities, but business can also become involved. Companies which undertake local authority contracts, for example, have to accept that they need to be able to present a good local image, and be accountable for the standard of service provided.

Everything depends on the quality of an organization and its local management. As with so much else in PR, it is only really possible to conduct a first-class PR campaign if the organization itself warrants it. Heavy lorries rumbling through the streets might be controversial, but it helps their owners' case if they are modern, clean and well-maintained, and in the hands of responsible drivers. Ill-maintained lorries, with reckless or careless drivers, will alienate even the least interested and most impartial local observer.

Local community relations

Relations with the local community extend beyond dealing with the local authority, the local newspaper, or pressure groups. Practice differs between one country and another. In many countries, especially those with a preponderance of what are sometimes described as 'single company' towns, the relationship between business and the community is far closer than is common in the UK. The best example of this lies in the application of corporate largesse. In many countries local facilities, such as a sports centre or a library, are built and often maintained at the cost of a local company. British industry seldom provides this type of benefit, possibly because British companies look at a wider audience than their overseas counterparts but also because they are embarrassed by corporate largesse and the way in which this might be misrepresented in the minds of customers or investors. This is not to suggest that British companies never support the provision of local facilities, but when they do so it is usually as a contributor with a large number of other companies. The tendency is to spread the benefits around widely, but thinly.

Local sponsorship budgets for management in businesses with a branch network are of necessity kept low, but much the same attitude prevails with local sponsorship at head office or principle location level. Local budgets can be difficult to control, and there can also be problems in preventing one charity or another being too well supported while others are neglected. One solution is to ensure that local management has the discretion to support local charities and sponsorships only, while national and international charities are handled from head office.

Nevertheless, local community relations go beyond simply pumping money into the community. One paint manufacturer discovered that the residents of houses close to a factory were concerned about the safety implications of having a major paint factory on their doorstep. Although not well organized, the local concern gave rise to problems in attracting good employees, and relationships between employees and local businesses tended to be difficult. Relations started to improve after an open day was organized for local people. This gave them the opportunity both to visit the factory and to inspect the production processes and safety procedures, and to discuss their fears with the local management.

The exercise sounds easy, but of course it needed good preparation, including advance publicity in the local newspaper and the circulation of leaflets to local homes. Employee support for the idea was necessary, and the factory had to be prepared, with displays showing the production processes, and a route through the factory clearly signed, roped off and safety of the visitors ensured. Guides had to be provided for official parties

32

of local councillors and journalists, and staff had to be placed at strategic points to answer the questions of the visiting public.

An awareness of the local attitudes to a company and its impact on the community is essential, and not always negative. The managing director of a haulage company which had located a major new haulage depot and ferry terminal took some pride in telling journalists that not only had it directly created several hundred jobs locally, but indirectly had also contributed to the local economy, with shops across the road from the depot recruiting extra workers as just one example.

Some businesses are of interest to local schools, and can provide speakers with visual aids or offer school visits, and there are also opportunities to provide visits or speakers for other local organizations – political groups, or the Women's Institute or Townswomen's Guild, for example. Nothing could be worse than to assume that local community relationships need necessarily be confrontational.

(D.W. Wragg. The Public Relations Handbook)

Unit 2: Business

Text 1:

A matter of choice

That hardy workhorse of capitalism—the joint-stock company—looks surprisingly durable. But pressure on it is increasing

Browse in the business section of any decent bookshop and you are confronted with an extraordinary array of possible futures for the company. Will it be digital or doughnut shaped? Virtual or elephantine? Networked or focused? Lean or fat? Mean or soulful? The future seems to hold almost every possible fate for the corporation except one: being bland and boring.

Much of this is hype, of course: bland and boring does not sell books. But it does point to an important fact: that the organisation which so many of us take for granted is in a state of rapid evolution. To understand just how rapid take a look at John Kenneth Galbraith's “The New Industrial State”, an intriguing portr ait of the state of corporate America back in 1967. Mr Galbraith argued that America was run by a quasi-benevolent oligopoly. A handful of big companies—the big three car companies, the big five steel companies, etc.— planned the economy in the name of stability.

They were hierarchical and bureaucratic organisations that were in the business of making long runs of standardised products. They introduced “new and imp roved” varieties with predictable regularity; they provided their workers with life-time employment; and they enjoyed fairly good relations with the giant trade unions. (About 40% of the manufacturing workforce was then unionised.) What's more, they were all American.

That world is now dead. America's giant companies have been either eviscerated or transformed by global competition. Most have shifted their production systems from high-volume to high-value, from standardised to customised. And they have flattened their management hierarchies to make themselves nimbler and fitter. Few people these days expect to spend their lives moving up the ladder of a single organisation.

It is reasonable to expect that further dramatic changes lie ahead. But where exactly will they take us? Where is the modern company heading?

Bigger and bolder

There are three standard answers to this question, the first two of which are almost diametrically opposed

to each other. The first—particularly popular in an	ti-globalisation circles—holds that a handful of gi ant
companies are engaged in a “silent takeover” of the	world, in the words of Noreena Hertz, a Cambridge

University academic. The past couple of decades have seen an unprecedented spurt of mergers. The survivors, it is maintained, are the real lords of the universe today: far more powerful than mere nation states.

Like Mr Galbraith's oligarchs, these corporate barons plan the world economy for their own sinister purposes. But they have none of the offsetting advantages of providing life-time security and a stable environment. The trouble with this view is, er, the facts. As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has pointed out, Ms Hertz's claim that “51 of the 100 biggest economies of the world are now corporations” abuses statistics. She measures companies by sales, but national economies by GDP (which is a measure of value added, more akin to corporate profits).

33

Rather than increasing their hold over the universe, big companies have been losing ground. In 1970, both the television and car markets in America were controlled by triumvirates, each with a combined share of around 90%. Today, the big three are hanging on to around half of each market.

Futuristic industries offer no more comfort. Two American business-school professors, Fariborz Ghadar and Pankaj Ghemawat, point out that in computer hardware, computer software and long-distance telephony, the top five companies' shares of worldwide sales declined by 15 to 30 percentage points each between 1988 and 1998. It is hard to think of an industry that has become more competitive in recent years—let alon e one that is likely to do so in future.

The second school of thought argues almost the opposite of the first: it says that big companies are a thing of the past. For a glimpse of the future, its proponents recommend the Monorail Corporation, which sells computers. Monorail owns no factories, warehouses or any other tangible asset. It operates from a single floor that it leases in an office building in Atlanta. Its computers are designed by freelance workers. To place orders, customers call a free-phone number connected to Federal Express's logistics service, which passes the orders on to a contract manufacturer that assembles them from various parts. FedEx then ships the computer to the customer and sends the invoice to the SunTrust Bank, Monorail's agent. The company is not much of anything except a good idea, a handful of people in Atlanta, and a bunch of contracts.

This school has the benefit of having economic theory on its side. In 1937, Ronald Coase, a Nobel-prize- winning economist, asked a fundamental question: “W hy do firms exist?” His answer: companies make sens e when the “transaction costs” associated with buying things on the market exceed the fixed costs of establishing and maintaining a bureaucracy. Modern technology is shifting the balance of advantage away from firms and towards markets. Their current goal is to focus on the few things at which they undoubtedly excel and to hand over everything else to equally focused specialists.

Yet the idea that the firm will retreat to the periphery of the economy still looks far fetched. As Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad, two management academics, have pointed out, firms possess certain “core competences”, usually cultural ones, that cannot ea sily be purchased on the market. Even leaving culture aside, there are still market failures that persuade firms to try to do things internally rather than externally. If a firm thinks a contractor possesses knowledge that is vital to its own survival, it has every incentive to take over that supplier.

The network is everything

The third forecast is an offshoot of the second: that the discrete company is no longer the basic building block of the modern economy. This school argues that it is being replaced by the “network”.

In some parts of the world, such webs have long been the norm. The economies of Japan and South Korea are dominated by keiretsu and chaebol—large groupings of inter-related companies. In oth er parts of Asia, the overseas Chinese operate through a maze of interlinked family companies. Nor is it just an eastern fashion. Italy's most important commercial empires knit together strings of companies through cross-shareholdings.

Now companies everywhere are dissolving the boundaries with their suppliers, customers and even rivals. A study in the late 1990s by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, a consultancy, reckoned that alliances in the United States had grown by 25% a year over the preceding decade, and by more in Europe and Asia. In his new book, “The Agenda”, Michael Hammer, the co-inventor of th e re-engineering fad, stresses the importance of firms “losing their identity” in an extended enterprise, and “getting past the idea” of being a self-contain ed unit.

Networks are seen not just as an answer to external competition, but also as a way of giving more freedom to today's prized “knowledge workers”. The inventor of that term, Peter Drucker, who laid out his own forecast for the firm's future in this newspaper (November 3rd), argues that the way forward lies in networks, such as the purchasing co-operative that has been set up by Detroit's big three car makers.

In Silicon Valley, hierarchical organisations are dissolving into fluid “networks of treaties”. Free-f loating groups of entrepreneurs form such a network to market an idea. They then sell it to the highest bidder and move on to produce another idea and to create another firm, with the money being supplied all the while by the valley's venture capitalists. Hence the talk of a Kleiner Perkins keiretsu, based around the eponymous venturecapital firm.

Despite all this, however, the idea that the basic agent in the modern economy is ceasing to be the firm and becoming the network is unconvincing. One reason is that the networking concept has bundled together too many contradictory ideas. For instance, some networks take a step back from the market (a keiretsu protects its

34

member companies behind the walls of a group), while others break down corporate barriers precisely in order to become more market-driven (the funkier Silicon Valley lot).

The older sort of network hardly looks futuristic. America has dismantled most of its conglomerates, and now the same process is beginning to happen in Japan and South Korea as managers there desperately try to focus their unwieldy organisations. Even in the more recent alliances, it looks as if the firms are governing the networks rather than the other way round. In Silicon Valley, the firm remains the basis of economic activity.

Firms possess both a legal personality and a system of internal accountability; networks have no clear way of deciding either ownership or accountability. This makes it difficult for them to make joint decisions or to divide up profits (witness the desperate attempts of Airbus to become a stand-alone company). Where a network works, it is usually because a firm is driving it. Without that, a tendency to agonise over the most mundane decisions takes over.

(The Economist)

Vocabulary practice

1.Read the text.

2.Match the words and phrases in List A with those in List B. Learn these lexical units.

List A	List B
1. employment	a. консалтинговая фирма
2. workforce | labour force	b. идущий на риск предприниматель
3. GDP (gross domestic product)	c. специалист в области анализа и обработки
	информации / информационных технологий
4. GNP (gross national product)	d. аппаратное оборудование | “ железо” | “ железки”
5. value added	e. диаметрально противоположный
6. computer hardware	f. рабочая сила
7. computer software	g. валовой национальный продукт | совокупный
	общественный продукт
8. an invoice	h. добавленная стоимость
9. fixed costs	i. товарный склад
10. a consultancy	j. валовой внутренний продукт
11. legal personality	k. свободные / независимые группы
	предпринимателей
12. a venture capitalist	l. изготовленные по специальному заказу товары
13. standardized products	m. фиксированные расходы
14. diametrically opposed	n. учет / отчетность
15. a warehouse	o. счет-фактура
16. a knowledge worker	p. правосубъектность
17. free-floating groups of entrepreneurs	q. программное обеспечение | программные
	средства | компьютерные программы
18. accountability	r. стандартизованные / унифицированные товары
19. customized products	s. занятость (рабочей силы)

3.Learn the words and phrases listed in the ‘Essential vocabulary’ section.

4.Match the words and phrases in List A with those in List B.

List A	List B
1. a private (limited) company	a. давать / приносить прибыль
2. a sole proprietor | a sole trader	b. предприниматель
3. to establish / form / set up / start (up) a	c. компания / общество с неограниченной
company	ответственностью (ее / его членов)
4. a limited liability company	d. поглощение (другой компании)
5. a public limited company	e. слияние / объединение компаний
5. to manage / operate / run a business	f. оформить юридический статус фирмы как

35

	корпорации
6. a sales target	g. частная акционерная компания | закрытое
	акционерное общество
7. a joint-stock company	h. общество с ограниченной ответственностью
8. a partnership	i. приобретение
9. to make / realize / reap / turn (a) profit	j. открытая акционерная компания | открытое
	акционерное общество
10. to bring in / yield a profit	k. учреждать / открывать компанию
11. to incorporate a firm	l. управлять / руководить фирмой
12. a merger	m. получать прибыль
13. to fill an order	n. единоличный владелец
14. acquisition	o. выполнять заказ
15. a takeover	p. плановое задание по реализации продукции
16. an unlimited company	q. акционерная компания | акционерное общество
17. an entrepreneur	r. товарищество

5.Suggest words and expressions that correspond to the following definitions. Give their Russian equivalents. Consult the ‘Essential vocabulary’ section.

1.the amount by which the price received is greater than the cost; the difference between business income and expenses

2.to be waiting for something you have ordered

3.a limited company which can offer its shares and debentures to the public (there is normally no limit to the right of its members to transfer their shares to other persons)

4.ordered but not yet received

5.a formal association of persons for business purposes, especially a corporation or group of persons legally incorporated under company law

6.to (cause to) form a legal corporation

7.a person who starts a company, arranges business deals, and takes risks in order to make a profit

8.a limited company which must not invite the public to subscribe for its shares or debentures and does not allow its members to transfer their shares without the agreement of the other shareholders

9.the total number of goods or services that a company sells during a particular period of time

10.the activity of buying or selling goods or services in order to make a profit

11.any business organization or commercial house, whether it is a partnership or not, often a company, especially a small one

12.a request by a customer for a company to supply goods or for a meal in a restaurant

13.the one and only owner of a business

14.money that has been lost by a business, person, government, etc.

15.an unincorporated (unregistered) association of two or more persons carrying on business together for the purpose of making a profit

16.a form of business organization called a corporation, which has its capital divided into many small units of stock or into shares of low face value so that they may be bought by small and large investors

17.a joint-stock company, the financial liability of whose members is limited by law

18.a company of which the liability of the members is unlimited, i.e. each member has to pay his/her full share of the debts of the company if it is brought to an end

6. Explain the meaning of the words and phrases listed below and translate them.

the highest bidder, a multinational company, to flatten one’s management hierarchy, to ship sth. to sb., a takeover, to be confronted with a problem, a marginal profit, to move up the ladder of an organization, an exorbitant profit, a net profit, to lose ground, to fill an order, business is at a standstill, a handful of big companies, a freelance worker, to drum up business, to dismantle sth., a merger

36

Translation practice

1. Translate these sentences. Give synonymous translations if possible. Consult the ‘Essential vocabulary’ section.

1.The policy is backed by the international business community.

2.She intends to buy a business.

3.We're now doing twice as much business as we did last year.

4.Kevin is with a firm of accountants in Birmingham.

5.Suzanne made a clear profit of £200 on the car sale.

6.The company works on a small margin of profit.

7.The company operates / runs at a loss.

8.We've already reached our sales targets for this year.

9.We supply hand-made shoes to order.

10.The merchandise is on order.

11.The Canadian Air Force has placed a large order for electronic equipment.

12.Business is booming / flourishing / thriving.

13.The National Gallery's latest acquisition is a painting by Goya.

14.Larger companies are taking over smaller firms by buying their shares.

15.Rover is to merge with BMW, the German car manufacturer.

2. Translate the following sentences. Give synonymous translations if possible. Consult the ‘Essential vocabulary’ section.

1.Высокие процентные ставки разорили многие мелкие фирмы.

2.У него есть доля / пай в семейном предприятии.

3.В летний период деловая активность невысока.

4.Недавно обанкротилась одна крупная многонациональная компания.

5.Она работает в этой компании уже пять лет.

6.Компания была учреждена / основана в 1995 году.

7.Компания работает с прибылью / прибыльно.

8.В прошлом году наш объем продаж составил более $500000.

9.В первый год своего существования компания понесла убытки в размере $250000.

10.Количество заказов сокращается.

11.Этой компанией были поглощены многие мелкие фирмы.

12.Они планируют объединить свои дочерние компании в США.

3. Translate Text 1.

Text 2:

Нефть в обмен на оружие

Война в Ираке может открыть России новые экономические возможности

Багдад взят. Российские компании, работавшие в Ираке, подсчитывают убытки. Глава российскоиракского Комитета по сотрудничеству Юрий Шафраник утверждает, что прекращение программы "Нефть в обмен на продовольствие" обойдется России в 40 млрд. долл.

Однако есть в России и оптимисты. Так, руководитель Центра развития Андрей Клепач считает, что от войны в Ираке российские компании выиграть могут вполне ощутимо. "Американцы не смогут в одиночку восстанавливать Ирак и будут вынуждены вовлекать в его послевоенное восстановление другие страны. Поэтому у российского правительства есть возможность защитить интересы нашего бизнеса, – утверждает экономист. – Для российских нефтяных компаний важно закрепиться в Ираке, и ставку им надо делать не столько на транспортировку иракской нефти, сколько на разработку месторождений. Роль России как нефтяного поставщика в результате войны, на мой взгляд, возрастет. Меняется вся геополитическая ситуация на Среднем Востоке, а вместе с ней и оценка привлекательности таких проектов, как Баку-Джейхан. В случае умиротворения Ирака американцам выгоднее просто получать нефть напрямую. В случае же продолжения конфликта риски проекта Баку-

37

Джейхан возрастают. И это повышает привлекательность северного варианта экспорта российской нефти через Мурманск".

По мнению эксперта, нынешняя ситуация на Ближнем Востоке открывает для России целых два "окна возможностей". Первое – в самом Ираке, если мы сохраним с американцами нормальные рабочие отношения. Второе, гораздо более перспективное, – в других арабских странах, если сумеем завоевать их доверие. А поскольку Россия не поддержала американцев в Ираке, шансы привлечь арабские деньги, вкладываемые в оборонные проекты, у нас есть.

Однако мало кто смотрит на ситуацию столь оптимистично. В первую очередь в Ираке потребуются не добывающие нефтяные, а сервисные компании, которые будут тушить пожары и бурить скважины, отмечает ведущий специалист Института финансовых исследований Григорий Выгон. К участию в разработке иракских месторождений наших нефтяников в лучшем случае допустят в качестве миноритарных участников крупных англо-американских консорциумов. Нужно ли это российским компаниям – еще вопрос. Сейчас они могут относительно небольшими инвестициями увеличивать добычу, не вкладываясь в строительство инфраструктуры. В Ираке этого недостаточно. Так что привлекательность региона для наших нефтяников вовсе не очевидна.

"Конечно, взятие Багдада – еще не конец конфликта. Насколько иракцы будут способны вести партизанскую войну и мешать восстановлению промышленности? Никто этого сказать не может. А приходить в регион, где продолжается война, крупные нефтяные компании не захотят. Но когда-то это все равно произойдет. И цены обрушатся, – утверждает Выгон. – Если верны утверждения специалистов, что добычу нефти в Ираке можно достаточно быстро увеличить до 5-7 млн. баррелей в сутки, то это неминуемо приведет к обвалу цен. Никакие заявления ОПЕК не помогут. Америка заинтересована в том, чтобы, как можно больше увеличив добычу иракской нефти, поставлять ее себе".

Перспективы российских оружейников на этом рынке тоже туманны. По мнению директора Центра анализа стратегий и технологий Руслана Пухова, Россия вряд ли сможет воспользоваться объективным разогревом рынка. Сирия на нас обижена, Иран очень плохо платит. Хотя, с другой стороны, по словам министра обороны Сергея Иванова, обвинения в адрес России в якобы незаконных поставках вооружений Ираку вызвали в последнее время буквально наплыв заявок на поставку российского оружия, которому американцы сделали бесплатную рекламу. Так что, возможно, оптимисты не так уж сильно ошибаются в прогнозах.

(Марина Борисова: Независимая газета)

Summarizing

1.Summarize Text 1 in English and Russian (in about 200 words).

2.Read Text 2 and then summarize it in English (in about 200 words).

3.Find a newspaper or magazine article, written in Russian, which deals with a topic similar to that of Text 1 or Text 2. Summarize it in English (in about 300 words).

Essential vocabulary

1.business (1) [uncountable] the activity of buying or selling goods or services in order to make a profit: to do / carry on / conduct / transact business (with sb.) | to be in business | to go into business | to go out of business | to travel / go / go away on business | to go on a business trip | The policy is backed by the international business community. | Higher interest rates will drive smaller firms out of business. || бизнес,

коммерческая (торговая / торгово-промышленная / хозяйственная) деятельность, торговля

(2)[countable] a person, firm, company or other organization which produces goods, provides services or buys and sells goods, usually for the purpose of making a profit: to establish / create / form / set up / start (up) a business | to launch a business | to build up a business | to manage / operate / run a business | She intends to buy a business. | Ours is a profitable business. | He owns a share in the family business. ||

коммерческое / торговое / торгово-промышленное предприятие, фирма, дело

(3)[uncountable] a specific occupation or pursuit: the best designer in the business | He works in the advertising / printing / shipping / retail / wholesale / movie business. || отрасль хозяйства /

промышленности

38

(4)[uncountable] the amount of business done: business is good / brisk / booming / flourishing / thriving | business is bad / slow / slack | business is at a standstill | to drum up business (= to increase it) | Business is slow during the summer. | We're now doing twice as much business as we did last year. | Sidney's doing the rounds of the customers, trying to drum up business. || бизнес, производство, торговля, торговые

операции; заказы

2.company [countable] (1) a formal association of persons for business purposes, especially a corporation or group of persons legally incorporated under company law: to establish / create / form / set up / start (up) a company | to manage / operate / run a company | to work for / at / in / with a company | a company fails / goes bankrupt / goes bust / goes into liquidation / goes to the wall (informal) | a finance / holding / insurance / investment company | a shipping / transport / transportation company | a multinational company || компания, (акционерное) общество

(2)(American English) a general word for any business, whether it is a sole proprietorship, or a partnership, or a corporation || фирма, компания

3.corporation [countable] (1) (law) body corporate a group of persons in Britain who have formed themselves into an association which itself has a separate legal existence or artificial personality quite different from the persons who compose it (The law allows it to continue to exist indefinitely although its members (shareholders) may change.) || корпорация, (акционерное) общество; объединение;

юридическое лицо

(2)(American English) a business organization equivalent to a limited company in Britain: to establish / create / form / set up / start (up) a corporation | to dissolve a corporation | to manage / operate / run a corporation | to work for / at / in / with a corporation | a corporation fails / goes bankrupt / goes bust / goes to the wall (informal) | a public corporation | a multinational corporation || корпорация;

акционерное общество; компания с ограниченной ответственностью

4.joint-stock company (1) (British English) a form of business organization called a corporation, which has its capital divided into many small units of stock or into shares of low face value so that they may be bought by small and large investors (The expression often has the same meaning as ‘limited company’.) ||

акционерная компания, акционерное общество

(2)(American English) a business organization having its capital divided into small units of stock, but the liability of its members is unlimited, as in a partnership || акционерная компания, акционерное

общество; компания с неограниченной ответственностью ее членов

5.limited (liability) company a joint-stock company, the financial liability of whose members is limited by law (If the company is limited by shares, the liability of each member is limited to the amount unpaid on his shares, and he may have to lose the cost of his shares, but no more, if the company goes into liquidation because of its debts. If the company is limited by guarantee, the liability of each member is limited to the amount he has personally guaranteed (promised) to pay if necessary in the event of liquidation.) ||

компания / общество с ограниченной ответственностью

6.private (limited) company a limited company which must not invite the public to subscribe for its shares or debentures and does not allow its members to transfer their shares without the agreement of the other shareholders (It must have at least two but usually not more than fifty members.) || частная акционерная

компания, закрытое акционерное общество, акционерное общество закрытого типа

7.public (limited) company a limited company which can offer its shares and debentures to the public; there is normally no limit to the right of its members to transfer their shares to other persons (There is no limit to the total number of members except that there must be at least seven.) || открытая акционерная

компания, открытое акционерное общество, акционерное общество открытого типа

8.unlimited company a company of which the liability of the members is unlimited, i.e. each member has to pay his/her full share of the debts of the company if it is brought to an end || компания / общество с

неограниченной ответственностью (ее / его членов)

9.close company | close / closed corporation (American English) a company of which the share capital is held or controlled by relatively few persons (five or fewer persons), or by persons who are all directors of the company (The shares of a close company are not publicly traded. A company of this kind must either pay out a large part of its profit as dividend or be classed for tax purposes as a private person.) || закрытая

акционерная корпорация, закрытое акционерное общество

39

10.open corporation (American English) || открытая акционерная корпорация, открытое

акционерное общество

11.sole proprietor | sole trader | owner-manager the one and only owner of a business (He provides all the capital, bears all the risk, and in return receives all the profits. Such a concern is called a one-man business, although the proprietor may employ a number of people.) || единоличный владелец, единственный

хозяин

12.sole proprietorship единоличное владение (форма владения, при которой все активы принадлежат одному владельцу)

13.partnership (law) | firm | co-partnership an unincorporated (unregistered) association of two or more persons carrying on business together for the purpose of making a profit (Contracts made with the partnership are made with the partners themselves. The partners share in the profits in agreed proportions, they do not draw salaries, nor get interest on their capital.) || товарищество, фирма; компания

14.firm [countable] (1) (law) partnership an association of two or more persons who have formally agreed to work together as partners || товарищество, фирма

(2)(commerce) any business organization or commercial house, whether it is a partnership or not, often a company, especially a small one: to establish / create / form / set up / start (up) a firm | to manage / operate / run a firm | to work for / at / in / with a firm | an advertising / business / electronics / law / manufacturing / shipping firm | a firm of accountants / solicitors | She works for an electronics firm. | Kevin is with a firm of accountants in Birmingham. || фирма; торговый дом; компания;

товарищество; предприятие

(3)the name or title under which a partnership or company transacts business: the firm of Smith & Jones ||

фирма

15.to incorporate [transitive; intransitive] to (cause to) form a legal corporation (In Britain it means to form and register a company in the manner required by the Companies Acts. When this has been done, the Registrar of Companies issues a certificate of incorporation.): to incorporate a business || оформлять

юридический статус фирмы как корпорации, предоставлять статус корпорации, регистрировать, инкорпорировать; предоставлять права юридического лица

16.incorporate (adjective) legally incorporated, as a company

17.incorporated (adjective) (written abbreviation Inc | Inc.) used after the name of a company in the USA to show that it has become a corporation, usually with limited liability (the equivalent of Limited | Ltd | Ltd. in Britain) || зарегистрированный как корпорация, являющийся корпорацией, имеющий статус

акционерного общества; обладающий правами юридического лица

18.to be incorporated создаваться в качестве корпорации, акционироваться

19.profit | gain | surplus [countable; uncountable] the amount by which the price received is greater than the cost; the difference between business income and expenses; the difference between the price received for a product and the amounts paid as rewards to the factors of production: to land as rent, to labour as wages and salaries, and to capital as interest: to make / clear / earn / realize / reap / turn (a) profit | to make a profit on a deal | to bring (in) / yield a profit | to operate / run at a profit | to divide up profits | a large / handsome profit | a small / marginal profit | a quick profit | an excess / exorbitant profit | a clear / net profit | a gross profit | companies that care only about short-term gain | a gain in operating income | They sold the business and bought a yacht with the profits. | The profit each day from the snack bar is usually around $5000. | They sold their house at a huge profit. | Suzanne made a clear profit of £200 on the car sale. | The company operates / runs at a profit. | The company works on a small margin of profit. ||

прибыль, доход; выгода, польза; барыш, нажива

20.to profit [intransitive] (1) to make a profit or gain of any kind: He profited to the extent of £2000. ||

получать прибыль

(2)to take advantage: We must profit by / from the financial difficulties of our competitors. || воспользоваться

(чем-л.), извлекать пользу (из чего-л.)

21.loss [countable; uncountable] money that has been lost by a business, person, government, etc.; the financial harm or disadvantage resulting in business from any of a number of causes, such as: the inability to obtain payment from debtors for goods supplied; selling goods below cost; overheads (the costs of running the business) being greater than the gross profit from sales; the destruction or wearing-out of

40