Audit report of the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account managed by Central Group Management, LLC (Honey Creek Resort) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report of the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account managed by Central Group Management, LLC (Honey Creek Resort) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account maintained by Central Group Management, LLC for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account maintained by Central Group Management, LLC for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Wayne-Ringgold-Decatur County Solid Waste Management Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Wayne-Ringgold-Decatur County Solid Waste Management Commission for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Wireless E911 Emergency Communications Fund of the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Wireless E911 Emergency Communications Fund of the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account maintained by Central Group Management, LLC for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Honey Creek Resort Operations Account maintained by Central Group Management, LLC for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Wayne-Ringgold-Decatur County Solid Waste Management Commission for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Wayne-Ringgold-Decatur County Solid Waste Management Commission for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit management

El present document recull la memòria que descriu el meu treball de final de grau d'enginyeria informàtica del àrea de bases de dades. Aquest projecte es centra en la realització del disseny, implementació i validació d'una base de dades relacional que donarà resposta a la necessitat de les empreses certificades amb l'ISO 9001, 13485 o que treballin sota la regulació GxP, de portar una gestió i control de les accions correctives i accions preventives, des d'ara anomenades CAPA, resultats d'observacions detectades en auditories de qualitat tant internes com externes. La validació d'aquesta base de dades s'ha realitzat sota l'estàndard quemarquen les GAMP5.

Facilities management carbon footprints: an audit of critical elements of management and reporting

Concern for the environmental impact of organizations’ activities has led to the recognition and demand for organizations to manage and report on their carbon footprint. However, there is no limit as to the areas of carbon footprints required in such annual environmental reports. To deliver improvements in the quality of carbon footprint management and reporting, there is a need to identify the main elements of carbon footprint strategy that can be endorsed, supported and encouraged by facility managers. The study investigates carbon footprint elements managed and reported upon by facility manager in the UK. Drawing on a questionnaire survey of 256 facility managers in the UK, the key elements of carbon footprints identified in carbon footprint reports are examined. The findings indicate that the main elements are building energy consumption, waste disposal and water consumption. Business travel in terms of using public transport, air travel and company cars are also recognized as important targets and objectives for the carbon footprint strategy of several FM (facilities management) organizations.

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS): An evaluation of success factors in the agricultural sector. The case of Italy's Emilia Romagna region.

Different tools have been used to set up and adopt the model for the fulfillment of the objective of this research. 1. The Model The base model that has been used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) adapted with the aim to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis. The AHP developed by Thomas Saaty is a multicriteria decision - making technique which decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discreet and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. These comparisons may be taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale that reflects the relative strength of preferences and feelings. 2. Tools and methods 2.1. The Expert Choice Software The software Expert Choice is a tool that allows each operator to easily implement the AHP model in every stage of the problem. 2.2. Personal Interviews to the farms For this research, the farms of the region Emilia Romagna certified EMAS have been detected. Information has been given by EMAS center in Wien. Personal interviews have been carried out to each farm in order to have a complete and realistic judgment of each criteria of the hierarchy. 2.3. Questionnaire A supporting questionnaire has also been delivered and used for the interviews . 3. Elaboration of the data After data collection, the data elaboration has taken place. The software support Expert Choice has been used . 4. Results of the Analysis The result of the figures above (vedere altro documento) gives a series of numbers which are fractions of the unit. This has to be interpreted as the relative contribution of each element to the fulfillment of the relative objective. So calculating the Benefits/costs ratio for each alternative the following will be obtained: Alternative One: Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0, 877 Costs ratio: 0, 815 Benfit/Cost ratio: 0,877/0,815=1,08 Alternative Two: Not Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0,123 Costs ration: 0,185 Benefit/Cost ratio: 0,123/0,185=0,66 As stated above, the alternative with the highest ratio will be the best solution for the organization. This means that the research carried out and the model implemented suggests that EMAS adoption in the agricultural sector is the best alternative. It has to be noted that the ratio is 1,08 which is a relatively low positive value. This shows the fragility of this conclusion and suggests a careful exam of the benefits and costs for each farm before adopting the scheme. On the other part, the result needs to be taken in consideration by the policy makers in order to enhance their intervention regarding the scheme adoption on the agricultural sector. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Benefits: - Legal compliance seems to be the most important benefit for the agricultural sector since its rank is 0,471 - The next two most important benefits are Improved internal organization (ranking 0,230) followed by Competitive advantage (ranking 0, 221) mostly due to the sub-element Improved image (ranking 0,743) Finally, even though Incentives are not ranked among the most important elements, the financial ones seem to have been decisive on the decision making process. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Costs: - External costs seem to be largely more important than the internal ones (ranking 0, 857 over 0,143) suggesting that Emas costs over consultancy and verification remain the biggest obstacle. - The implementation of the EMS is the most challenging element regarding the internal costs (ranking 0,750).