"Restrictive business practice" means action or behaviour by an enterprise which, through abuse – or acquisition and abuse – of a dominant position of market power, limits access to markets or otherwise unduly restrains competition; this leading or being likely to lead to adverse effects on international trade, particularly that of developing countries, and on the economic development of these countries. It also refers to formal, informal, written or unwritten agreements or arrangements among enterprises which have the same impact. Such practices are used in order to achieve high profits, at the expense of consumers, without being exposed to competition.

Horizontal restrictive business practices include cartel agreements, where existing competitors fix prices and divide markets among themselves, are one form of such practices. There exist different types of cartels (domestic, import, export, international), but in all such agreements, there is the possibility of collusive tendering (also called bid-rigging) where cartel members can eliminate or distort competition.

Vertical restrictive business practices, involving exploitation of a dominant position, include, for example, refusals to deal, exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance (where the manufacturer fixes the resale price), tied selling (where the manufacturer focuses the consumer, the reseller or wholesaler to purchase more goods than are wanted), differential and predatory pricing (where the manufacturer sells the same goods or services at different prices to different customers, or sells goods at a loss until a competitor goes bankrupt), abusive mergers and take-overs (when used to create a monopoly or dominant position). Such practices may reduce the beneficial effects of imports, notably though abusive exercises of intellectual property rights, or pricing abuses by foreign exporters.

Although there is legislation in several countries to control restrictive business practices, in practice these apply to trade and transactions having effects on the domestic market and seldom to international trade when the adverse effects are felt abroad exclusively.

Noise pollution, operationally defined as 'unwanted sound', has become an environmental contaminant of massive proportions. Noise causes annoyance, frustration, impediment of learning and general stress. Of all present-day sources of noise, the noise from surface transportation - above all that from road vehicles - is the most diffused and difficult to control. Aircraft and industrial noise, and noisy neighbours and their pets are other common sources of noise aggravation.

According to the OECD, prolonged exposure to noise louder than 70dB can increase symptoms of hypertension and provoke aggression. Noise can interfere with mental activities requiring attention, memory and the ability to deal with complex analytical problems. Adaptation strategies (tune out/ignore noise) and the efforts needed to maintain performance have been associated with high levels of stress hormones and blood pressure. There is emerging evidence of an association between hypertension and ischaemic heart diseases and high levels of noise. Children chronically exposed to loud noise (e.g. in the proximity of airports) show impaired acquisition of reading skills, attention and problem-solving ability.

Noise generated by human activity is also endangering fish and oceanic mammals, such as seals and whales, who rely on sonic pulses in the water to navigate and communicate. It destroys the hair cells of the auditory organs of some fish, can burst blood vessels, damages fish eggs and reduces the growth rate of fry.

Corrupt practices in business include diversion of company funds, tax evasion, and the use of bribery, intimidation and fraud. High company officials involved in corruption or seeking to extend the power of the company may offer bribes to public officials in return for favours. Commercial pressures on companies to improve performance increase susceptibility to unethical behaviour. Establishing criminal liability in such cases is a matter of law and evidence, generally with the requirement that the manager should know of the wrongdoing or be willfully blind to actions by a subordinate.

Corporate crime differs from white collar crime in that the latter is solely for the benefit of the individual, whereas corporate crime serves the corporate entity, even though in some cases the interests of the company and an individual may be connected. Embezzlement of funds from your employer is white collar crime. Deliberate inflated invoicing, which siphons funds from your clients' into your company's accounts, could be either corporate crime or white collar crime or both, depending on whether the perpetrator is able to take personal gain from the action.

A distinction can be also be made between unethical corporate activity undertaken at the discretion of a company employee and that undertaken with the tacit encouragement of, or by instruction of, superiors. Examples include cases where pollutants are dumped illegally to save disposal costs. It is considered impractical for top executives to know all the decisions taken by subordinates. In some cases such executives make it clear that they do not care how a job is done, provided it gets done. In other cases they deliberately turn a blind eye, or implicitly agree to it. And without in any way condoning unethical activity, executives may reward those subordinates who do get a job done under difficult circumstances. In all such cases the executives remain shielded from the blame by plausible deniability, although several countries have introduced new legislation to ensure that directors of companies are held liable for the criminal activities of the company and its employees.

Acarina, an order comprised of mites and ticks, are of the class Arachnida. Mites live in varied habitats, and while some are highly destructive of plants, others are parasitic on and in animals, including man. Different species of ticks may be important vectors of disease of man, animals and plants.

There are several elements which further block attempts to receive government grants: the funding procedures seem hopelessly tedious; few citizens are aware of the wide range of loans available; there is widespread belief in communities that accepting such grants is somehow dishonourable Lack of municipal capital affects the individual citizen as well as the municipality: large-scale farmers are reluctant to diversify their crops partly because, after several bad crop years, they do not see how they can raise the capital needed to purchase the necessary agricultural equipment; those who farm on a smaller scale cannot accumulate the capital needed for adequate irrigation or chemical crop treatment. Every plan for future development is inhibited by the lack of capital funds, and this generates an overall sense of hopelessness. Without growth in the funding base to provide loans, necessary upgrading of housing and services cannot take place; and local government is unable to ensure proper maintenance of roads, public buildings and necessary city services, which further lowers the investment potential.