In this particular sense, private and state institutions made decisions that would aid them produce and sell more, in the hope of registering increased profits. They however neglected the natural resources of the land and most of the strategies implemented damaged the land, eliminated greenhouse gases and increased pollution. The country is only now trying to adapt their decisions to the requirements of the environment and laws are being voted to reduce eliminated waste and to encourage recycling. In China on the other hand, environmental protection has been a more central point in the decision making process and the Chinese population, however existent in impressive numbers (over 1.3 billion), has not generated severe side effects upon the planet. A relevant example of how the Chinese manufacturers implemented environment protection strategies resides in their production of small size and fuel efficient vehicles which - in comparison to the luxurious, large and fuel consuming American cars - have reduced negative impacts upon the natural resources. Yet another significant difference in the process of making decisions resides in the public perception of the decision. To better explain, most companies in the United States promote high transparency of their actions (for they want to prove their worth, get the trust of the stakeholders, and in some cases because the law demands it). In the case of the Chinese institutions on the other hand, the decision is being often kept secret and they seldom offer additional information as to what determined them to lean against a certain course of action or the variable considered in the process. In Singapore, the transparency of the decision making process and the public's involvement are various and depend on features such as the corporate status or the quality of the management.

The primary difference between the United States and China in regard to the decision making process is that the two countries consider various variables in...

Whereas in China the staff does not have much to say, in America, the employees are incorporated in the process. The Singapore example is a mixed one, with some employees playing major roles in the process, whereas others have no part in the corporation's decisions. The varying grades of influence employees have in the decision making process could easily be explained by the variations in cultural values. America is without a doubt among the highest democratic states, if such a comparison can be made. They emphasize individual values and each person is seen as potential future benefit, which is then worth investing in. And investing in the human resource also implies allowing them a certain degree of responsibility and freedom to make decisions on their own. China on the other hand, still under the communist regime, promotes values of perfect equality between individuals, generally disregarding the unique features of each person. These persons are then seen as simple workers that simply and without much to say implement the decisions made by the rulers. And finally, given its combined history and mixed culture, Singapore promotes various levels of staff interaction with the decision making process. As such, all these prove once again the role played by a country's culture in all features of life, including the business community and its making of decisions.
References

Stanbury, J., Case 14: A First-Time Expatriate's Experience in a Joint Venture in China, Comprehensive Cases

Lim, L.H., Raman, K.S., Wei, K.K., 1990, Does GDSS Promote More Democratic Decision Making? - the Singapore Experiment, System Sciences, Volume 3, Issue 2-5 January, pp.59-68

Leonard, a., 2008, the Story of Stuff, http://storyofstuff.ethicalbrand.org/last accessed on March 28, 2008

Singapore: History, Asian Studies Network Information Center, http://inic.utexas.edu/last accessed on March 28, 2008