A study has been conducted with the intent of discovering the amounts of wast produced by three companies over a period of 15 years, from 2000 to 2015.
The first one to be taken into account was company A. Its performances at the start of the enquiry were not brilliant: in fact it appears to be the highest in terms ot tonnes of waste produced, which equal 12. However along the 15 year period during which its activity was analyzed, the company fortunately showed a progressive decrease on its waste production, arriving at a total of approximately 9 tonnes in 2015.
The second participant to the reasearch, called B, positioned better than the first, slightly under the threshold of 9 tonnes of waste. Despite having an increase during the first five years, with a peak in 2005, after that year its performances decisely improved, with an admirable drop in waste production, which decreased almost three times in compared to the beginning of the study.
Company C, the last one analyzed, gave everybody false hopes. In fact if we watch at how it placed itself in terms of waste production, we are positevely surprised: its perfomances in 2000 were way better than the other participants to the study, with almost three times less tonnes than company A and about a half less than company B. However as it has been said before, these were only false hopes. Despite the great start the society progressively got worse over the years, reaching a waste production higher than 9 tonnes in 2015.
In conclusion, we can say that the first two companies, A and B, despite their not so brilliant start, tried to improve their impact on environment, reducing their waste production. It can't be said the same for company C whose perfomarnces got gradually worse each year.
A study has
been conducted
with the intent of discovering the amounts of wast produced by three
companies
over a period of 15 years, from 2000 to 2015.
The
first
one to
be taken
into account was
company
A. Its performances at the
start
of the
enquiry
were not brilliant: in fact it appears to be the highest in
terms ot
tonnes of
waste
produced, which equal 12.
However
along the 15
year
period during which its activity
was analyzed
, the
company
fortunately
showed
a progressive decrease on its
waste
production
, arriving at a total of approximately 9 tonnes in 2015.
The second participant to the
reasearch
, called B, positioned better than the
first
,
slightly
under the threshold of 9 tonnes of
waste
. Despite having an increase during the
first
five years, with a peak in 2005, after that
year
its performances
decisely
improved
, with an admirable drop in
waste
production
, which decreased almost three times in compared to the beginning of the study.
Company
C, the last one analyzed, gave everybody false hopes. In fact if we
watch
at how it placed itself in terms of
waste
production
, we are
positevely
surprised: its
perfomances
in 2000 were way better than the other participants to the study, with almost three times
less
tonnes than
company
A and about a half less than
company
B.
However
as it has
been said
before
, these were
only
false hopes. Despite the great
start
the society
progressively
got
worse over the years, reaching a
waste
production
higher than 9 tonnes in 2015.
In conclusion
, we can say that the
first
two
companies
, A and B, despite their not
so
brilliant
start
, tried to
improve
their impact on environment, reducing their
waste
production
. It can't
be said
the same for
company
C whose
perfomarnces
got
gradually
worse each
year
.