Fin 415 Coca-Cola Risk Management - 2525 Words

Coca-Cola Risk Management Plan Proposal Fin/415 Coca-Cola Risk Management Plan Proposal The final project for team B focuses on a risk management plan for the Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company took shape in 1886 and remains an international leader in beverage manufacturing and distribution with the company’s background beginning this plan proposal. Risk identification plays a major role in Coke’s continued success with an explanation of the importance of correct identification as well as a list of risks facing the company continuing this summary. A discussion follows regarding the importance of accurate and balanced methods of risks measurement and continues into risk management techniques that include auditing and hedging.†¦show more content†¦6). Other risk factors identified include obesity concerns primarily in the United States, which may reduce the demand for some products. Water scarcity and poor quality could negatively affect Coca-Cola’s system production cost and capacity as well as fluctuations in foreign currency exchange and interest rate effects on financial results as further risk factors. Increased competition and the relationship between bottling partners such as financial conditions possibly deteriorating could affect financial results forming other risk factors. An increase in the cost of energy affecting profitability and changes in laws and regulations relating to packaging could increase cost reducing demand for product. Unfavorable economic and political conditions, litigation or legal proceedings exposing significant liabilities, weather conditions, changes in the regulatory environment, and changes in accounting standards and taxation requirements, and global and regional catastrophic events cont inue as possible risk factors capable of affecting operations (Coca-Cola, 2009). Considering these identified risks supports Coca-Cola in future decisions involving risk measurement. Risk Measurement Techniques As regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Coke maintains an independent auditor to evaluate all accounts and oversee the earnings and financial reports. Risk measurementShow MoreRelatedRisk Management Plan Proposal986 Words   |  4 PagesRisk Management Plan Proposal FIN/415 Background of organization Pepsi Co is a global food and beverage leader with net revenues of more than $65 billion (Pepsico.com, 2012). Pepsi Co began its life in the summer of 1893. In 1893 Caleb Bradham invented â€Å"Brad’s Drink† or Pepsi Cola as it is called today (Pepsistore.com, 2012). By 1898 Caleb Bradham bought a trade name of â€Å"Pep Cola† from a competitor who had gone out of business. On December 24, 1902 the PepsiRead MoreDamodaran Book on Investment Valuation, 2nd Edition398423 Words   |  1594 Pagesinto the final version. Chapter 1: Introduction to Valuation Chapter 2: Approaches to Valuation Chapter 3: Understanding Financial Statements Chapter 4: The Basics of Risk Chapter 5: Option Pricing Theory and Models Chapter 6: Market Efficiency: Theory and Models Chapter 7: Riskless Rates and Risk Premiums Chapter 8: Estimating Risk Parameters and Costs of Financing Chapter 9: Measuring Earnings Chapter 10: From Earnings to Cash Flows Chapter 11: Estimating Growth Chapter 12: Closure in Valuation:Read MoreFinancial Ratio Analysis11306 Words   |  46 Pagesand development of product lines resulted in Pfizer moving to Manhatten in 1868 to support its rapid growth; the headquarters remained there for nearly a century. In 1880 Pfizer created citric acid and quickly becomes the leading product as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola gain popularity and demand more of it. This marks another turning point in growth for Pfizer as citric acid launches this company into another market. 1899 marks the 50th anniversary of Pfizer Inc producing high-quality products in anRead MoreManagement Course: Mba−10 General Management215330 Words   |  862 PagesManagement Course: MBA−10 General Management California College for Health Sciences MBA Program McGraw-Hill/Irwin abc McGraw−Hill Primis ISBN: 0−390−58539−4 Text: Effective Behavior in Organizations, Seventh Edition Cohen Harvard Business Review Finance Articles The Power of Management Capital Feigenbaum−Feigenbaum International Management, Sixth Edition Hodgetts−Luthans−Doh Contemporary Management, Fourth Edition Jones−George Driving Shareholder Value Morin−Jarrell Leadership

Essay on Virtue Ethics - 900 Words

Virtue, when I hear that word I think of value and morality and only good people can be virtuous. When I hear the word ethics I think of good versus evil, wrong and right. Now when the two are put together you get virtue ethics. You may wonder what can virtue ethics possibly mean. It’s just two words put together to form some type of fancy theory. Well this paper will discuss virtue ethics and the philosophy behind it. Virtue ethics is a theory that focuses on character development and what virtues one should obtain to be who they are supposed to be, as oppose to actions. An example of virtue ethics would be someone who is patient, kind, loving, generous, temperance, courage and flourishing as oppose to a person who lies, cheats, and†¦show more content†¦Moral relativism explains a point that when it comes to morals, right or wrong, people have their own opinion. Not everyone will think something is bad and not everyone will think something is good. The difference between moral relativism and virtue ethics is that actions do not matter. It is the type of person you are on the inside. Who you are on the inside will help you make righteous decisions, regardless of the circumstances. â€Å"An ethics focused on virtue encourages us to develop the good traits and get rid of the bad ones (Mackinnon).† Virtue ethics was written by a Greek philosopher names Aristotle. Aristotle believed that every human’s goal was happiness. Some philosophers argued that happiness only came from following a set of rules, while Aristotle argued that the best way to have happiness is to cultivate a virtuous character. The two kinds of virtues he recognized were moral virtue and intellectual virtue. The virtue that should be focused on to develop a virtuous character is moral virtue. According to Aristotle, while we are born with a capacity to be virtuous, being virtuous is like a skill that we need to learn and practice to be good at. The key element to being virtuous is being able to find the mean or right amount of our various emotions, dispositions, and actions. Aristotle wrote: â€Å"Anybody can become angry- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and forShow MoreRelatedThe Ethics Of Virtue Ethics1796 Words   |  8 PagesAlthough Hursthouse accepts that virtue ethics ‘†¦cannot tell us what we should do’, she nonetheless reasons in a different way to show how virtue ethics aids us. Furthermore, Hursthouse would refute virtue ethics being insufficiently action-guiding because we have v-rules in the form of virtues and vices to provide action-guidance (Hursthouse, 1999). Elizabeth Anscombe in ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ (1958) also contributed to virtue ethics and put forward the idea that modern moral philosophy is misguidedRead MoreVirtue Ethics And Care Ethics1938 Words   |  8 Pagesparticular—virtue ethics and care ethics, have continued to catch much attention since the mid-twentieth century. Although each of these theories are often associated with one another, they both contain their own distinct philosophies. As a result, it is important to clearly understand what each theory entails before concluding that one is derived from the other. Although virtue ethics and care ethics share similar beliefs and rejections, virtue ethics is clearly separate from care ethics. VirtueRead MoreVirtue Ethics1184 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek times. Aristotle was a great believer in virtues and the meaning of virtue to him meant being able to fulfil ones functions. Virtue ethics is not so much interested in the question What should I do? but rather in theRead MoreThe Ethics Of Virtue Ethics1502 Words   |  7 PagesVirtue ethics is a philosophical theory that focuses on what sort of person one should be, instead of on actions. Aristotle focuses greatly on virtue ethics in his writing, and is a strong believer in a moral person being one of virtue. He is seen as the person whodeveloped the theory. Unlike some of the other ethical theories, virtue ethics focuses on what makes a life moral, not so much how to become moral, or behave morally. For example, utilitarianism questions how one should act in certain situationsRead MoreThe Ethics Of Virtue Ethics925 Words   |  4 PagesVirtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I willRead MoreEthics Of Caring And Virtue910 Words   |  4 PagesEthics of Caring and Virtue Ethics of virtue is the belief that if a person wants to be considered good, they do good things (Pollock, 1988). In ethics of virtue, happiness is always the outcome of a situation. The main premise of virtue theory lies upon three main principles; virtues, practical wisdom and eudemonia. A virtue is a mean state which lays between two vices. A virtue is a characteristic a virtuous person possesses, for example courage. Courage is a virtue which lays between cowardiceRead MoreEthics, Deontological, And Virtue1690 Words   |  7 Pagessociety, we are all expected to be more open-minded and respecting of others way of life and culture. That’s what being a Global Citizen is about. Through Global Ethics we have learned so far, that we can all relate to three important moral theories. These theories are known as Consequentialist (Utilitarian), Deontological, and Virtue. Through this paper I will also be discussing a case study found in chapter two, based on the Selling of Human Body Parts, and how it’s seen through the lenses ofRead MoreThe Theory Of Virtue Ethics Essay1632 Words   |  7 Pages‘Virtue ethics’, is an agent-centred approach in normative ethics that stresses the importance of moral characters and virtues, which is unlike the two other major approaches in the field (Hursthouse, 2013) . Deontology rather emphasises the use of duties and rules, and utilitarianism emphasises the importance of consequences of one’s actions (Hursthouse, 2001). Aristotle’s (2009) theory of virtue ethics is the most widely recognised, he believes that the virtuous person is one who exhibits desirableRead MoreWhy Is Virtue Ethics?1881 Words   |  8 PagesWhen considering virtue ethics, the focus of an individual’s morality is based on their character rather than any one of their specific actions. When confronted with a difficult situation virtue ethicist would strive to always act virtuously, or as someone with idea l character traits would. Aristotle defined these ideal character traits as traits that are derived â€Å"from natural internal tendencies†, and that these traits â€Å"need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable.† [1]Read MoreAn Argument On Virtue Ethics Essay1140 Words   |  5 Pageswould do. However, this response fails to recognize that certainty is not just In this paper, I will critically examine Rosalind Hursthouse’s argument on â€Å"Virtue Ethics† about the reasoning of a virtuous person by delving into the topic. I will then expose a particular problem within it. Perhaps the strongest point of the argument on â€Å"Virtue Ethics† that Hursthouse gives relies on the claim of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy claims that a virtuous person would act and make decisions like what a virtuous

Critically Evaluate The Cognitive Theory Of Stereo Essay Example For Students

Critically Evaluate The Cognitive Theory Of Stereo Essay typing. Critically evaluate the cognitive theory of stereotyping. B231: Social Interaction, Exam Paper 1998, Question 4. Graeme GordonStereotyping is a form of pre judgement that is as prevalent in todays society as it was 2000 years ago. It is a social attitude that has stood the test of time and received much attention by social psychologists and philosophers alike. Many approaches to, or theories of stereotyping have thus been raised. This essay evaluates the cognitive approach that categorisation is an essential cognitive process that inevitably leads to stereotyping. Hamilton (1979) calls this a depressing dilemma. Browns (1995) definition of stereotyping through prejudice is the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership to that group. This definition implies that stereotyping is primarily a group process, through the individuals psyches within that group. A further idea of stereotyping, defined by Allport (1954) as thinking ill of others without warrant, is that people make their mind up without any personal experience. This pre judgement about a whole group is then transferred to the stigmatisation of any individuals in that group. It is these ideas that the essay aims to evaluate, through the cognitive process of categorisation and the above definitions that bring about three distinct features of stereotyping, that our cognition can be demonstrated through. The first characteristic of stereotyping is over-generalisation. A number of studies conducted found that different combinations of traits were associated with groups of different ethnic and national origin (Katz and Braly, 1933). However, stereotyping does not imply that all members of a group are judged in these ways, just that a typical member of a group can be categorised in such judgements, that they possess the characteristics of the group. Still, when we talk of a group, we do so by imagining a member of that group. The second feature and characteristic of stereotyping is the exaggeration of the difference between ones own group (the in-group) and the other group (the out-group). This can be traced back to the work of Tajfel during the 1950s the accentuation principle (Tajfel, 1981). Tajfels work was specifically on physical stimuli, and concluded that judgements on such stimuli are not made in isolation, but in the context of other factors. Applied socially a judgement about an out-group relies upon other factors surrounding the judgement in question, as well as making a statement about the in-group and the relationship between the two groups. Through stereotyping and categorisation we exaggerate the differences between the groups. From this comes the effect that in believing an out-group is homogenous, through exaggerated differences, their in-group is not with very much less over-generalisation taking place (Linville, et al., 1986). The third characteristic of stereotyping is that of the expression of values. Most stereotypical judgements of group characteristics are in fact moral evaluations (Howitt, et al., 1989). For example, Katz and Braly (1933) studied a group of students attitudes to towards minority groups. They found that Jews were attributed to being mean (in terms of money), rather than they themselves being spendthrifts. Also, they found that there was a strong view that French people were excitable. This actually implies that they are over-excitable above the norm, as everybody is excitable, per se, and thus there would be no necessity to mention it. Concluding from this, it is valid to say that a value has been put on a characteristic in this case, a stereotypical one. A criticism with much of this research is that participants are asked to make judgements out of social context in abstract situations. Howitt, et al. (1989) say that this leads to a derogatory implication: that attributing a group with a characteristic is also withholding others. However, stereotyping leads to more than merely placing an adjective onto a group or category. The cognitive processes that give reason to stereotyping are much deeper than this, giving rise to the above characteristics. The cognitive approach to stereotyping is that we all stereotype, at varying levels because of the essential cognitive process of categorisation (Brown, 1995). Howitt, et al. (1989) take this view also, and add that it is an ordinary process of thought to over-generalise, and then protect it. We live in a complex social environment, which we need to simplify into groups, or categories. This simplification is present at all levels of life it is part of our language, distinguishing between dog and cat, male and female, and even in the basic motives of distinguishing between food and non-food. Such categorisation may seem linguistically simple, but is essential for example, the classification of elements and organisms by biologists and chemists: one of the most basic functions of all organisms is the cutting up of the environment into classifications (Rosch, et al., 1976). However, the point must be made that, even though language suggests so, categorisation leads to different functions and features in non-humans and humans. For stereotyping is not present in non-humans, thus, we may come to the conclusion that stereotyping is possible through linguistics this topic is discussed further later. This categorisation also has varying depths of moral meaning, or value, which c an lead to varying levels of stereotyping. For example, the categorisation of Catholic Protestant in Northern Ireland. Categorisation is seen as a way of ordering what we perceive (Billig, 1985), stimuli of the external world that needs to be simplified, using iconic images, to pass into our short-term memory (Neisser, 1976). This simplification process transforms James blooming, buzzing confusion into a more manageable world in which it is easier to adapt categorisation is a cognitive adaptation. For we do not have the capability to respond differently to each stimulus, whether it be a person, an object, or an event. Categorisation is important in every day life, as well as in the most extreme of circumstances for example, the discrimination between friend and foe. For categorisation to be useful, we enhance the difference between groups. This was found to be the case at both social and physical levels, and later became known as the accentuation principle (see above). However, the distinction between physical stimuli and social objects must be made clear. We ourselves our social objects, thus, we are implicated by such categorisations. As Hogg and Abrams (1988) state: it would be perilous to disregard this consideration. This can be seen in the accentuation of out-group homogeneity (Park and Rothbart, 1982). Cardiac Phsiology EssayWe are aware of the possibility and ability to change. However, we do not express this flexibility because it is a disruption of the norm, or, of the social group-thought. Goffman (1959) views everyday life as dramaturgical (All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players Shakespeare). To disrupt this would be to change the script, and break out of the conformity of the social group, self-to-self and to others. Even so, this illustrates that through our ability to categorise, we have the ability to particularise and do more with the stimuli than accumulate more instances of predetermined categories (Billig, 1985). In Billigs alternative approach to stereotyping, he also raises the point of category selection a problem that cognitive psychologists have often overlooked. Tversky and Gati (1978) found that different stimuli are judged on their similarities and differences before categorisation and this judgement can be different depending on wh at way the stimuli is perceived. Billigs point is that we must particularise before categorising and thus a link has been formed. Categorisation implies a rigidity in our cognition. Stereotypes, by nature, are over generalisations. Such inflexibility is not a possible process of our cognition categorisation do not exist in isolation (Billig, 1985). As categorisation leads to many categories, through its definition, surely only one such category could possibly be so rigid and inflexible, as other categories must be used by it, and thus be flexible. Therefore, categorisation is not a rigid process, but involves change which is reflective of our cognition and change is possible (conflicting with Allports definition). The difference between two groups affects other attributes of the out-group, including those that are similar to the in-group. By subdividing further such similarities, we are initiating a defence against change in our attitudes and categories. This inventiveness is another example of the flexibility of categorisation. In the most extreme cases, this can lead to an inventiveness demonstrated by racial theorists, which in fact, contradicts their prejudice and rigidity of categories. This flexibility can be illustrated further by studies that have shown that in stereotyping, people imply that most of a group posses a stereotypic trait but not all members. Thus, is the need for special cases, realisation of individualisation and tolerance (Billig, 1985). According to the cognitive approach, stereotyping is a group process. It may occur in groups, but it is the individual psyches that make up the group, that project their stereotypes through a group. We do have the ability to see people as individuals and particularise their unique characteristics. We can change, as even categorisation is flexible, which undermines the cognitive approach with categorisation, although it may take time on a social level. To conclude, the cognitive approach alone does not give us an understanding of stereotyping. However, it does anchor the fact that through our natural thought processes we do categorise, which leads to stereotyping. It also highlights the importance of the individual and the group. There are, however, problems that have been overlooked by cognitive psychologists which we need to understand, in order to fully understand the changing dynamics and nature of stereotyping in our society (Howitt, et al., 1989). There is also the need to look further than the causes of stereotyping and into its effects in order to understand the processes of our thought, of stereotyping. ReferencesALLPORT, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. London: Addison-Wesley. BILLIG, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorisation and particularisation: From a perceptual rhetorical approach, European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 70-103. BROWN, R. (1995). Prejudice. Oxford: Blackwell and Cambridge, Massachusetts. DUNCAN, B.L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping blacks, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590-598. ESSED, P. (1988). Understanding verbal accounts of racism: Politics and heuristics of reality constructions, Text, 8, 5-40. HAMILTON, D.L. (1979). A cognitive attributional analysis of stereotyping, In: Berkovitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 12, Academic Press, New York. HOGG, M.A. ABRAMS, D. (1988). Social identifications, London: Routledge. HORWITZ, M. RABBIE, J.M. (1982). Individuality and membership in the intergroup system, pp.241-274, In: Tajfel, H. (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOWITT, D., BILLIG, M., CRAMER, D., EDWARDS, D., KNIVETON, B., POTTER, J. RADLEY, A. (1989). Social psychology: Conflict and continuities, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, and Philadelphia. JONES, E.E., WOOD, G.C. QUATTRONE, G.A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: the role of knowledge and evaluation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 523-528. KATZ, D. BRALY, K. (1993). Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 175-93. LINVILLE, P.W., SALOVEY, P. FISCHER, G.W. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to in-group out-group perceptions, In: Dovido, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism, Orlando, FL: Academic Press. NEISSER, U. (1976). Cognition and reality, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. PARK, B., ROTHBART, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorisation: memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1031-1068. ROSCH, E., MERVIS, C.B., GRAY, W.D., JOHNSON, D.M. BAYES-BRAEM, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories, Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. TAJFEL, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BACK TO MAIN PAGE Psychology