Report on Arcadias TOPMAN Essay -- Arcadia Business Management Essays

Report on Arcadia’s TOPMAN Introduction On the following pages you will find a formal report investigating Arcadia’s TOPMAN. It is a detailed report looking into several different areas of TOPMAN. In this report you will find information about: - The businesses legal status - The businesses objectives - The different department within the business and what they do - The management style the business uses - The culture the business has - The ICT used in the business - The types of communication used in the business There are at several different types of business the main ones being sole trader, partnership, private limited company, public limited company and franchise. All of the above company types are slightly different from each other. A sole trader is a company that is owned by one person. They are their own boss, they make their own decisions, all the profit that the business makes they have, they have the freedom that you don’t get when you are working for someone and a sole trader business is easy to set up. Also being a sole trader has disadvantages, the owner has to deal with all of the loss of the company (unlimited liability), they have to work long hours because they have to run the business them selves, they have fewer holidays than you would working for someone because they have to do everything them selves, getting money to start up a sole trader business can sometimes be hard because if a loan was needed banks hesitate when giving sole traders a loan because a very few amount of sole trader business succeed, they usually go out of business in the first year of trading. A partnership is a company that has to be owned by between two and twenty people. Investors in a partnership company can decide to join the company as a sleeping partner which is a person who invests money into the business but takes no part in the running, because there are lots of people running the business all the experience that every member of the workforce can be shared, all of the workload that needs to be don’t can also be shared, all of the loss or expenses can be shared between all of the partners therefore there would be a less amount to pay, the money that is needed to start the business can be made easier because there is a lot more people to combine there money together, also getting a... ... in higher profit turnover. Not only was the version 5 till system a strength but it also created a weakness, when the till system was first introduced for the first 4 weeks there were a lot of problems with them, they started, working extremely slow, declining most cards that customers wanted to pay with, freezing. All of the above problems caused TOPMAN to loose a lot of customers, when these problems happened the till had to be re-booted which took on aerage 10-15 minutes and customers used to get fed up and leave. Communication in TOPMAN is highly important when it comes to meeting there objectives, because TOPMAN has so many departments that are spread out all over England it is extremely hard to communication with everyone, but it is important. TOPMAN has developed several ways to effectively communicate with all of them departments whether it’s through e-mail, or telephone TOPMAN has a way to communicate with every person in the business at any time. So the communication in TOPMAN is very effective and helps TOPMAN achieve all of its objectives by providing every member of staff with the option to communicate with anyone they need at any time.

Argument against extension of ethical consideration to non-human animals Essay

In Tom Regan’s essay The Case for Animal Rights, he argues that the root of the â€Å"wrong† is that we treat animals as â€Å"resources† in either advancing our intentions, prerogatives, basic instincts (such as hunger), and so on. He then proceeds by arguing for indirect duties which involve animals though not the type of duty directed towards animals themselves. The involvement of animals in human actions, labeled as either morally right or morally wrong, points to the claim that human beings have an indirect duty as well towards these animals. Two arguments are raised in opposition to indirect duties towards animals. First, animals, in contrast to human beings who have the capacity to arrive at a given array of laws consciously made by them and seek to abide by the given set of rules, appear to have no sense of morality since morality â€Å"consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by. † This is in line with contractarianism which primarily focuses on the human capability to secure for themselves and decide sets of standards for a â€Å"systematic† morality and firm moral norms. In this case, such presumption excludes the possibility of ever arriving at a morality towards animals for animals can hardly be a part of a moral system. They do not have the capability to decide on crucial matters which are to define the very system that will ascribe moral worth on their actions and the exploits they receive from external agents (Regan, 1985). Nevertheless, Regan essentially argued for an intrinsic worth of animals in comparison to the intrinsic value of human beings, stressing on the argument that the actual wrong is that of treating animals as mere â€Å"renewable resources† which men use in furthering his ends and sustaining his life. It can be observed in his arguments that he centers on the value of animals regardless of man’s utility of these animals as part of nature. Yet it appears quite dubitable if indeed we are to treat animals under moral circumstances for several reasons. First, man will find it hard to sustain his existence if a major overhaul is to be done with regards to his grasp on resources, specifically that of animals. Since the time when man first learned to utilize the resources available in nature, animals have played a crucial role in his rearing and continued survival. Stretching back through those years, no sense of morality can be rooted for the reason that nature itself, as a whole, provides the essentials for man to go on with life and that morality on the part of animals is a mere social construct. Though it can be argued on the other hand that man’s morality may also be one socially construed fact, it does not, however, directly deny the instance that animals have no sense of morality and that their moral worth is nothing more than a perception of a few men. Another argument that must be noted is that, in connection to the previous claim, animals can hardly be described as sentient beings. That is, even though animals display reactions indicative of pain or pleasure, such manifestation of feelings are mere human interpretations on the behavior of animals. This is the part where some of us fail to recognize the fact that more often than not our mere ascriptions of human feelings to the responses of animals, treating both as if they were in exact structure and essence, do not establish the perception that animals are sentient beings as well. What it does is to simply ascribe human-like functions to that of animals while neglecting the basic fact that men have a far more complex consciousness than that of the other animals. Though it can be argued that man, too, are animals themselves as argued by the theory of evolution, nevertheless they have a wide array of distinctions (Calderwood, 2001). These differences fit the purpose of demarcating human consciousness from mere animal behavior such that the animal consciousness bear little semblance to that of the complexity of man’s consciousness. Argument for the extension of ethical consideration to ecosystems Aldo Leopold, in his work The Land Ethic, argues that the ethical doctrines set upon by man in consonance to the treatment towards other people should be â€Å"extended† to land or, more specifically, to ecosystems. He argues further that, as ethical tenets are so designed so as to control the freedom of individuals which may inflict harm towards other individuals, the ethics of man ought to encompass ecosystems as well in order to prolong their sustainability just like the sustenance of man’s existence (Leopold, 1989). In fact, the role of ecosystems is of primary significance for the very existence of man can be seen as dependent on nature, and that the abuse of the resources provided for by the natural environment poses a macabre threat to the life of humanity. The imminent consequences of the degradation of ecosystems are real and apparent. Note that throughout the decades of man’s continued industrial improvement whereby the expansion of modern facilities and trade infrastructures have literally displaced ecosystems and have extinguished as well various life forms. Moreover, contemporary times bear witness to the unrelenting wipe-off of various flora and fauna adding even more to the imminent threat to the survival of humanity. It is for these reasons, above any other else, that an ethical doctrine should be established so as to not only remove the possibility of having a totally-diminished ecosystem and prolong its survival but also to sustain, as a direct consequence, the lives of all men. One argument is proposed claiming that there ought to be principles which will proscribe certain acts of men towards ecosystems and which will simultaneously prescribe the ethically upright acts. The furthering of such an argument may very well lead to the accumulation of efforts in preserving what little ecosystem the world has left and what little more in the coming years unless several actions are brought under control (Delville, 1997). One argument which can be raised against the claim for extending the ethical doctrines of man so as to include ecosystems is the contention that it is a difficult task, one which entails not only the method of redefining cultures which hold on to contrasting practices to that of what may be ethically prescribed but also the mode of arriving at a comprehensive law for such an extension of ethical norms. Setting aside the latter claim which may be very well stand farfetched in the context of our discussion, most of man’s ethical tenets are strongly rooted on cultural grounds which have incessantly developed throughout generations making it difficult to change the cultural beliefs quite easily. Aside from the difficulty of surmounting such a feat, there is no clear method on how one can be able to arrive at such an attempt of extending sturdy ethical beliefs. Nevertheless, the task itself is being called forth not only because there is a lack of limiting principles on the acts of man which may eventually lead to his own demise but also because there is a lack of protection for the ecosystem in terms of ethical principles. What society barely has are legal measures which do not essentially pin down the heart of the problem. Rather, the measures being proposed by the law are merely written methods that aim at proscribing human actuations in accordance to the laws of man. What is needed is an ethical extension which will, indeed, guide the acts of humanity in dealing with nature and the various ecosystems which men have been utilizing for millions of years already. Argument for deep ecology One central claim for deep ecology is the belief that nature and man are interrelated with one another whereby every individual ought to transform himself which in turn leads to a collective change. This transformation at both the personal level and the communal degree is at the core of a movement which seeks to address the environmental issued besetting the entire population. However, there are at least two primary concepts which might rise into conflict with one another—freedom and order. In order that an individual transformation to transpire, there should be at the very least a freedom operating on the basic activities of every man. That is, every individual should function without the apparent hindrances that limit his capabilities in making manifest his earnest desires to support global concerns. Thus, with freedom, man becomes more flexible and more able of acting in accordance to the collective effort of sustaining the environment. On the other hand, a collective change is also of primary necessity since it serves not only as the sum of individual capabilities in addressing the ecological problems and providing viable solutions to it but also as the embodiment of the general agreement of the individuals. This general agreement is essential for the reason that it makes possible the unified efforts to arrive at consolidated methods. However, it can be argued that there may eventually dwell the possibility that with freedom comes the unwanted effects. To a certain degree, giving individuals more and more freedom than perhaps what is necessary or in controlled dosages leads to the probability of abuse, of conferring upon the individual the imminent capacity to either misuse or abuse one’s freedom in relegating it to other aspects of life which may consequently bear a harsh effect on the vision being sought by the collective change among the sum of individuals. Nevertheless, even if there remains the potential abuse of such freedom which may in turn restrain the collective transformation among the sum of individuals in providing a lending hand in tackling ecological concerns the sense of the collective efforts are far more outweigh its potential weaknesses and negative aspects.

How Many People Are Killed or Injured in Hunting Accidents

According to the International Hunter Education Association, in an average year, fewer than  1,000 people in the United States and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters, and of these, fewer than 75 are fatalities. In many cases, these fatalities are self-inflicted by hunters who trip, fall, or have other accidents that cause them to shoot themselves with their own weapons. Most of the other fatalities come in hunting parties, where one hunter shoots another accidentally. Firearm Fatalities in Hunting Fatality numbers have improved somewhat in recent years, thanks to extensive hunter education programs available in most states, but hunting does come with inherent dangers. Hunting fatalities due to firearms account for about 12% to 15% of all fatalities due to firearms nationally. Hunting proponents point out that the chances of a death due to a firearm accident of any kind are roughly the same as a death from falling out of a bed, chair, or another piece of furniture—about 1 in 4,888. If you compare pure numbers, roughly 20 times as many people die each year by accidental drowning than by accidents while hunting. These statistics are misleading, however, since far more people engage in recreational swimming than in  sports hunting with firearms. Overall accidental death statistics from the National Safety Council can provide some context. Of all accidental deaths:   1 out of every 114 is a motor vehicle crash1 out of every 370 is an intentional assault by a firearm1 out of 1,188 is an accidental drowning1 out of every  6,905 is an accidental firearms discharge1 out of every  161,856 is due to a lightning strike It must be noted, however, that a great many accidental deaths by firearms do not involve hunters. When shooting-related fatalities occur in hunting,  most of the victims are hunters, although  non-hunters are also sometimes killed or injured. It can be said that this is a sport that does pose some danger to an entire community, not just to the willing participants.   Hunting Accident Statistics A report published by American orthopedic surgeons Randall Loder and Neil Farren in 2014 showed that between 1993 and 2008, 35,970 firearm-related injuries involved in hunting were reported to U.S. hospitals or about 2,400 per year over the 15-year period of the study. Thats out of a total of 1,841,269 accidents involving firearms (about 123,000 per year). Hunters injured by firearms in this study were nearly all Caucasian (91.8%), young adult to middle-aged (ages 24–44), and male (91.8%), who came to small hospitals (65.9%) to be treated. They were most often shot (56%) but other injuries—fractures and lacerations from falling out of trees, etc.—made up the rest. The injuries were most common in the head and neck (46.9%), self-inflicted (85%), unintentional (99.4%), at a school or recreation center (37.1%), and with an overall mortality rate of 0.6% (about 144 per year). The mortality rate is lower than reported elsewhere because the study included all injuries reported with hunting accidents. Alcohol was an issue in only 1.5% of the cases. The most common type of injury was a laceration (37%), not a puncture wound (15.4%). It will come as no surprise that most of the injuries occurred during the deer hunting months of October, November, and December. The study found that the estimated incidence of a firearm injury associated with hunting activities is 9 in 1 million hunting days. Hunting-Related Accidents in Context In reality, most of the greatest dangers to hunters  are  not related to firearms but occur for other reasons, such as car accidents traveling to and from hunting sites or heart attacks while hiking woods and hills. Particularly dangerous  is falling from tree stands. Recent estimates say there are almost 6,000 hunting accidents to hunters each year involving falls from tree stands—six times as many as are wounded by firearms. A recent survey in the state of Indiana found that 55% of all hunting-related accidents in that state were related to tree stands. The vast majority of fatal accidental shootings while hunting involve the use of shotguns or rifles while hunting deer. Deer hunting is one of the most popular forms of hunting where high-powered firearms are used. The Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting maintains the Hunting Accidents Center, which collects news stories about hunting accidents throughout the world. Although the list is long, its not comprehensive, and not every hunting accident is reported in the news. Sources Barber, C, et al. Underestimates of Unintentional Firearm Fatalities: Comparing Supplementary Homicide Report Data with the National Vital Statistics System. Injury Prevention 8.3 (2002): 252–56. Print.Carter, Gary L. Accidental Firearms Fatalities and Injuries among Recreational Hunters. Annals of Emergency Medicine 18.4 (1989): 406–09. Print.Greninger, Howard. Falls from tree stands top hunting accidents. Terre Haute Tribune Star, November 11, 2014.Incident Reports. Responsible Hunting, International Hunter Education Association.  Loder, Randall T., and Neil Farren. Injuries from Firearms in Hunting Activities. Injury 45.8 (2014): 1207–14. Print.Reports of hunting accidents for the current year. Hunting Accidents Center, Committee to Abolish Sports Hunting.  What Are the Odds of Dying From... At Work: Tools and Resources. National Safety Council.