A Time to Kill Essay Example for Free

A Time to Kill Essay I want to tell you a story. Im going to ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you the story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves†¦. Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood, left to die. Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl. â€Å"Now imagine shes white! † (Schumacher, 1996) In the 1996 release of his film A Time to Kill, film director Joel Schumacher submits a formidable adaptation of John Grishams 1989 legal thriller novel of the same name. The film’s plot, set in the Deep South (Mississippi) involves the rape of a young black girl and the arrest of white rapists responsible and their subsequent murder by the girls father. The remainder of the film then focuses on the trial of the killer, who surprisingly chooses a young unheralded white male lawyer to defend him. At issue are several questions, to be approached and responded to from the Christian tradition. The questions are as follows: 1. Why does Carl Lee take the law into his own hands? 2. Why does Jake take Carl Lee’s case? 3. Jake indicates to Carl Lee that they are friends. Carl Lee corrects him quickly. What is Carl Lee’s rationale? Race, defensibility, access to resources 4. Explain the impact of the 2 psychologists’ testimony. 5. Explain the impact of the deputy who was shot during Carl Lee’s revenge. 6. Why is Jake’s closing argument so effective? What type of strategy is he using? 7. Why does Jake bring his family to Carl Lee’s party at the end of the movie? My summation is as follows: (1)Carl Lee decides to take up arms once he is confident that the violators of his daughter would likely walk free or receive light punitive sentences for their vicious assault. Quite frankly, while his lawyer vies to go for he insanity defense, Carl Lee informs all that he, in fact, was not insane during commission of the murders. What is clear is that, due to the racial climate, Carl Lee felt that ‘justice’ could only be served in this instance †¦ if he meted it out himself as prejudice would surely veil justice as it had many times over. â€Å"Yes, they deserved to die – and I hope they burn in hell† (Schumacher, 1996) is Carl Lee’s response when asked what would’ve been a fair sentence to those that nearly fatally assaults his daughter. (2)It is my opinion that Jake takes on the case of Carl Lee due to several factors. My first notion is that he felt as if he and Carl Lee were ‘neighbors’, as Carl Lee’s brother had previously been helped by the lawyer; not to mention that both men had daughters that were practically the same age. Moreover, while Jake was fully aware of the practical possibility of the rapists ‘getting off easy’, he realized that racial prejudice within the law was unjust. He seemed to relate to and understand Carl Lee’s plight and providing a good defense was ultimately the ‘right thing to do’. (3)While meeting his client in jail, Jake makes the naive mistake of referring to Carl Lee as a friend. Understandably so, Carl Lee takes offense to such a characterization as he reminds the counselor that he had never visited the home of this ‘so-called’ friend and also that their girls (while peers) would never have the opportunity to play together. Carl Lee goes on to dispute Jake’s naive approach to race relations in the South and informs him (Jake) that he is, in fact, ‘the enemy’. Carl Lee grabs his assessment of their relationship primarily due to his pragmatic world view. He was Black and Jake was white. More importantly to Carl Lee was that the jury, which held his life in their hands, would also be lily-white. Jake was not chosen for representation due to friendship or otherwise; but, simply because he would be in a better position to understand what would be needed to convince white people to view the world (and thus his situation and/or circumstance) differently. Carl Lee would add, â€Å"You are my secret weapon because you are one of the bad guys. You dont mean to be but you are. Its how you was raised†. (Schumacher, 1996) (4)On the witness stand, during the trial of Carl Lee, there was expert testimony from separate and distinct psychologists’. The one, a Dr. Rodeheaver, the more impressionable of the two, was an agent of the State. Dr. Rodeheaver’s testimony, while definitely stirring, seemed to shed light on civil injustices used to finance the State’s mental institutions. This testimony, which ordinarily would have been discredited, , was seemingly taken with a ‘grain of salt’ by the all-white jury who did not think outside of the black/white dichotomy. Another psychologist, presented as a ‘defense’ expert would wound up hurting his own cause as he was exposed as a drunken ‘has-been’ bearing no confidence and even less self respect. (5)While carrying out what he surely felt was ‘justice’, Carl Lee (father of the assaulted child) mistakenly shot a town deputy. This deputy, who had to undergo an amputation due to Carl Lee’s recklessness, proclaimed to the jury, the judge and the world, â€Å"I got a little girl. Somebody rapes her, hes a dead dog. Ill blow him away just like Carl Lee did†. (Schumacher, 1996) Deputy Looney goes on to command the jury to â€Å"turn him loose† regarding Carl Lee’s future. The impact of Looney’s testimony, I felt, was a breakthrough in the case as ‘finally’, it seemed that a white face (and one that was nearly killed by the gunfire) was relating to the injustice prevalent in Deep Southern courthouses. Whether proximity or empathy, Deputy Looney’s testimony certainly opened eyes in the courtroom and the viewing audience; it actually got the jury to thinking†¦. †what would I have done, IF I were Carl Lee†? (6)During the movie, Jake calls on God – in the form of human resource, as he seeks advice from his debunked mentor; a former law professor who tells him, â€Å"Your job is to find justice no matter how well she hides herself. And, struggle as he may, even at one point willing to cop a plea, Jake throws all caution to the wind (even at the cost of losing his everything) to find the truth. In his closing statement to the jury, he states, â€Å"I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the south, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Thats not the truth, because the eyes of the law are human eyes yours and mine and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be evenhanded. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices, so until that day we have a duty under God to seek the truth, not with our eyes and not with our minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts where we dont know better. (Schumacher, 1996) As denoted in this paper’s opening quote, Jake Brigance uses the juror’s own hearts to free their souls. Having been primed by Deputy Looney, the jury (and the viewing audience) finally is able to realize their own veiled prejudices; and, it is this ‘affect’ that brings warmness to all witnessing Jake’s rhetorical deliverance. Whet her we would have done as Carl Lee did, we now could definitely ‘feel’ what he must have felt as an (excluded) individual seeking justice. (7)The last scene of the film brings the point of community to the forefront. By inducing inclusion into the hearts and minds of the all-white jury, Jake is able to obtain a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Just like in a Rocky movie, viewers were cheering the underdog on by film’s end. Naive in his approach†¦. inexperienced in matters he’d just overcome, Jake (victorious, acclaimed and relieved) sought to validate his sincerity by visiting Carl Lee’s home. As mentioned, while fully aware of the social climate (as it pertained to race), Jake had and still remained an idealist – seeing a world without racial walls. The world had showed him a different reality; yet, still, ever the dreamer, Jake was insistent. If he and Carl Lee weren’t â€Å"friends’ before, Jake saw no reason why they should not be. Moreover, according to Jake – his diluted view of race relations may have been needed to be updated – but the idealistic nature of his being (a color equal world) would need to exhibit what he envisioned. Carl Lee had once told him that their daughters would never play together. I smile as I type that †¦ Jake realized that he (as a white) would need to extend the olive branch to address the racial situation from the top-down, as opposed to the bottom-up angle he once believed. And finally, Chapter 5, Building Community (Windley-Daoust, 2008) articulates the importance of ‘community’ as a human survival tool. Specifically, it addresses Jesus’ idea of whom and/or what constitutes a ‘neighbor’ as it is mentioned that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves. Neighbor, as it meant in the Gospel, simply means ‘all’. The subject of exclusion versus inclusion (in the sense of community) is discussed at depth within the chapter †¦ and, it is to that end that I address the question presented within the text. †¢Ã¢â‚¬Å"Who is excluded from a community to which you belong? Why are they excluded? How does their exclusion hurt them? How does it hurt the whole community? † (Windley-Daoust, 2008, p. 151) I actually had a struggle with answering this question because (initially) I took the inquiry personally. Having virtually no prejudices to mention, I couldn’t figure out how to answer succinctly; but after thought, the question doesn’t address me or my outlook but rather that of my community. That being said – the most ‘excluded’ of my community would have to be those that are addicted to crack cocaine. Strangely enough, those that distribute the highly-addictive substance within and throughout my community are lauded and placed on economic pedestals while those that actually use the peddled product are oft-times ostracized and detested as ‘less than’. I would suppose such an attitude is employed due to the personal (proximal) damage done by the users (i. e. , thievery, child mistreatment, uncleaniness) which cause such an position against all; yet, â€Å"the way we treat others is based on the way we view them† as elucidated in our text. Windley-Daoust, 2008, p. 151) What is lost in stereotyping ‘crack heads’ within the community is the danger of ‘pigeon-holing’ an entire segment of the population, thus depriving them and ourselves of the God-given gifts and talents that they possess. Moreover, it is not uncommon to hear people say that â€Å"once a crack head, always a crack head†; which many times will compel an individual to believe that they have little or value to add to such a huge human existence. With education and understanding (and prayer), hopefully, the community ‘at large’ will come to realize that addiction is a disease and that drug use is merely a symptom of a much larger societal ill. And, as long as ‘exclusion’ on any level exists, we (as a collective) will always fall short of reaching our human potential in the eyes of God.

Insight into milan kunderas narrative Essay -- essays research papers

Insight into Milan Kundera’s narrative This essay is specifically based on the narrative technique used by Milan Kundera in his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being. It is mostly focused in a personal critic supported with comments and critics made by important and distinguished authors. To sum up, it is an essay which main point is directed to the description of Milan Kundera’s narration as well as a personal opinion supported by critics of experts. The Unbearable Lightness of Being is a work of fiction, that it is also combined with facts of history. Works of fiction can be told from the point of view of one of the characters, that means first person narration or it can be told by the author as narrator, that would mean third person narration. Most of the time, when the author is telling the story, he tries not to be perceived or to be noticed as less as possible. There is an exception to this rule called â€Å"the intrusive narrator†. This narrator addresses the reader and talks about issues concerning the narration. He tries to make his presence visible. (O’Brien 1). Milan Kundera uses in his narrative technique the intrusive narrator. He interrupts the reading with his authoritarian voice that most of the time fell into disfavour for the reader because it distracts the mind and reduces the emotional intensity of the experience of reading by interrupting and calling attention to the act of narrating. Mostly, this type of technique employed by Kundera leads to a different perception of the narrator. He gains power by interrupting the narration with his opinions, controlling the presence of the characters, his authoritarian voice and so on. The author has influence in the reading experience. The reader can drastically change his experience by getting to know the author and feeling his unwanted presence in the novel. Furthermore, Kundera’s work in the narrative is constantly analyzed and questioned from a philosophical point of view (Corbett 1). However, it would be wrong to regard Kundera as a philosopher. He enjoys playing with his storylines and while analysing them rationally, he opens up an infinite way of interpreting the presented facts. Here is an example of how he plays with the storylines in the last pages of the book : â€Å" And therein lies the whole of man’s plight. Human time does not turn in a circle; it runs ahead in a straight line. That is w... ...ive technique. To conclude, Kundera’s narrative technique is very complex and unusual, it is also very rich in history and fiction. It might being difficult the easy flowing of the reading, but I have to accept that he is a very good author, who knows what is doing. He uses the â€Å"intrusive narrator† technique, because he does not want to be a dissident writer. (Contemporary Literay Criticism-Select 1). References: Corbett, Bob. â€Å"The Unbearable Lightness of Being†. New York. October 2001. Retrieved from WilsonWeb, FSU libraries. Doctorow, E.L. â€Å"Four Characters Under Two Tyrannies†. New York Times Book Review. April 29, 1984: 1. FSU Libraries. Literature Resource Center. Kussi, Peter. â€Å"Milan Kundera: Dialogues with Fiction†. World Literature Today, Vol.57, No. 2, Spring 1983, pp. 206-209. FSU libraries. Literature Resource Center. O’Brien, John. â€Å"Milan Kundera: Meaning, Play, and the Role of the Author.† Critique. Vol. XXXIV. No. 1. Fall, 1992: 3-18. FSU Libraries. Literature Resource Center. â€Å"Milan Kundera: The Unbearable Stardom†. New Statesman. London England: 1996. WilsonWeb, FSU libraries. â€Å"Milan Kundera†. Contemporary Literary Criticism-Select. WilsonWeb, FSU libraries.

Legalizing Marijuana, An Ethical Perspective

In today’s society, many ethical concerns arise on a daily basis, especially when it comes to the topic of legalizing marijuana. Many individuals have relied on the fact that marijuana was illegal, when determining whether smoking it should be considered unethical.However, many studies have shown that the effects of marijuana are not as detrimental as they were once made out to be. Legalizing marijuana can be an extremely controversial topic because several people have strong beliefs concerning why it should not be legalized, while a significant amount of people have stronger arguments, as to why it should be legalized.When it comes to looking at the ethical standpoint of legalizing marijuana, everyone has a different interpretation as to why marijuana should or should not be legalized. This is because everyone’s sense of morals and values differ from one another.Legalizing marijuana for medicinal and recreational use would be beneficial for large amounts of people for many reasons. The theory of utilitarianism implies that the proper course of action should be the one, which benefits the greatest number of people.Many aspects of legalizing marijuana should be considered when determining if the benefits outweigh the risks. Several states have passed laws, which govern the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. In fact, over twenty states, as well as the District of Columbia have enacted laws that govern the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only. The increasing number of physicians implying that they would use marijuana medicinally for their patients shows that there are many benefits, which could derive from using the substance.A study conducted by American herbalist showed, â€Å"79. 5 percent of professional members stated that if there were not legal prohibitions they would use cannabis clinically† (Romm & Romm, 2010, p. 25).This study also implies that the top reasons for prescribing marijuana include appetite loss, cancer, pai n, glaucoma, insomnia, and it is also said that it helps with relaxation. Considering the increasing number of patients suffering from such diagnosis, the utilitarian approach shows that legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes would benefit the greatest number of people.When considering the harmful and destructive nature of alcohol and tobacco, it is hard to interpret why and how these substances became legalized. While at the same time, people are curious as to how a substance, such as marijuana, that controversially could result in more advantages than disadvantages, has yet to become legal. Marijuana is significantly less destructive than alcohol and tobacco and is used to treat medical conditions. State legislatures have ignored the signs of potential advantages of legalizing marijuana for years.However, legislatures have previously legalized substances, including alcohol and tobacco, without the advantage of the substances advancing or improving medical care. Therefore, the main ethical argument against legalizing marijuana comes down to the fact that of the legalities governing it's use. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), is an organization that serves as an information center for issues concerning marijuana use and legalization. The NORML Organization also serves as the voice for American's opposing the current marijuana prohibition.This organization presents the fact that if people are using this substance for enjoyment, those people should not be subjected to civil penalties or criminal injustices. A recent government study has shown that over 14 million American's use marijuana on a regular basis, despite legalities (NORML, 1996, para. 1). The NORML organization has compiled a list of principles of responsible use, which could reduce the amount of ethical concerns and legalities associated with using marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes.One of which include the use of marijuana being restricted only t o adults. This is important because, just like alcohol and tobacco, it is unethical, immoral, and irresponsible to provide such substances to children.Another principle includes restrictions on driving while under the influence of marijuana. NORML stated, â€Å"Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition† (NORML, 1996, para, 6). Therefore, the no driving principle is implied.These are two of the most significant principles presented by NORML. The next principle is described as set and setting. The NORML organization states, â€Å"The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly† (NORML, 1996, para. 7).Meaning, adults should be responsible enough, when using marijuana, to take into consideration several different aspects of one's life. For instance, it is important for marijuana users to consider his or her â€Å"set,† meaning the individual's attitude, personality, and experience.The term â€Å"setting† refers to an individual's physical and social condition or circumstances (NORML, 1996, para. 8). Therefore, individuals should consider and analyze a number of factors before choosing to smoke or just choosing to just say no. Two other principles presented by NORML include resisting abuse and respecting the rights of others. Therefore, individuals should steer clear of any sign of abuse and should not violate the rights of others when using marijuana.Decriminalizing marijuana would aid America's next generation in becoming more successful with the ability to prosper. By reducing the amount of young people being penalized and/or institutionalized for using or possessing marijuana, less lives will be destroyed as a result of the war on pot.Former President Jimmy Carter once said, â€Å"Penalties against drug use should not be mor e damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use† (NORML, 1996, para. 14).Therefore, even our former President considered legalizing marijuana to benefit the greatest number of people, due to the high volume of individual's lives being subjected to destruction as a result of using and/or possessing this substance. The former President also implied that the penalties governing drug use should not be more destructive than the actual drug itself. It has been proven and will continue to be proven throughout this paper, that there are ways to avoid possible ethical concerns raised in reference to legalizing marijuana.For instance, a recent study showed, â€Å" .  . . in the 16 states where medical marijuana is legal, there has been a drop of nearly 9% in traffic deaths since the laws took effect and a 5% drop in beer sales† (Crowe, 2012, para. 1). This st udy does not prove that driving while under the influence of marijuana is any less dangerous than driving while intoxicated. However, the results of the study do imply the fact that since alcohol is sold in bars and restaurants, it is more typical for higher rates of those driving drunk to have life threatening accidents than those under the influence of marijuana.Especially considering most marijuana users consume the substance in the privacy of their own homes. Whereas, individuals who choose to drink alcohol at a bar or restaurant, also choose to risk driving home while intoxicated. The author's of this study also imply that individual's driving while intoxicated are more likely to misjudge their perception and ability to drive, while those under the influence of marijuana typically tend to avoid taking risks on the road (Crowe, 2012, para. 11).However, individual's who choose to drive while impaired or intoxicated in any form are subject to being charged with driving under the i nfluence, which imposes severe penalties and will result in loosing driving privileges. Some may argue that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs.However, the NORML Organization argues that, â€Å"For those minority of marijuana smokers who do graduate to harder substances, it is marijuana prohibition — which forces users to associate with the illicit drug black market — rather than the use of marijuana itself, that often serves as a doorway to the world of hard drugs† (NORML, 1996, para.  20).With that being said, it is not the use of marijuana that opens the doors for harder illicit drug use, it is being subjected to the underground market of marijuana that opens the doors for individuals to become familiar with other drugs. There are many ethical concerns when it comes to legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. So far, two states have legalized marijuana for multiple reasons including medicinal purposes and recreational purposes.Washington and Colorado have implemented state laws governing the use of marijuana for recreational use. The Obama Administration and the Justice Department concluded in a recent announcement that federal agents will not intervene in Washington and Colorado’s new found marijuana laws and regulations as long as the states are, â€Å"preventing distribution to minors, stopping marijuana from being used as a cover for trafficking other drugs,  and enforcing laws against driving under the influence of drugs† (Dinan, 2013, para, 20).Therefore, as long as the states regulate the use and possession of marijuana, according to the previously stated guidelines, the federal government will not intervene with the state’s policies concerning the legalization of marijuana. The laws passed in Washington and Colorado are the first steps in the direction of decriminalizing marijuana.Those who are caught with an ounce of marijuana or less will not be subject to pay fines nor will they be ins titutionalized because citizens may legally possess anything less than an ounce. In recent years, the war on drugs has ruined thousands of young lives of those who were caught possessing or using marijuana. Decriminalizing anything less than an ounce of marijuana, when it is being used for recreational purposes, will ensure the judicial systems within the United States are reserved for more serious and/or violent crimes.The authors of Marijuana Legalization stated, â€Å"According to the FBI, there were 758,000 marijuana arrests nationwide in 2011, the vast majority for possession† (Sullum, 2013, para. 17). Therefore, most of the individuals who were arrested for marijuana in 2011 were actually arrested on possession charges, which most likely would not even be considered a crime in Washington or Colorado. Studies have shown that over fifty percent of American’s now believe marijuana should be legalized for recreational use because of the benefits outweighing the risks .Paul Armentano, the director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws recently stated, â€Å"Today, a majority of Americans espouse ending America's nearly century-long, failed experiment with cannabis prohibition and replacing it with a system of limited legalization and regulation† (PR Newswire, 2012, para. 5). By utilizing limited legalization and regulations on marijuana, less people would be put away for what would normally be considered a crime. In doing so, the future of many young people would be protected against being victims of the war against cannabis.From an ethical utilitarian perspective, it would be more beneficial for the greatest number of people, to legalize marijuana. Those who chose to possess and use marijuana are overcrowding prison systems and judicial systems within the United States. Implementing and utilizing methods of distributing marijuana, legally would decrease the amount of people being institutionalized for such crimes a nd could result in billions of dollars of tax revenue, which could strengthen the economy.The Seattle Times recently implied, â€Å"State financial experts estimate the new legalization could raise nearly $2 billion in tax revenue over the next five years, with the money going toward education, health care, substance abuse prevention and basic government services† (PR Newswire, 2012, para. 7). Herein lies, yet another ethical concept as to why marijuana should be legalized. An ethical egoist could argue that a person should have the right to use marijuana if that person sees using marijuana as being in his or her best interest.If not, the ethical egoist could argue that if that person does not see smoking marijuana as being in their best interest, they should not do it. No matter the direction the individual chooses to approach this situation, the ethical egoist would support the person’s right to make the determination for his or her self. Our textbook indicates, â₠¬Å"The egoist simply says that you should do what makes you happiest, or, again, maximizes your utility† (Mosser, 2010, sec. 1. 8, para. 22). With that being said, the utilitarian approach implies, the right thing to do is what benefits the largest number of people.However, the ethical egoist could possibly interpret, restricting one’s use of marijuana as being in his or her best interest. Based on the material presented and the information obtained while conducting research on the topic of legalizing marijuana, the logical notion would be to legalize marijuana. Having the ability to regulate and control the use and possession of marijuana among U. S. citizens, will provide the government with the ability to control its distribution Therefore, making availability to minors just as regulated and controlled as alcohol and tobacco, which would be in compliance with the Justice Department’s regulations.Almost half of our nation’s population previously voted to legalize marijuana. The government is beginning to realize, just like the use of alcohol and tobacco, the use of marijuana will continue legally or illegally. Legalizing marijuana for medicinal and recreational use would be beneficial for a significant amount of people for many reasons. Why not just develop regulations, apply taxes to it, and maintain control over it rather than continuing the â€Å"war on pot† which has failed tremendously over the years.

Financial Analysis On The Soft Drink Industry - 1805 Words

Financial Analysis: ROE: The amount of net income returned as a percentage of shareholders equity. Return on equity measures a corporation s profitability by revealing how much profit a company generates with the money shareholders have invested. (Text book Definition). ROE is expressed as a percentage and calculated as: Return on Equity = Net Income/Shareholder s Equity Net income is for the full fiscal year (before dividends paid to common stock holders but after dividends to preferred stock.) Shareholder s equity does not include preferred shares. Return on equity (ROE) is one of the most important indicators of a firm s profitability. ROE shows how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth and is an indicator of potential dividend growth. By completing a ROE analysis using the DuPont formula, an investor can understand the key drivers of that return: profitability, operating efficiency, and financial leverage. The importance of the DuPont analysis becomes clear when examining the soft drink industry. Three companies combined hold almost 90% of the entire market share of the carbonated soft drink in the U.S. - Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO), PepsiCo (NYSE:PEP) and Dr. Pepper Snapple (NYSE:DPS). All three have an ROE of approximately 27-28%, suggesting that they are evenly matched in terms of profitability and potential growth. However, a closer examination using the DuPont equation shows some important differences. DuPont Analysis Below is the DuPontShow MoreRelatedEssay on BSA555 Struense Richard WK 5 Financial Ratios Coca Cola1312 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿ Week 5 – Financial Ratios – Analysis: Coca-Cola Richard Brent Struense Averett University Strategic Management – BSA555-M703-SP15 Instructor: Dr. Philip R. Sturm April 9, 2015 Executive Summary The purpose of this analysis is to identify the financial strategy and performance of the Coca-Cola Company, Pepsi, and Monster. Financial ratios are correlations established from a firm’s financial information and used for comparison purposes. Generalized financial ratios include LiquidityRead MoreCompany s External And Internal Environment Analysis1387 Words   |  6 Pagesenvironment analysis to evaluate the company in the industry and future developments. Assess the external environment mainly through PESTLE Analysis and Porter s 5 Forces. Strategic Recourses Capability Analysis for internal environmental assessment is conducted. Finally, the company somehow SWOT analysis, concluded †¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ This article mainly refer to the company s annual financial reports, industry reports and official website as references. 1. Introduction Britvic plc is a UK soft drink companyRead MoreSwot Analysis Of Coca Cola And Pepsi Co Essay1410 Words   |  6 Pages SWOT Analysis â€Å"Coca-Cola brands are available to consumers throughout the world. Today they account for 1.7 billion servings of all beverages consumed worldwide daily. Coca-Cola has the edge in the market and because they are first to capitalize on new consumer trends. They continue to focus on continuous operating improvements, and they are ever changing to meet market demands. Pepsi Co satisfies the needs of its customers with the wide variety of products offered. They alsoRead MoreEssay about The Coca-Cola Company1076 Words   |  5 PagesIndustry General Description The Coca-Cola Company - American multinational corporation operates in a nonalcoholic segment of Beverage Industry. The history of the industry goes back to the 17th century, when the first marketed soft drink came to the Western Market. The Beverage Industry product portfolio consists of soft drinks, carbonated beverages, and alcoholic beverages. Kinds of drinks in a non-alcoholic segment varies a lot and includes such beverages as tea, coffee, juices, carbonated drinksRead MoreA Corporations Structure and Culture as its Internal Strength and Weakness1061 Words   |  4 Pagespractitioners of medicine stands as the foundation of a strong medical culture, however, there are still weaknesses plaguing the profession. Because the structure of modern medicine is fundamentally based on financial profit, many hospitals have become beholden to the massive pharmaceutical industry, with doctors pressured to ply certain drugs on their patients in return for funding. This significant internal weakness could be improved by establishing firm boundaries between the manufacturers of drugsRead MoreCoca Cola Comprehensive Marketing Plan930 Words   |  4 PagesRunning head: COCA-COLA COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING PLAN 1 COCA-COLA COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING PLAN 2 Coca-Cola Comprehensive Marketing Plan Hieu Le Columbia Southern University Coca-Cola Comprehensive Marketing Plan Industry Analysis Coca- Cola is a world largest soft drinks company, which holds approximate 62 percent of the market share. The firm owns most popular brands like Coke, Sprite, Dr. Pepper, and Fants. Additionally, Coca-Cola has added other exotic brands include Powerade and DasaniRead MoreA Diagram Of The Historical Returns On Equity And Assets1159 Words   |  5 Pagescompany that owns most of the market. In exhibit 3 there is a breakdown of the soft-drink market shares and volume. The data shows the markets gallonage, growth, market share, and market share gain and loss from 1990 to 2000. This chart breaking down the soft drink industry shows just how dominant Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are. Throughout all ten years Coca-Cola had a 41% or above of market share in the soft drink industry. While Coca-Cola controlled around 40% PepsiCo had around 31% all ten years. WithRead MorePepsico Is The Most Valuable Brand1155 Words   |  5 Pages PepsiCo operates in the beverages/soft drinks industry in the consumer goods sector (Yahoo! Finance, 2016). According to Forbes, PepsiCo is rated 29th as the most valuable brand (Forbes, 2016). While Coca-Cola has mostly stayed within the boundaries of the beverage/soft drink industry, only venturing out from soft drinks to include sport drinks, energy waters, and most recently tea and coffee, PepsiCo has done that in addition to adding snack foods t o its distribution. PepsiCo has significantRead MoreShould A Simple Trip At The Grocery Store Require Investigative Journalism?1178 Words   |  5 Pagestakes research, not to mention awareness of the fact that the soda industry is even doing anything wrong. The companies behind these products are just that -- companies. Profits and income are of the utmost importance to them. They will do anything to maintain their massive hold on the consumers of America. Soft drinks are unhealthy products which lead to a myriad of health problems, and the companies behind these sugary drinks often act in unethical ways, solely to influence consumers and increaseRead MoreCoke vs Pepsi1668 Words   |  7 PagesSummary Performing a financial analysis is very useful for any businesses to enhance the knowledge of performances, strengths and stability of their financial. This paper intends to compare and contrast the qualitative and financial statements of the past three years of the Multinational companies of soft drinks, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Currently, both companies are business competitors and they highly regard their customer’s base loyalty. To familiarize ourselves with these two successful