Author: admin

Problem 1:
Determine the system reliability for the following circuits. Reliability of each component is given in the rectangular boxes. (9 pts)
Part 1a).
R9=.7
(5 Points)
Part 1(b).
A system consists of five units, as shown above. The reliability of the X unit is 0.9900. The other four units are identical. If the system reliability goal is 0.9896, what is the minimum reliability that each of the Y units must have? (4 Points)
Problem 2)
.
A pump/filter system supplies clean fluid to a production process. The system consists of two subsystems in parallel (S1 and S2), to increase reliability. Each subsystem consists of one pump and a filtering element in series. S1 has one filter as the filtering element. The filtering element of S2 has two filters in parallel. Failure rate of each pump is 1 per year (failure time exponentially distributed), and of each filter, 2 per year (exponentially distributed), when they operate. (9 pts)
a). Draw the reliability block diagram of the pump/filter system.
b). Calculate the reliability of the system for 6 months of operation.
c) Find MTTF of the system for the result from part (b).
Problem 3).
At Australian Navy Base port in Darwin there are six berths and four unloading crews. When
all the berths are full, arriving Navy ships are diverted to an overflow facility 40 kilometres
down the shore. Navy ships arrive according to a Poisson process with a mean of every
two hours. It takes an unloading crew, on the average, ten hours to unload a Navy ship,
the unloading time following an exponential distribution. (7 pts)
a). On the average, how many Navy ships are at the port?
b). On the average, how long does a Navy ship spend at the port?
c). What is the average arrival rate at the overflow facility?
Problem 4).
Identify a specific problem that you wish to solve through the design and development of a new system. For your system: (7 pts)
a. Describe the current deficiency and identify the need for the new system.
b. Accomplish feasibility analysis and discuss the various alternative technical approaches that you may wish to consider in designing the new system.
c. Define the basic operational requirements for the new system.
d. Define the maintenance concept for the new system.
Problem 5). (Read this case from Canvas under Assignment 1 module).
The Hawk Lead-in-Fighter (LIF) case study is the Commonwealth of Australia’s contract for the sustainment of the Royal Australia Air Force’s fleet of Hawk fast jet training aircraft. The objectives of the contract are to achieve the following outcomes:
? achievement of the Hawk LIF Weapon System preparedness requirements through specified levels of support
? set-up, operation and maintenance of the Contractor’s elements of the Support System to enable the Hawk LIF Weapon System preparedness requirements to be met, while minimising cost of ownership to the Commonwealth.
To achieve these objectives, the contractor, BAE Systems provides:
? maintenance at two operating bases
? engineering services for management of the aircraft to military airworthiness standards
? logistics supply support
The complete case study document is also attached.
The following Figure shows the parties involved in this contract.
Figure – Parties involved in the Hawk LIF system35
In this module, the focus on this case study is on maintenance, i.e. how did the contractor organise the maintenance system to deliver their contractual obligation? It is interesting to note that the maintenance system in this case is organised as a two-tier maintenance organisation. The Operational Maintenance is performed by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel while the contractor (BAE Systems) is responsible for Deeper Maintenance. Additional services in logistics, IT and training support are also provided by the contractor.
The maintenance requirement of the Hawk LIF contract necessitated the construction of a major maintenance facility at Williamtown. However, due to the two-tier maintenance
system, there were some conflicts in the early years of the contract as a result of unclear maintenance responsibilities, shift of work, change of operating environment and delay in delivery of the aircraft.
Although there are defined maintenance schedule based on engineering determination, the complexity of mixing different servicing cycles (some servicing cycles are the responsibility of
Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) with the utilisation schedule of the aircrafts, to BAE Systems it difficult to optimise the maintenance system’s performance. Furthermore, unscheduled maintenance arising from reported faults could upset the original maintenance plan. Maintenance on the aircrafts is regulated by the defence technical aviation regulatory framework. The contractor needs to maintain full compliance and satisfies the regulator as an authorised maintenance organisation.
Maintenance documentation and records are essential for ensuring conformance to regulations and lead to the development of a customised maintenance management system. The case study also describes other parts of the support system developed from this contract. From the case study:-
? Identified the product life cycle of the aircraft (The Hawk LIF-127 fleet has a planned life of type of 25 years and has a total of 28 active aircrafts).
? Identified the major repairs and overhaul cycle. Flight Servicings which include Before Flight, Turn Around and After Flight Servicings for Operational Maintenance are:
R1 Routine Servicings @ 125 Airframe Hours,
R2 Routine Servicings @ 250 Airframe Hours,
R3 Routine Servicings @ 500 Airframe Hours,
R4 Routine Servicings @ 1000 Airframe Hours,
R5 Routine Servicings 10 years
The period from R1 through to R5 is known as one servicing cycle. The designation R1 to R5
arises from the Australian Defence Force procedures on maintenance requirements.
Suppose an unscheduled maintenance is required due to random failures of aircrafts which have a Mean time between failures as 200 hours and number of failures Poisson distributed. The mean downtime (service time) of such unscheduled failures is 6 days.
? Identified timing of investigation and replacement. Maintenance Engineering Analysis (MEA).
supplies data to the LIF’s maintenance management system, known as CAMM2, also used on other aircraft types. Scheduled Deep Maintenance Servicing Timeframe (in Working Days, one shift of 8 hours per day) are exponentially distributed with average of:-
R1 2 days
R2 5 days
R3 15 days,
R4 20 days, and
R5 60 days.
Mean logistics plus administrative time = 30 hours.
The Air Force Base facility of BAE systems has three engineers to repair the aircrafts.
a). Calculate the optimal number of engineers required to conduct maintenance task. Suppose the average cost of keeping a repair force engineer is $50 an hour and the downtime cost of an aircraft is assessed as $350 an hour. (7 Points)
b). Also calculate A
i
, A
a
, and A
o.
(3 pts)
c). What are the different classes of maintenance work carried out in this case?
(2 Points)
d). How did the company maximize availability and minimize downtime?
(1 Point)
Attachments:
5544408_1_mid-term-assignment-semester2-2020-set-2.docx
5544408_2_mid-hawk-lif-case-study-v10-1—2—1-.pdf

1. How does the instrumental view of nature differ from the intrinsic view?
2. Would there be any practicaldifference in how each view would propose we use or preserve natural resources? (Refer to Hazelton, 2009, pp. 31-36)?
3. Consider the discussion case of climate change (DesJardins pp. 213-217). With reference to the concept of market failure explain why Desjardins rejects a narrow free market approach to addressing environmental concerns.
4. What does DesJardins consider the moral obligations for companies to be from the perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 217-219) and Environmental Regulation (pp. 219-221)?
5. Review the ‘Fears for water quality’ article and briefly analyse the ethical issues from the following perspectives:
i Utilitarian;
ii Kantain;
iii Virtue ethics; and
iv Critical Theory.
6. The ‘Fears for water quality’ article is written from an anthropocentric perspective. How would it differ if it were written from a non-anthropocentric position?
The refernces are :
Desjardins Ch 10
Hazelton, J. (2009), “Philosophies of Business, Society and Environment”, in R. Staib (ed.), Business Management and Environmental Stewardship, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, pp. 23-37.Download from Leganto reading list (on this iLearn site via right hand block).
The Guardian (2020) “Fears for water quality after NSW allows coalmining extension under Sydney’s Woronora reservoir”, Available at:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/31/fears-for-water-quality-after-nsw-allows-coalmining-extension-under-sydneys-worona-reservoir
Nestle, M. (2007), “Eating Made Simple”
Scientific American
, Vol. 297(3), p.60. Available
here
.
1. How does the instrumental view of nature differ from the intrinsic view?
Answer with providing your own reference
2. Would there be any practicaldifference in how each view would propose we use or preserve natural resources? (Refer to Hazelton, 2009, pp. 31-36)?
The pdf of the article reference of this question is in the attachment:
Hazelton, J. (2009), “Philosophies of Business, Society and Environment”, in R. Staib (ed.), Business Management and Environmental Stewardship, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, pp. 23-37.Download from Leganto reading list (on this iLearn site via right hand block).
3. Consider the discussion case of climate change (DesJardins pp. 213-217). With reference to the concept of market failure explain why Desjardins rejects a narrow free market approach to addressing environmental concerns
Question 3. Reference article below:
DISCUSSION CASE:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Global climate change, caused primarily by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, is threatening widespread social and economic disruption. Warmer atmospheric and ocean tareperatures, increasing frequency and intensity of storms, rising ocean levels, changing ocean currents and weather patterns, loss of habitat and species extinctions, droughts, and melting of glaciers and permafrost are some of the effects already witnessed on a regular basis. The harms caused by these events threaten both present and future generations of all human beings. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPAsions. ), human activities are responsible for nearly all of the increase in greenhouse gas emis In particular, 28 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions comes from burning fossil fuels to power cars, trucks, airplanes, and other modes of transportation, another 28 percent results from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, 22 percent comes from fossil fuel used in industrial settings, and agricultural sources and residential heating each accounts for another 10 percent. Clearly, business decisions have the potential to significantly change the direction of both the greenhouse gas emissions and the global climate changes that result.1
.
Global climate change reminds us of an important observation that was introduced in chapter 1. Ethical issues in business arise at three fundamental levels of analysis: individual decision making, organizational behavior and decisions, and as a matter of public policy. Thus, a complete analysis should probe deeper than the general claim that increasing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is generated by human beings. A deeper analysis would explore which humans and which human activities are causing the increase of greenhouse gases. In particular, we should also ask three further questions. What are the responsibilities of individuals, particularly individual consumers? What are the responsibilities of business organizations? What are the proper public policy responses to global climate change? What responsibilities do we have as individuals? The principle-based ethical tradition tells us that our strongest ethical duties are to avoid causing harm. Doing good, as opposed to causing harm, can also be a duty, although this tradition suggest that it is a less stringent and demanding duty. From this perspective, we should ask if our actions cause harms. The possibility of our actions causing harms would also be an important question from the utilitarian tradition in ethics as the overall beneficial and harmful consequences are calculated. But it is difficult to conclude that what we do as individuals will have much effect on causing the harms of global climate change. Our own individual actions will not have much of an effect on the overall issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, as consumers, we do not always have many choices available to us. Few of us have any options or can have any influence regarding the source of the electricity we use in our homes, schools, and workplaces. We do have some choices about the transportation we use: walking or bicycling is better than mass transit, mass transit is better than driving a car, and hybrid or electric cars are better than gas-guzzling trucks. But even when choices are available, there are often financial disincentives for making the environmentally benign choice. This observation reminds us that pollution of any type, including greenhouse gases, is a textbook example of a market failure due to negative externalities. The full cost of emitting pollutants is seldom born by the parties to the immediate market transaction and thus we cannot reply on market forces to achieve the optimal overall good. The full costs of burning fossil fuels are not internal to my purchase of gasoline for my internal combustion engine, the natural gas used to heat my home, or my home electricity generated by a coal-fired power plant. As long as the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are externalized, consumer demand will most likely result in ongoing demand for relatively inexpensive fossil fuel–generated electricity, automobiles, home heating, and electricity. On the organizational level, what responsibilities do individual firms and industries have regarding greenhouse gas emissions? In many cases, individual firms face the same market failures as consumers face and therefore the environmentally responsible choice is not always the most cost-effective. It can be difficult for an individual firm to unilaterally move away from reliance on greenhouse gas–emitted technologies. However, some industries, coal mining or oil and gas industry, for example, have a more direct impact on causing greenhouse gas emissions and therefore their duties might be significantly different.
But do individual firms have an ethical responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even lacking market incentives? Do they have a responsibility to do positive good, for example, by shifting to renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power, even if doing so might increase costs? Unlike individual households, business firms are better able to finance solar or wind generation on-site. They also have more influence in creating demand for alternative energy from utilities and within their own supply chain. Beyond energy use, businesses have other means to reduce emissions. Do firms have a responsibility to incentivize employees to use mass transportation or bicycle to work, or to provide electric refueling stations for employees who drive electric vehicles? Many firms, often with the framework of sustainability initiatives, are doing all of this and more. Should more firms be expected to do this, and should such decisions be mandated as a matter of public policy? What are the responsibilities of government? Governmental incentives and disincentives for using various energy sources exist on local, state, and federal levels. Tax policy is the most obvious means for governmental regulation of energy markets, but many other government policies also impact energy use. Direct or hidden subsidies, as when private business mine or drill on public lands, also impact energy use. Specific regulations, such as the mandated fuel efficient requirements for cars and trucks, also shape energy markets in major ways. What incentives should governments provide to businesses to discourage the use of fossil fuels? What regulations should be applied to energy markets? In general, a free market perspective would argue that these decisions should be left to the workings of a competitive market. This familiar argument would claim that markets are best suited to achieve maximum overall good. But even from this perspective, some government regulatory actions would be necessary. To the degree that greenhouse gas pollution is a negative externality, government would have a legitimate role to play in internalizing those costs into energy markets. So, for example, some economists have proposed a carbon tax on fossil fuels as a means of reflecting the true costs of burning fossil fuels. Also, in many cases, electricity and gas industries exist as monopolies with no competition. Such public utilities are also rightfully regulated for the public good. But these regulations would be aimed at achieving the utilitarian results that a market would achieve if it were competitive and efficient. Beyond these utilitarian goals, are there other principle-based policies that government should adopt? One option would consider compensation owed to those who are harmed by climate change. Do governments have a particular responsibility to victims of storms, droughts, and changing climate? Would such responsibility extent beyond national borders, so that people fleeing from environmental disasters be treated as environmental refugees and given the same priority immigration status that refugees from war and violence receive? Do we have duties to future generations that require us to act in certain ways now? Do we have duties to preserve and protect ecosystems or animal species? Do we have duties to nature itself? Finally, climate change is obviously a global and international matter. What responsibilities do governments have to domestic businesses and citizen consumers when negotiating international climate agreements?
10.1 INTRODUCTION: BUSINESS, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY
For many years, environmental concerns were considered to be peripheral to business operations. At best, they were understood as external constraints that limited what business could do and how it could operate. Natural resources were generally thought of as unlimited, restricted only by the cost of extraction and processing. The capacity of the earth to absorb wastes, whether in the form of trash to be disposed or effluents sent into the air or water, seldom entered into business calculations. Beginning in the 1970s, government regulations began to establish limits on air and water pollution, but as long as business remained within the limits established by law, it was free to operate with little thought to the natural environment. Over the past two decades, this mind-set has changed radically. The idea of sustainability has become the primary model for understanding business’s environmental responsibilities. The concept of sustainable business can be traced to a UN report authored by then-prime minister Gro Brundtland of Norway in which sustainability was defined as the ability “to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The fundamental idea was that no economic activity could be sustained if we ignored the environmental context in which that activity occurs. The Brundtland Commission pointed to numerous examples where economic growth was already pushing up against the biophysical limits established by the natural world.2 In the 1990s, the concept of sustainability was far from the corporate mainstream. Sustainable business was seen, at best, as a fad with few practitioners and none among leading firms. By 2018, it is difficult to find a major corporation that is not involved in sustainability efforts and that does not issue an annual corporate sustainability report. It would not be an exaggeration to describe what is occurring as a sustainability revolution in contemporary business. For example, Patagonia, the outdoor gear, equipment, and clothing company, has been one of the true leaders in this sustainability movement. Because sustainability is very much a part of their business mission and strategic vision, Patagonia is also an
excellent example of the strategic model of corporate social responsibility described in chapter 3. For them, profitability and sustainability merge rather than conflict. Begun as a company selling climbing gear and clothing, Patagonia soon grew to include a wide range of outdoor sports and activities, including hiking, skiing, surfing, paddling, and running. The people who started the company, the customers it serves, and the market in which it operates all helped shape Patagonia into one of the world’s most sustainable businesses. Sports such as climbing, hiking, paddling, and surfing are all, in the words of Patagonia’s mission statement, “silent sports” that bring participants into close connection with nature. Their mission statement continues: “For us at Patagonia, a love of wild and beautiful places demands participation in the fight to save them, and to help reverse the steep decline in the overall environmental health of our planet.”3 Patagonia’s commitment to sustainable business practices starts with the materials used in creating their products. Recycled synthetics, and pesticide-free organic cotton is used in their clothing lines. They donate a minimum of 1 percent of their profits to environmental causes. Patagonia’s “common thread initiative” is described as a “partnership between Patagonia and our customers to reduce consumption and give our planet’s vital resources a rest.” This pledge seeks to reduce resource use, repair products to extend their life, reuse products by reselling or giving them to others, and recycle what cannot be repaired or reused—reimagining a world in which humans live in harmony with nature. One of the most pioneering aspects of Patagonia’s commitment to sustainability is their “footprint chronicles,” a wide-ranging CSR project that aims for full transparency in their supply chain operations. This commitment includes an online disclosure of all the mills and production factories used to create Patagonia’s products. This interactive website allows anyone who visits the Patagonia website to view a global map that identifies all mills and manufacturing plants. By clicking on the site, anyone can view a photograph of the location and learn what products are made there, how many people are employed, the languages spoken, the percentage of male and female workers, as well as updated information from recent social audits of the facility. From an ethical perspective, the question is whether a firm like Patagonia should be viewed as going above and beyond ethical duties and what is required, or should they be viewed as a model for what is ethically required of all businesses. Is the transition toward environmental sustainability an ethical duty, or is it good thing that can be left up to the decisions of individual firms? Should sustainability goals such as becoming carbon neutral be mandated for business in the ways that increasing fuel efficiency is mandated for the automobile industry?
4. What does Desjardins consider the moral obligations for companies to be from the perspective of
a. Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 217-219) and
b. Environmental Regulation (pp. 219-221)?
The references:
a. Corporate Social Responsibility Reference article below: (pp. 217-219)
10.2 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT A helpful way to begin our analysis of business’s environmental responsibilities is to return to the models of corporate social responsibility described in chapter 3. Consider how the economic model of corporate social responsibility would account for business’s environmental responsibilities. In the economic model, business’s
only responsibility is to maximize profit within the law. By doing this, business fills its role within a market system that, in turn, serves the greater overall (utilitarian) good of optimally satisfying consumer preferences (i.e., more people will get more of what they want) and respecting the property rights of business owners. Challenges to this narrow view of corporate social responsibility are familiar by this point. A variety of market failures, many of the best known of which involve environmental issues, point to the inadequacy of market solutions. One example is the existence of externalities, the textbook example of which is environmental pollution such as greenhouse gas emissions. Because the “costs” of such things as greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, groundwater contamination and depletion, soil erosion, and nuclear waste disposal are typically borne by parties “external” to the economic exchange (e.g., people downwind, neighbors, future generations), free market exchanges cannot guarantee optimal results. A second type of market failure occurs when no markets exist to create a price for important social goods. Endangered species, scenic vistas, rare plants and animals, and biodiversity are just some environmental goods that typically are not traded on open markets (when they are, it often is in ways that seriously threaten their viability, as when rhinoceros horns, tiger claws, elephant tusks, and mahogany trees are sold on the black market). Public goods such as a stable climate, clean air, and ocean fisheries also have no established market price. With no established exchange value, the market approach cannot even pretend to achieve its own goals of adequately meeting consumer demand. Markets alone fail to guarantee that such important public goods are preserved and protected. A third way in which market failures can lead to serious environmental harm involves a distinction between individual decisions and group consequences. Important ethical and policy questions can be missed if we leave policy decisions solely to the outcome of individual decisions. Chapter 3 presented the case of individual choice and SUV purchasing as a classic example of such a market failure. (A similar challenge was raised against market solutions to such health concerns as exposure to workplace chemicals.) The example demonstrated that the overall social result of individual calculations might be significant increases in pollution and such pollution-related diseases as asthma and allergies. A number of alternative policies (e.g., restricting SUV sales, increasing taxes on gasoline, treating SUVs as cars instead of light trucks in calculating corporate automobile fuel efficiency [CAFE] standards) that could address pollution and pollution-related disease would never be considered if we relied only on market solutions. Because these are important ethical questions, and because they remain unasked from within market transactions, we must conclude that markets are incomplete (at best) in their approach to the overall social good. In other words, what is good and rational for a collection of individuals is not necessarily what is good and rational for a society. We saw examples of this situation in the opening discussion case. Such market failures raise serious concerns for the ability of economic markets to achieve a sound environmental policy. Defenders of the narrow view of corporate social responsibility and their economic theory have responses to these challenges, of course. Internalizing external costs and assigning property rights to unowned goods such as wild species are two responses
to market failures. But there are good reasons for thinking that such ad hoc attempts to repair market failures are environmentally inadequate. One important reason is what was earlier called the first-generation problem. Markets can work to prevent harm only through information supplied by the existence of market failures. Only when fish populations in the North Atlantic collapsed, for example, did we learn that free and open competition among the world’s fishing industry for unowned public goods failed to prevent the decimation of cod, swordfish, Atlantic salmon, and lobster populations. That is, we learn about market failures and thereby prevent harms in the future only by sacrificing the first generation as a means for gaining this information. When public policy involves irreplaceable public goods such as endangered species, rare wilderness areas, and public health and safety, such a reactionary strategy is ill-advised. Considerations such as these should lead us to conclude that business has wider environmental responsibilities than those required under a narrow free market approach. A common alternative argues that some goods are so important that they should be exempt from the preference-optimizing trade-offs that occur within markets. We’ve seen this approach before, for example, in our discussions of employee rights and consumer safety. This alternative would support limits, typically in the form of government regulation, on business’s economic goals. We turn now to a consideration of this regulatory approach to business’s environmental responsibilities.
B. Environmental Regulation Reference article below: (pp. 219-221)?
BUSINESS’S RESPONSIBILITY AS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION A broad consensus emerged in the United States in the 1970s that unregulated markets are inadequate to deal with environmental challenges. Instead, governmental regulations were seen as the better way to respond to environmental problems. Much of the most significant environmental legislation in the United States was enacted during the 1970s. The Clean Air Act of 1970 (amended and renewed in 1977), Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 (amended and renewed as the Clean Water Act of 1977), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were part of this national consensus for addressing environmental problems. Each law was originally enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president. These laws share a common approach to environmental issues. Before this legislation was enacted, the primary legal avenue open for addressing environmental concerns was tort law. Only individuals who could prove that they had been harmed by pollution could raise legal challenges to air and water pollution. That legal approach placed the burden on the person who was harmed and, at best, offered compensation for the harm only after the fact. Except for the incentive provided by the threat of compensation, U.S. policy did little to prevent the pollution in the first place. Absent any proof of negligence, public policy was content to let the market decide environmental policy. Because endangered species themselves had no legal standing, direct harm to plant and animal life was of no legal concern, and previous policies did little to prevent harm to plant and animal life.
The laws enacted during the 1970s established standards that effectively shifted the burden from those threatened with harm to those who would cause the harm. Government established regulatory standards to try to prevent the occurrence of pollution or species extinction rather than to offer compensation after the fact. We can think of these laws as establishing minimum standards to ensure air and water quality and species preservation. Business was free to pursue its own goals as long as it complied with the side constraints these minimum standards established. The consensus that emerged was that society had two opportunities to establish business’ environmental responsibilities. As consumers, individuals could demand environmentally friendly products in the marketplace. As citizens, individuals could support environmental legislation. As long as business responded to the market and obeyed the law, it met its environmental responsibilities. If consumers demand environmentally suspect products, such as large gas-guzzling SUVs, and those products are allowed by law, then we cannot expect business to forgo the financial opportunities of marketing such products. This approach is an improvement over the narrow view in that it acknowledges the legitimacy of exempting some environmental goals from market tradeoffs. As citizens, we are free to create laws that regulate and restrict what we, as consumers, desire. Our beliefs and values, expressed through law as well as through consumer choices, establish an ethical context in which we can then pursue our economic ends. Thus, this approach would argue that citizens should rely on democratic processes to establish environmental goals. Citizens are also free to use their power as consumers to demand that business provide environmentally sound goods and services. But absent law or consumer demand, business has no particular environmental responsibility. Several problems suggest that this approach will prove inadequate over the long term. First, it underestimates the influence that business can have in establishing the law. The CAFE standards mentioned previously provide a good example of how this can occur. A reasonable account of this law suggests that the public very clearly expressed a political goal of improving air quality by improving automobile fuel-efficiency goals (and thereby reducing automobile emissions). However, the automobile industry was able to use its lobbying influence to exempt light trucks and SUVs from these standards. It should be no surprise that light trucks and SUVs at the time represented the largest-selling, and most profitable, segment of the auto industry. Second, this approach also underestimates the ability of business to influence consumer choice. To conclude that business fulfills its environmental responsibility when it responds to the environmental demands of consumers is to underestimate the role that business can play in shaping public opinion. Advertising is a $200 billion a year industry in the United States alone. We considered how effective marketing can be in shaping consumer demand in chapter 9. It is surely misleading to claim that business passively responds to consumer desires and that consumers are unaffected by the messages that business conveys. Assuming that business is not going to stop advertising its products or lobbying government, this model of corporate environmental responsibility is likely to prove inadequate for protecting the natural environment.
Third, if we rely on the law to protect the environment, environmental protection will extend only as far as the law extends. Yet, most environmental issues, pollution problems especially, do not respect legal jurisdictions. New York State might pass strict regulations on smokestack emissions, but if the power plants are located upwind in Ohio or even further west in the Dakotas or Wyoming, New York State will continue to suffer the effects of pollution. Similarly, national regulations will be ineffective for international environmental challenges. While hope remains that international agreements might help control global environmental problems, the failure of international global climate change agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, suggests that this might be overly optimistic. Finally, and perhaps most troubling from an environmental standpoint, this regulatory model assumes that economic growth is environmentally and ethically benign. Regulations establish side constraints on businesses’ pursuit of profits and, as long as they remain within those constraints, accept as ethically legitimate whatever road to profitability management chooses. What can be lost in these discussions is the very important fact that there are many different ways to pursue profits within the side constraints of law. Different roads toward profitability can have very different environmental consequences. More recent approaches to business’s environmental responsibilities aim to better link economic and environmental goals.
5. Review the ‘Fears for water quality’ article and briefly analyse the ethical issues from the following perspectives:
i Utilitarian;
ii Kantain;
iii Virtue ethics; and
iv Critical Theory.
The Guardian (2020) “Fears for water quality after NSW allows coalmining extension under Sydney’s Woronora reservoir”, Available at:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/31/fears-for-water-quality-after-nsw-allows-coalmining-extension-under-sydneys-worona-reservoir
6. The ‘Fears for water quality’ is written from an anthropocentric perspective. How would it differ if it were written from a non-anthropocentric position?
Find your own reference article (provide 2 academic article refernces)
7. Find your longest paragraph from in your answers in this assignment . Revise the paragraph to retain the meaning but express it in fewer words. Provide the ‘before’ and ‘after’.
Attachments:
5544426_1_week-7-questions-and-refernces.docx

Using the
template
provided on the Moodle site and following the
ACTIVE model
you learnt about in Topic A.2, plan a Geography inquiry learning sequence for a Stage Two class using the
NSW Geography K-10 Syllabus
or an equivalent document from another state or territory.
The information gathered at the ‘
Check it Out
’ stage of the sequence must come from a particular type of fieldwork, that is, a place that will allow Stage 2 students to investigate sustainable practices that protect environments.
Begin by creating an
inquiry question
for the sequence that addresses GE2-2 ‘describes the ways people, places and environments interact’.
After reading the Stage Two section of the syllabus called ‘Protection of Environments’and conducting any necessaryresearch, write
an answer
to that question [
no more than 100 words
] which your students will arrive at during the sequence.
Include the inquiry question and the answer in the
spaces provided on the template.
In addition to the fieldwork at the ‘Check it Out’ stage, be sure to choose rich and engaging
sources for the ‘Activate’ and ‘Venture Further’ stages.
The sequence must address the following elements of the NSW
Geography K-10 Syllabus
:
• Content: ‘Protection of Environments – investigate sustainable practices that protect environments, including those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.’
• The Stage Two outcome GE2-2:describes the ways people, places and environments interact.
• The Stage Two outcome GE2-4: acquires and communicates geographical information and uses geographical tools for inquiry.
• One dot point from each of the three cells relevant to Stage Two in the K-10 Geographical Inquiry Skills Continuum. Indicate which dot points you have chosen in the space provided on the templateand modify these to reflect how each skill is being developed in your plan.
2. In the
‘Information learned’
cell of the template, select
one
learning activity to be used for
summative
assessment.
Place this activity in bold letters.
3. List the sources of information (in
APA
referencing style) used at the Activate, Check it Out and Venture further levels of your inquiry sequence. This list should appear
directly under the table
containing your teaching and learning activities.
Part B
List the
organisational steps
which you would take in planning the fieldwork.
Attachments:
5544437_1_assignment-2.docx

Based on the Board’s decision, the CFO asks you to draft a business research report addressed to the Board of Directors on the following: a. Explain the potential role that different types of accounting theory (i.e., normative and positive accounting theories) play in developing consistent accounting principles. (Some research articles are listed on next page for your reference and you may further do your own research). (10 marks). b. Provide a detailed explanation of the impairment write-down(s) made by your company in the year ended 30 June 2019. Your explanation should include a discussion of i. the asset/s that were impaired; ii. the type of estimations required to record the impairment; iii. the amount of the impairment write-down; and iv. relevant disclosures about impairment testing in the 30 June 2019 financial report. (10 marks) (Please note that the impairments of accounts receivable and inventories are NOT within the scope of impairment requirements in AASB136.) c. Based on your findings in part b, critically discuss and recommend how your chosen company can enhance the treatments and disclosures for impairment for the year ended 30 June 2020 so that your company could provide clear disclosure about the adverse impacts on the company from the COVID19 pandemic. (10 marks) d. Based on your findings in part c, discuss how the treatments and disclosures about impairment suggested by you for the year ended 30 June 2020 meet the fundamental characteristics of financial reporting as per the Conceptual Framework? (10 marks). S2 2020 ACCG8123 Page 3 You need to attach a copy of the relevant parts of the annual report showing impairment disclosures made by the company. Do not attach the entire annual report. To complete this assignment, you will need to select a suitable company yourself that meets the following criteria: • The company is significantly affected by COVID-19 such as transportation, retail etc. (you may refer to some industry reports: for example, https://www.accenture.com/au-en/services/consulting/coronavirus-industry-impact https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/covid-19-insights-collection-bysectors.html ) • The company must be a constituent of the S&P/ASX 300 index (www.asx300list.com); • The company must publish audited annual financial reports in English, fully complying with IFRS or AASB standards and • The company must have a 30 June year end. • Choose the annual report for the financial year ended 30 June 2019. (Do NOT choose the annual report for the financial year ended 30 June 2020 to answer part b. If your company has published the 2020 Annual report, please ignore the report and answer part c based on your own analysis). Research articles for your reference (available on iLearn) and you are suggested to further do your own research. • Coetsee, D., 2010. The role of accounting theory in the development of accounting principles. Meditari: Research Journal of the School of Accounting Sciences, 18(1), pp.1-16. • Demski, J.S., 1973. The general impossibility of normative accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 48(4), pp.718-723. • Zalaghi, H. and Khazaei, M., 2016. The role of deductive and inductive reasoning in accounting research and standard setting. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 8(1), pp.23
Attachments:
5544476_1_business-report-topic-asset-impairment.pdf