An illustrated critique of the nature of brand design and its value to Essay - 1

An illustrated critique of the nature of brand design and its value to a selected company - Essay Example It also critically evaluates its internal strength, weakness, and brand power due to massive international presence. The key competitors are under analysis and comparison with H&M to evaluate its brand image significant for its international standing and business operations. OVERVIEW H&M (Hennes and Mauritz) group is a renowned retail designer specialising in fashion apparel and accessories for men, women and children wear. It is the second largest international fashion retailer after the Spanish brand Zara (Inditex). It is operated through leased retail stores, franchises and online catalogue stores with operations in Europe, Americas, Middle East and Asia. It has expanded internationally through network of franchise stores as well as catalogue sales. It offers affordable and chic high street fashion from children to teenagers and adults with wide variety of fashion apparel, footwear, accessories and cosmetics. It divulges the concept of fast fashion i.e. offering premium fashion at affordable prices while maintaining satisfactory quality. It has a distinctive global presence across 48 countries with 2,700 retail outlets covering 50 franchises, 48 Monki, 18 Weekday and 35 Collection of Styles (COS) stores. It has a workforce of almost 94,000 employees globally. The significant growth was captured by introduction of cosmetics and accessories in the fashion apparel market. It derives 90% of its revenue from overseas market, where Germany being the biggest at 27%. The online and catalogue sale is only offered in the European region (Datamonitor, 2011). HISTORY The history of the multi-national retailer dates back to Erling Persson in 1947 at Vasteras, who started the brand initially with Hennes dealing with women wear. In 1969, Erling Mauritz bought a menswear retail company, together Hennes and Mauritz AB founded H&M fashion house dealing with both men, and women wear products. It expanded the fashion business from Sweden during the late 1960s to Norway, Denmark , Switzerland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Germany. H&M is listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange since 1974. In spite of H&M Scandinavian origin, its expansion into British and European market was a major success in the late 1970s. The online store was inaugurated in 1988 with consolidation of men, women, teens and children under one fashion brand called H&M. It is operated and headquartered in Stockholm. It turned into a multinational retail fashion business by acquiring 40% stakes in Fabric Scandinavian, which deals with brands such as Cheap Monday, Monki and Weekday retail stores. It also inaugurated its first COS concept store in 2011 at Stockholm (Datamonitor, 2011). H&M LOGO The logo signifies the first letters of the founding members of the H&M group, Hennes and Mauritz. The brand logo illustrates a bold red colour with light cursive that depicts softer outlook. The red colour illustrates a vibrant and enthusiastic outlook that comprehends with the company’s creative fashion trends. The font size and colour chosen for the brand depicts the

Parliamentary sovereignty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Parliamentary sovereignty - Essay Example The notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty has been central to democratic practice for a considerable period of time. In a democracy, the legislature is elected by popular vote and this has been a major feature of the English Constitution. In the initial stages of democracy in Britain, liberty was at grave risk due to monarchical power.1 As a consequence of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Parliament was empowered to enact or rescind any law whatsoever. In addition, no individual or organisation was permitted by English Law to set aside or overrule legislation enacted by Parliament. In R (Jackson) v Attorney General,2 Lord Hope stated that Parliamentary Sovereignty was not absolute. Thereafter he referred to the enactment of the 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Human Rights Act which had effectively diminished the power of Parliament to legislate.3 There was disagreement among their Lordships, regarding the ruling in R (Jackson) v Attorney General. This divergenc e in view related to whether the process detailed under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 and 1949, could be employed by the House of Commons to extend the life of Parliament beyond 5 years. The decision in the Jackson case apparently supports this view. Most of the members of the House of Lords were against this conclusion.4 However, they were signally unable to substantiate it in a manner that was consistent with promoting the supremacy of Parliament. In particular, Lord Hope highlighted the fact that the notion of absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament that had been derived by Dicey from Blackstone and Coke was undergoing gradual change. However, in his judgement in this case, Lord Hope refrained from explicitly declaring that the courts lacked the power to question the validity of legislation for the reason that the latter was incompatible with union legislation.5 However, Lord Hope was of the opinion that union legislation was a tangible constraint on Parliamentary S overeignty. As per Lord Hope, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty was central to the Constitution. However, due to certain developments, Parliamentary Sovereignty was not absolute. Consequently, it would be incorrect to contend that Parliament’s freedom to legislate is unrestricted.6 In addition, Lord Hope stated that the rule of law, which was implemented by the courts, was the decisive controlling factor, and that the Constitution was founded on this element. Furthermore, Parliamentary Sovereignty would be rendered a hollow doctrine, if the general public refused to acknowledge legislation enacted by it, on the grounds that it was extremely offensive and incongruous. The fulcrum of the British Constitution is the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Dicey, wrote extensively on the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and deemed it to be the underlying feature of British political institutions, as well as the very bedrock of constitutional law.7 As per Dicey, parlia ment can repeal or enact any law and the judiciary cannot hold a statute to be invalid for the reason that it breaches legal or moral principles.8 Thus, every fundamental law, with the exception of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, can be altered by Parliament. One of the critical features of the rule of sovereignty is that no parliament has the power to bind its successors. Thus, there is no avenue, whereby a parliament can ingrain an Act of Parliament.9 In other words, every Act of Parliament can be repealed by subsequent legislation. Dicey was a strong proponent of the thought that the Rule of Law would be affected by discretionary power, as the latter would ultimately result in arbitrary decisions. This has been criticised by some scholars, who have contended that discretion is inevitable in a modern state, if a wide range of regulatory and welfare duties have to be carried out.10 All the same, several important values are incorporated in the Rule of Law, such as acces s to justice, accountability, certainty, due process, efficiency,