Write an case analysis.The individual case analysis should be 6 to 8 pages in length with an 9th page added for Works Cited

Adapted from the University of Scranton, Kania School of Management, Assessment Tools, available http://academic.scranton.edu/department/assessment/ksom/ (OVER)

BUAD 326 – Business and Society: Ethics and Sustainability Written Case Analysis Rubric (rev 75/18) Name: _________________________ Case: ________________________________________ Date: _______________ Evaluation Criteria

Below Average Performance (69% or lower)

Max. Pts.

Average Performance (70% to 89%)

Max. Pts.

Exemplary Performance (90% or higher)

Max. Pts.

Your Score

Issue(s)

 Does not recognize an ethical issue or mentions issues that are not based on facts of the case

 Doesn’t correctly identify issue category or underlying concepts

13.8  Recognizes one or more key ethical issues in the case; Provides some support for why problem is an ethical issue; Identifies only some categories or ethical concepts

17.8  Recognizes multiple ethical issues in the case

 States most important issue and why  Identifies category of issue(s) or

underlying ethical concepts

20

Facts

 Simply repeats facts listed in case and does not identify which are most important of these facts

 Doesn’t mention if professional code and/or law(s) is described in case

6.9  Identifies some of the important facts in case

 Distinguishes between more important and less important facts

8.9  Identifies most important facts in case, distinguishing between more and less important facts

 Describes whether professional code and laws/regulations are stated in case

10

Stakeholders/ Harms/ Benefits/ Rights

 Little identification of stakeholders  No discussion of harms and benefits  No discussion of rights denied

and/or exercised, OR

 Misidentifies harms, benefits, rights; may describe future instead of “already happened”

17.3  Identifies some of important stakeholders; some mention of those not affected

 Discusses only some of harms and benefits, or lacks detail

 Discusses only some of rights denied and rights exercised, or lacks detail

22.3  Identifies important stakeholders as well as those not affected

 Thoroughly discusses those harmed, and/or benefitted, and how

 Thoroughly discusses rights denied and rights exercised, and how

 Describes only those harms/benefits/ rights that have already happened

25

Actions  Doesn’t state whether immediate action is needed

 No alternative action proposed or proposes infeasible action(s)

 No mention of who must act

6.9  States whether immediate action is needed

 More than one reasonable alternative action proposed

 Names who must act, if anyone

8.9  States whether immediate action is needed

 Proposed alternative actions seem to deal with the most important issue

 Names who must act and states why

10

Alternatives  Does not identify or misidentifies alternatives, outcomes, and possible effects on all stakeholders

 Little or no discussion of alternatives and relevant ethical model

20.8  Evaluates some alternatives, their outcomes, and possible effects on some parties; or doesn’t thoroughly evaluate each part of the alternative

 Some discussion of alternatives and relevant ethical model

26.7  Thoroughly evaluates all alternatives and their outcomes and possible effects on each individual stakeholder or groups of stakeholders

 Explains how alternatives satisfy ethical model considered most relevant

30

Recommen- dation

 No recommendation offered; OR opinion offered without support tied to issues, facts concepts, relevant ethical model, or harms/benefits/ rights

 No mention of professional codes or codes are misidentified

17.3  Recommendation offered but is not clearly tied to issue, facts, concepts, relevant ethical model, harms/ benefits/ rights

 Professional code(s) correctly identified but little discussion of applicability

22.3  Recommendation is tied to issue(s) deemed most important;

 Recommendation is supported by key concepts; relevant ethical model; and most important facts and analysis of harms/rights/benefits

 Correctly identifies and applies professional code(s) of ethics

25

Total score Submitted e-copy via Blackboard/ Safe Assign by due time:

Total Maximum Points:

120

Adapted from the University of Scranton, Kania School of Management, Assessment Tools, available http://academic.scranton.edu/department/assessment/ksom/ (OVER)

Notes for individual written case analysis. Points will be deducted if these directions are not followed: 1) The written case analysis must be presented in a six to eight-page paper (a ninth page may be added for Works Cited). It must be written in essay format, use subheads, follow the case analysis format and must answer the case analysis questions in the order asked. 2) Using MLA style, the paper must follow all rules of good writing, including proper citation of references, both in-text and as a Works Cited list. The case, whether in the textbook or distributed as a separate handout, should be listed in the Works Cited list. 3) The written analysis has a value of approximately 25% of the final course grade. 4) The written case analysis must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document via the assignment link in the appropriate module on Blackboard. The submission will be checked for plagiarism with the SafeAssign program. 5) See Appendix A in the Syllabus for full details of the case analysis method.