case #1

Case 1 Part 2 Assignment

Overall Instructions

1. Type your answers according to the “Assignment Instructions” below (Instructor’s Note: Failure to following the format when completing this assignment can cost you a significant number of points). PROOFREAD YOUR PAPER

(grammatical errors in your paper can cost you significant points). You must submit your by midnight on July 8th.

2. Note: This is an INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT, not a group assignment. I expect your answers to be your own thoughts and written in your own words! (See the discussion in your Syllabus regarding ECU’s Academic Integrity Policy.)

3. We will again be using the following two files for this assignment: 1) “A Domestic Garment Company – Sample Case and Answer PDF File”; and 2) “Case 1 File.” Both are posted under the “Case Analysis” tab on the left side of the

page in the Blackboard course.

Assignment Instructions

To help better understand the format of your case analyses, I am dividing the opening case assignment into two parts:

Case 1 Part 1 and Case 1 Part 2. In Part 1, we covered the first two steps of case analysis: Ethical Issue Identification and

Stakeholder Analysis. In Part II, we will cover the third step of case analysis: Decision(s) and Analysis. To help understand

this process, we will use the same two files that we used in Part I: “A Domestic Garment Company – Sample Case and

Answer” as a sample case and “Case 1” as the case you will analyze. To make sure everyone is using the same ethical issue

and stakeholder analysis, I have given you this information in the following section.

Use it for your Part II analysis, NOT the issues and stakeholder analysis that you submitted to me.

Step 3: Decision(s) and Analysis

Decision(s) (10 points)

1. Determine what the most ethical decision or decisions are that resolve all of the ethical issues you identified in Step 1. List and describe each decision in a separate paragraph labeling them sequentially (e.g., Decision #1, Decision #2,

etc.) as shown in the sample case and answers.

2. VERY IMPORTANT: Make sure you do not make alternate decisions. Alternate decisions are “either-or” decisions. For example, if I stated in the sample case that my Decision #1 was to lay off one-third of the sewers and my

Decision #2 was to cut all sewers’ pay by one-third, these would be alternate decisions in this case. There is no way

to implement both decisions at the same time and, therefore, no way to analyze which decision is the most ethical.

3. After listing and describing all of your decisions, explain how they resolve all of the ethical issues you identified in Step 1 of the case.

Nonconsequentialist Analysis of Decisions (10 points)

1. Review all of the 26 SUBCHARACTERISTICS identified on the Six Pillars of Character Outline in Chapter 2 (i.e., ones with an “(S)” after them) asking yourself if any ONE of your decisions violates that subcharacteristic. If any one of

your decision(s) violates a subcharacteristic, it is not an ethical decision using a nonconsequentialist analysis. For

example, if I decided to immediately layoff 1000 sewers in the sample case, that decision violates the WARN Act and

violates the lawfulness subcharacteristic. That decision would not be an ethical decision and I would need to start

over.

2. If none of your decision(s) violates one of the 26 subcharacteristics, then choose the STRONGEST FOUR subcharacteristics that you feel support your decision(s) as being the most ethical.

3. In a separate paragraph for each subcharacteristic:

A. First, type the name of the subcharacteristic with a “:” after it.

B. Second, copy and paste the EXACT definition of the subcharacteristic used in the Six Pillars of Character Outline.

C. Third, explain in detail how a specific decision or decisions uphold the subcharacteristic identified.

Consequentialist Analysis of Decisions (10 points)

1. BASED ON YOUR DECISIONS ABOVE, categorize every stake identified in Step 2 as either a cost, a benefit, or part cost and benefit. DO NOT RE-NUMBER YOUR STAKES.

2. Categorize any additional costs and benefits generated by your decisions.

3. Analyze your costs and benefits identified in #1 and #2 above. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? If so, your decision(s) are ethical using a consequentialist analysis. If not, your decision(s) are unethical using a consequentialist

analysis and you need to start over.

4. If you believe the benefits outweigh the costs, argue why you believe so in no more than one paragraph.

Case 1 Part 1 Answer to Use for Part 2 *Failure to use the Issues and Stakeholder Analysis below will result in a zero on your submission

Ethical Issue(s)

The ethical issue in this case is whether to follow the narrow view or broader view of corporate social responsibility. The

narrow view of corporate social responsibility, also called profit maximization, is most associated with Milton Friedman. In

his book Capitalism and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006) argues that diverting corporations from the

pursuit of profit makes the economic system less efficient. Therefore, Friedman argues that business’s only social

responsibility is to make money within the rules of the game. The broader view of corporate social responsibility, also

called the stakeholder model, states that business has obligations in addition to pursuing profits. In other words, a

corporation has obligations not only to its stockholders, but to all other constituencies that affect, or are affected by, it s

behavior. Most scholars recognize the broader view of corporate social responsibility as the most ethical approach to

decision-making. As the CEO of Nike, I have the ultimate responsibility for our corporation’s welfare. In response to a

lawsuit against my company for false advertising, my legal team fought the claim on the grounds of corporate free speech

with the ultimate goal of protecting the stockholders of Nike. However, the underlying reasons for the false

advertisement lawsuit—misleading claims about working conditions inside Nike factories—were not considered.

Therefore, I need to use the broader view of corporate social responsibility to determine what Nike’s next step will be in

this situation.

Stakeholder Analysis

CEO Philip Knight (Decision-Maker)/Nike

1. I want to make a decision that will consider all of our stakeholders’ stakes.

2. I fear alienating present and potential customers.

3. I want to make a decision that is based on sound reasoning.

4. I hope to find a way of effectively dealing with the lawsuit.

5. I do not want to make false claims about the working conditions inside Nike factories even if they are protected by commercial freedom of speech rights.

Nike Stockholders

6. They want to maximize the return on their investment over the long-term.

Present/Potential Customers

7. They want quality products made by workers who have not been exploited or forced to work in poor working conditions.

8. They want quality products at competitive prices.

[There are other stakeholders in stakes not listed here. For purposes of completing step three of the case analysis, we will only analyze the eight stakes above.]