case study

Page 0 of 13

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester T2 2020

Unit Code HC2121

Unit Title Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility

Assessment Type Individual Assessment

Assessment Title Individual Case Study Report on Case 20 ‘Enron: Not Accounting for the future’

Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)

Students able to:

1. Compare and contrast diverse approaches to ethical decision making

2. Evaluate the implications of the legal pressure for ethical behaviour in

organisations

3. Examine ethical issues as they relate to basic values and the challenge of

determining ethical issues in business

4. Understand how moral philosophies and values influence individual and group

ethical decision making in business

5. Apply and enhance problem-solving

Weight 30% of the total assessments

Total Marks 30 marks

Word limit Not more than 2,000 words

Due Date Sunday of Week 10, 27/09/20, at 23 59

Submission

Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed

Assignment Cover Page.

• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.

• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Page 1 of 13

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment

Assignment Specifications

Task: Individual case study analysis (Report)

Topic: Case Study on “Enron: Not Accounting for the future”

You are required to complete a detailed analysis and present your case assessment, analysis, and outside

research based on the case study on ‘Enron: Not Accounting for the future’.

The case study is available on your prescribed textbook:

Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L (2018), Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 12th ed,

Southwestern, Cengage Learning

You are required to answer the questions located at the end of the case study and the questions are as

follows:

1. How did the corporate culture of Enron contribute to its bankruptcy?

2. Did Enron’s bankers, auditors, and attorneys contribute to Enron’s demise? If so, how?

3. What role did the company’s chief financial officer play in creating the problems that led to Enron’s

financial problems?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

 Ungagged.net: The Other Side of the Enron Story offers the perspectives of Enron employees who believe they were the victims of the federal government’s desire to get convictions and place blame:

http://ungagged.net.

 Interactive graph of Enron’s stock price and the actions of important Enron executives and partners: http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2013797,00.html.

 Former Enron CFO confronts fraud examiners: http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Former-Enron- CFO-Andrew-Fastow-Meets-Fraud-Examiners-67263-1.html.

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Page 2 of 13

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment

Assignment Structure

Ideally, your report needs to consist of at least the following structure:

1. Executive Summary: One page

2. Section 1: Introduction

3. Section 2: Main body of the report consists of the questions at the end of the case study (or as

above)

4. Section 3: Conclusions

5. Reference List: Between 15-20 references

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Page 3 of 13

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment

HC2121 Individual Assignment Marking Rubric (Rubric)

Substantially Exceeds

Expectations Exceeds

Expectations Meets

Expectations Does Not Meet

Expectations Unacceptable

Scope (15%)

1. Applies unit material with logical order of ideas, with no gaps in information. 2. Completely addresses the concepts, theories and material issues covered in unit and called for in the assignment instructions, and is supported by text and/or other literature. 3. Best and most applicable points are presented while unnecessary content is left out. 4. Points are logical and well- supported by evidence and research.

1. Applies unit material with some logical order of ideas, with minimal gaps in information. 2. Substantially addresses issues covered in unit and called for in the assignment instructions, and is supported by text and/or other literature. 3. Important points are presented while unnecessary content is left out. 4. You make your point, but could present more logically. Points are supported by evidence and research.

1. Applies unit material with gaps in information. 2. Addresses some of the issues covered in unit and called for in the assignment instructions, 3. Some important points are addressed, but not fully covered. 4. You made some points, but they were not logically related to the case itself.

1. Does not apply the unit principles and material as called for in the case study. 2. Does not address the relevant issues posed by the case study. 3. You fail to make any important points and analyze the material presented in the unit and case study. 4. You fail to make your point, and do not use the concepts, theories and material presented in the unit.

1. Paper lacks flow from point to point, order of ideas is not clear, and gaps in information are present. Structure lacks organization. 2. Major themes mentioned in the assignment instructions have not been met and are not supported by literature. 3. Applicable points are not presented and paper is full of unnecessary content. 4. Points are not logical and are not supported by evidence and research.

Originality (5%)

Demonstrates critical thinking about the topic and the student’s own impressions and interpretations of research. The research is not merely

Demonstrates critical thinking about the topic and the student’s own impressions and interpretations of research. The research is presented, could be better

Case study lacks some critical thinking about the topic and the student’s own impressions and interpretations of research.

Case study lacks critical thinking about the topic and the student’s own impressions and interpretations of research. The research is not

No critical thinking about the topic and the student’s own impressions and interpretations of research. The research is not

Page 4 of 13

HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment

presented, but is interpreted and applied to overall themes.

interpreted and applied to overall themes.

The research presented could be better interpreted and applied to overall themes.

interpreted and applied to overall themes.

interpreted and applied to overall themes.

Presentation (5%)

Professional, no editing or revision required. 1. Proper citing of references and HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE Style, no editing or revision required. 2. Proper sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling, no editing or revision required.

Professional, some light editing may be useful. 1. Follows HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE format with few errors. 2. Few or no errors but sentence structure could be improved.

Revision Suggested. 1. Follows HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE format about 50% of the time. 2. Overlooked errors in sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling.

Revision Required. 1. Follows HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE format less than 50% of the time. 2. Overlooked several errors in spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure showing carelessness.

Revision Required. 1. Does not follow HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE format. 2. Many errors in both mechanics and sentence structure; extremely poorly written.

Integration (5%)

Various themes and concepts throughout the paper are integrated and incorporated to form even stronger support for the thesis. Concepts are not presented independently of one another, but as part of a whole.

Various themes and concepts throughout the paper are integrated and incorporated to form strong support for the thesis. Concepts, overall, are presented as a whole.

50% of the themes and concepts throughout the paper are integrated and incorporated to support the thesis. 50% of concepts are presented as a whole.

Themes and concepts are not integrated and incorporated to support the thesis. Concepts are not presented as a whole.

Themes and concepts do not support the thesis. Concepts are poorly presented.