|
|
Discuss ethical philosophies presented in readings more thoroughly.
|
Final Project
The Final Project is designed to assess student learning on specific course-related goals. It is also designed to assess whether students are able to apply knowledge and skills gained from study in the course, as evidenced in the assigned paper. There are two phases to the final project: the issues/bibliography paper and the case study/final memorandum.
Phase I: Issues/Bibliography Paper
The Issues/Bibliography paper is merely a preliminary step for the Case Study/Final Memorandum to help students accurately identified three (3) specific ethical issues and have at least three (3) substantive, academic resources; to be used in your final memorandum. Please submit the Issues/Bibliography paper to the assignment folder.
Requirements for Issues/Bibliography Paper
Ethical Issues. a statement and brief explanation of three (3) specific ethical issues related to the case study/final memorandum. This statement is a brief sentence statement of each ethical issue with a brief explanation for each issue explaining why it is an ethical issue in the scenario;
Bibliography of Resources. a bibliography (reference) listing (APA format) a minimum of three outside resources, based on your research, to be used in the case study/final memorandum. In addition to these three (3) resources gleaned from your research, you may also use any resources from class materials;
Students will post the paper in the Assignment Folder.
Note:
If the three resources are acceptable, students can use them in the case study/final memorandum, or revise/add resources, as needed, for the case study/final memorandum;
When you begin the case study/final memorandum, you will again refer to this assignment. If you correctly identified the ethical issues, and they are specifically precise and accurate, you will use them to begin the ethical issues section of the case study/final memorandum, OR revise the ethical issues, as needed, for the case study/final memorandum.
By completing this assignment, students will meet the outcome(s):
identify ethical issues that arise in domestic and global business environments using an understanding of ethical concepts and of legal and business principles
Phase II: Case Study/Final Memorandum
The case study/final memorandum culminates in a complex memorandum to an executive officer of a company. The case study/final memorandum focuses on developing, sharpening and applying critical thinking skills, in the context of recognizing, evaluating, and proposing a resolution for ethical issues that arise in managerial decision making.
Write the analysis in business memo format, addressed to Board of Directors for the company. Make the memorandum from you, acting as hired consultant for the company.
The case study to be analyzed, The Plumpy’nut Controversy, is retrievable in the Course Content link.
By completing this assignment, students will meet the outcome(s):
identify ethical issues that arise in domestic and global business environments using an understanding of ethical concepts and of legal and business principles;
develop and evaluate alternatives to, and recommend solutions for, ethical dilemmas, taking into account ethical and legal requirements and the essential mission of the business enterprise
effectively communicate to internal and external business stakeholders the complexities of ethical issues, suggesting and analyzing various solutions in order to ensure appropriate business practices and accountability
Requirements of Case Study/Final Memorandum:
View Video: Nutrition for Niger – Plumpy’nut - 10:58 mins
60 Minutes segment by Anderson Cooper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VSCMoRDp2c
Read article: The Purpose of Patents
http://www.innovation.org/documents/File/Pharmaceutical_Patents.pdf
Draft memo using the format (subheadings/sections) prescribed below;
All sections must be comprehensive, in-depth and fully justified;
Resources from previously assigned course materials or from your own research may be used to justify and support rationale;
All in-text citations and resources must be in APA style;
Submit the completed case in the Assignment Folder.
The Final Memorandum must include the following sections and subheadings:
O:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION: Brief 1-paragraph intro to subject of memo.
FACTS SUMMARY: Summarize and explain the facts that are directly significant and relevant to the ethical dilemma in this case.
Write at least 1 paragraph, or you may use an introductory sentence to be followed by a list of relevant facts with bullets.
ETHICAL DILEMMA: Briefly discuss in 1 paragraph, the either/or ethical dilemma facing the company. Please refer to "Facts vs. Ethical Dilemma........" in the TOOLBOX for explanation, examples of dilemmas.
ETHICAL ISSUES: Explain three (3) of the most significant ethical issues related to, and arising from, the ethical dilemma and then, explain each ethical issue and why it is an ethical/moral issue, etc.
For
each
ethical issue that you identify your discussion will:
present the relevant, associated facts;
specifically "name" the ethical issue;
evaluate why the issue is an ethical issue - discuss how managers’ fiduciary duties, effects on all corporate stakeholders, etc., define the ethical issue, and direct resolution of the issue.
ALTERNATIVES:
List, explain and justify 1 possible alternative/solution to address and resolve the ethical dilemma and EACH ethical issue discussed above. Each alternative should be comprehensive so that it addresses the related ethical issue.
Alternatives should be feasible, logical, directly related to resolving the ethical dilemma and addressing the ethical issues in the case.
Alternatives are expressed in the form of propositions or prescriptive statements suggesting action and are framed by asking the normative question, what could or should the company do? Consider consequences. Identify relevant stakeholders, and the effects on each group, pros and cons, etc. of each alternative. Apply ethical theories in context of your evaluations, but don’t over-do this aspect. For example, teleological or consequentialist theorists would examine who the stakeholders are, both internal and external to the company, and the positive and negative consequences for each stakeholder group, etc.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend 1 (and only 1) alternative from the three (3) alternatives suggested above. Justify and explain your choice discussing:
· why you chose this alternative;
· how, specifically, the recommendation will address the ethical dilemma and ethical issues;
· how the recommendation will likely impact each relevant stakeholder group;
· pros and cons of your recommendation;
· feasibility of your recommendation;
· how the recommendation may be implemented;
· Apply ethical theories, resources from previously assigned course materials, or resources from your own research to justify and support your recommendation. All in-text citations must be in APA style.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS for RECOMMENDATION: Discuss potential implications arising from your recommendation for:
· the company
· other businesses within the industry
· other industries
CONCLUSION: Summarize the case and its ethical issues, implications, etc.
Final Paper Grading Rubric
|
|
Failure
|
Substandard
|
Good
|
Superior
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
0
|
1
|
1.15
|
1.3
|
1.5
|
|
Introduction and Facts: Explains all significant facts relevant to stating the most important ethical issues in case.
|
An inadequate presentation that is incomplete, omitted or demonstrates no relevance to key ethical issues and problems, or to management issues and any key facts
|
Poor presentation that demonstrates little in the way of describing general relevance to key ethical issues & problems and to management issues but lacks more than two key facts and/or lacks sufficient depth
|
Good presentation that demonstrates some, but not all, general relevance to key ethical issues and problems & to management issues but lacks one or two key facts and/or lacks sufficient depth
|
Excellent presentation that demonstrates some, but not all, general relevance to some key ethical issues & problems and to management issues but lacks one key facts and/or lacks sufficient depth
|
Outstanding and very thorough, comprehensive, in depth discussion that demonstrates a high relevance to key ethical issues & problems and to management issues related to key facts
|
|
|
0
|
1
|
1.15
|
1.3
|
1.5
|
|
Ethical Dilemma: Defines ethical dilemma facing company relevant to facts and ethical issues/problems in case.
|
Does not discuss ethical dilemma, and/or inadequately discusses some, but not all, facts relevant to a dilemma, OR discusses facts not directly relevant to ethical dilemma, to ethics issues & problems.
|
Generally discusses ethical dilemma. Fails to precisely define ethical dilemma related to primary ethical issue & facts precisely and/or statement, OR discusses ethical problems/issues-not in context of specific ethical dilemma; &/or discusses/explains only some of facts & issues related to company’s options dilemma in moral/ethical context relevant to ethical issues and problems
|
Ethical dilemma relates to primary ethical issue & facts in case is presented; discussion and explanation of dilemma related to company's options in moral/ethical context relevant to ethical issues & problems has some depth but is missing 2-3 elements
|
Ethical dilemma relates to primary ethical issue & facts in case; discussion & explanation of dilemma related to company's options in moral/ethical context relevant to ethical issues & problems has depth but is missing an element
|
Ethical dilemma relates to primary ethical issue & facts in case is defined in a precise statement; consists of an in depth discussion & explanation of dilemma as it relates to company's options in moral/ethical context relevant to ethical issues & problems
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Ethical Issue #1: Focuses on Most Important Ethical Issues Relevant to Facts of the Case.
|
Issue not well defined, precise, specific; and not supported by in depth discussion, or any discussion, of relevant facts in case, and does not provide in depth, or any, specific discussion and explanation of issue and related facts
|
Issue not well defined, precise, or specific; but issue supported by some, but not in depth discussion of relevant facts in case, provides some but not in depth discussion and explanation of issue and related facts
|
Issue well defined, specific; supported by some, but not in depth, discussion, of relevant facts in case; provides some, but not in depth, specific discussion and explanation of issue and related facts OR issue not well defined, precise, specific, but reasonably adequate discussion of relevant facts in case; provides some, but not in depth, specific discussion and explanation of issue and related facts
|
Excellent focus on important ethical issue that is well- defined, supported mostly by relevant facts in the case; provides some in depth, specific discussion and explanation of issue and related facts.
|
Outstanding focus on important ethical issue that is well defined, precise, specific, well supported by relevant facts in the case; provides in depth, specific discussion and explanation of issue and related facts.
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Ethical Issue #2: Same Criteria and point value as Ethical Issue #1
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Ethical Issue #3: Same Criteria and point value as Ethical Issue #1
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Alternative #1 Suggests alternative solution to address and resolve the ethical issue(s) and considers the effects of alternative on all company stakeholders and company.
|
Inadequate statement of alternative &/or discussion of alternative and its implementation
|
Provides general not in depth or specific discussion of alternative & its justification, explanation &/or presents an infeasible alternative; provides only general discussion of alternative’s impact on stakeholders, effect on company & how it will resolve ethical issue; explains generally or not at all how alternative will be implemented
|
Specifically defines feasible alternative solution relevant to ethical issue; provides adequate, but not sufficiently in depth discussion, justification, and explanation of alternative and its effect on stakeholders, effect on company and specifically how it will resolve the ethical issue/problem; explains generally or not at all how alternative will be implemented
|
Specifically defines feasible alternative solution relevant ethical issue; provides in depth discussion, justification, and explanation of alternative and its effect on stakeholders, effect on company and specifically how it will resolve the ethical issue/problem; explains in detail how alternative will be implemented
|
Specifically defines feasible alternative solution relevant ethical issue; provides in depth discussion, justification, & explanation of alternative and its effect on stakeholders, effect on company & specifically how it will resolve the ethical issue/problem; explains in detail how alternative will be implemented
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Alternative #2: Same Criteria and point value as Recommendation #1
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Alternative #3: Same Criteria and point value as Recommendation #1
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Recommendation: Explanation of the best of 3 alternative solutions presented above, including analysis, discussion, and conclusion related to recommendation.
|
Inadequate or lacking discussion of why recommendation is best, pros and cons of decisions; discusses in depth how recommendation decision will impact stakeholders and company; how recommendation will address ethical dilemma and issues, feasibility, implementation; does not adequately justify conclusions, or does not justify at all
|
Poor analysis, justification of decision; discusses few factors such as explanation, analysis, of decision; discusses only a few factors such as how it addresses ethical issues, impacts stakeholders and company, why decision is best, will impact stakeholders and company; how recommendation will address ethical dilemma and issues, feasibility, implementation
|
Not in depth justification, explanation, analysis, of decision; discusses less than half of factors such as how it addresses ethical issues, impacts stakeholders and company, why decision is best, will impact stakeholders and company; how recommendation will address ethical dilemma and issues, feasibility, implementation; uses resources from course or outside resources, as appropriate to justify conclusions
|
Not in depth justification, explanation, analysis, of decision; discusses some, but not all factors such as how it addresses ethical issues, impacts stakeholders and company, why decision is best, will impact stakeholders and company; how recommendation will address ethical dilemma and issues, feasibility, implementation; uses resources from course or outside resources, as appropriate to justify conclusions
|
In depth justification, explanation, analysis, & discussion of why selected alternative is best, pros & cons of decisions; discusses in depth how recommendation decision will impact stakeholders and company; discusses how recommendation will address ethical dilemma and issues, discusses feasibility, implementation, implications; fully justifies recommendation decision; uses resources from course or outside resources, as appropriate to justify conclusions
|
|
|
1
|
1.25
|
1.5
|
1.75
|
2
|
|
Implications: Provides clear discussion of possible implications of ethical issues, alternative, recommend. for other businesses within same industry & for businesses in other industries; for governmental role & regulations related to the ethical issues & problems
|
Offers little or no discussion of ethical issues/alternative/recommendations and facts in case on one, few or none of following: company that is focus of case, businesses within same industry that is focus of case, other industries, business in general
|
General, not in depth discussion of implications/impact of ethical issues/alternative/recommendations and facts in case on some, but not all of following: company that is focus of case, businesses within same industry that is focus of case, other industries, business in general
|
General, may discuss some implications/impact of ethical issues/alternative/recommendations and facts in case on some, but not all of following: company that is focus of case, businesses within same industry that is focus of case, other industries, business in general
|
Specific, comprehensive, in depth discussion of implications/impact of ethical issues/alternative/recommendations and facts in case on some, but not all of following: company that is focus of case, businesses within same industry that is focus of case, other industries, business in general
|
Specific, comprehensive, in depth discussion of implications/impact of ethical issues/alternative/recommendations and facts in case on: company that is focus of case, businesses within same industry that is focus of case, other industries, business in general
|
|
|
0.5
|
0.65
|
0.75
|
0.85
|
1
|
|
Conclusion: Coherent summary of the case, its ethical issues, & implications
|
No conclusion presented
|
Contains few or no key elements, few or no core ethical issues and no supportable implications, OR section was omitted.
|
Some key elements of case, core ethical issues and final implications are presented in with some depth but could be presented in a more coherent/logical order.
|
Several key elements of case, core ethical issues and final implications are presented in coherent/logical order, and in depth
|
All key elements of case, core ethical issues and final implications are presented in coherent/logical order, and in depth
|
|
|
1.5
|
2
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
Writing Skills
|
Paper was not well-organized and clear. There were numerous errors in grammar and spelling. APA formatting of citations was incorrect or missing.
|
Paper was difficult to follow and grammar, spelling, and APA formatting were often incorrect.
|
Paper was difficult to follow, or grammar, spelling, or APA formatting was often incorrect.
|
Paper was for the most part well-organized and clear. Grammar and spelling were mostly correct. APA formatting of citations was correct or mostly correct.
|
Paper was well-organized and clear. Error-free grammar and spelling. Citations followed correct APA formatting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latina17
efp.docx
