This analysis paper involves a case analysis. You must first choose the case you wish to analyze. You can find the cases on our Blackboard site, in the Assignments section. It contains a folder with 4 cases from which to choose.
The cases involve each of four business areas: accounting, finance, management, and marketing. You are free to choose any case you wish. Within each area, read through the cases (they average around 1 page) and pick the one that most interests you.
Your paper should be divided into 3 separate sections. Please put your last name in the document title when submitting. Also please submit your paper using Word or something compatible. Please don't submit your paper in a PDF format.
Section I. Each case ends with a decision to be made. First, putting yourself in the role of the person making the decision, indicate your key decision options. What basic choices do you have? Second, do a stakeholder analysis that lists the stakeholders to the decision, and a discussion of how each possible decision would affect each stakeholder. Also include a stakeholder analysis table that includes the stakeholders to the decision, and the effects on each. See the appendix to these instructions for suggestions on setting up this table.
Note: Do not summarize the case in your paper unless you wish to make some additional assumptions. Assume the reader knows the content of your case.
Section II. Analyze your decision options from an ethical standpoint. To do this, apply each of the three main perspectives for making an ethical decision featured in the Deckop chapter (and Part 2A lecture) and the class readings: utilitarianism, profit maximization, and universalism. You are free to apply others as discussed in the Deckop chapter as well; though apply at least the three main ones. Indicate what each perspective would say is the ethical course of action, and why. Be sure to base your utilitarian analysis on your stakeholder analysis done previously. That is, refer to your stakeholder analysis when conducting your utilitarian analysis.
To the extent possible, make links to the assigned readings by Friedman, the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate, and the Carter article. These articles may provide insight to guide your analysis.
Section III. Indicate the decision you (as the decision maker in the case) would make, and the degree to which it is consistent with each ethical perspective. Be as detailed in possible in describing the decision you would make and/or the action(s) you would take. If one or more of the perspectives disagrees with your decision, indicate why you do not choose to follow the guidance of that perspective(s). Say what is wrong with the perspective for you, either in the context of the decision, and/or simply for you as the decision maker.
Suggested length: Approximately 5 double-spaced pages, normal sized font and margins. However your paper can be as long or short as you want. It will be difficult to present an analysis of sufficient depth in less than 5 pages.
Evaluation
Grading Rubric: Your paper is worth a total of 40 points, and will be evaluated on four criteria, with 10 points available for each:
A) your stakeholder analysis and application of utilitarianism (10 points)
B) your application of profit maximization (10 points)
C) your application of universalism (10 points)
D) how well your paper is written and organized (as discussed below) (10 points)
Your application of the assigned readings thus far in the course (in addition to the Deckop chapter -- e.g., Carter, the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate etc.) will be considered extra credit and can improve your grade.
Please note: To get a good grade on this paper (i.e., A or B), you need to apply the ethical perspectives (i.e., utilitarianism, profit maximization, universalism) in depth. This will require a thorough understanding of the ethical perspectives. If after reviewing the Deckop chapter and Part 2A lecture you do not feel you possess this depth of understanding, you should contact me so that we can go over the ethical perspectives to enhance your understanding.
Writing and organization: spelling, grammar, sentence construction as well as clarity in presentation are evaluated. To receive 10 points your paper must be free of basic spelling and grammar errors. If your paper does not meet a basic threshold in terms of spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, it will be returned un-graded and you will be asked for a revision, which will be graded as late.
Appendix
How to construct a stakeholder analysis table (for Section I):
List your decision options across the top, the stakeholders along the side, and in the table indicate with plusses and minuses (i.e., + & -) the effect of each decision on each stakeholder. If a decision has a strong effect on a particular stakeholder, you can indicate this with more than one + or -. For example, a generic stakeholder analysis table might look like:
Decision
Decision A Decision B
Stakeholders
Stockholders ++ -
Employees - + [note - these stakeholders are just
Customers + - examples; your stakeholders will
Community - +++ probably be different]
(etc.)
Also, note that one way to conduct your utilitarian analysis would be to count up the plusses and minuses, and to pick the decision where the plusses most outweigh the minuses. In the above table, Decision A has 2 plusses and 3 minuses. Decision B has 4 plusses and 2 minuses. So, from a utilitarian perspective, Decision B is more ethical.