Description
Please follow all the instructions. and do not plagiarize anything.
book: Joseph Desjardins, An Introduction to Business Ethics, 7th edition (McGraw Hill, 2024)
Additional explanation:
In this step of the project, you will include your proposal/case description as the first section (see sections listed under “formatting” on the prompt).
Your next 2 sections will be case studies applying two different ethical theories. The prompt tells you what to include in these and I have added an example of one in the link of examples above. Essentially, you will explain what kind of problem each theory would find with your situation and what kind of solution each theory might recommend. Do not use internet sources to define your ethical theories. You do not need to cite a source if you are drawing on your knowledge from the course and are not quoting. If you do want to quote a definition, used the assigned readings.
You will then add an analysis section (explained on the prompt) that gives your own opinion about the results of the case studies.
Finally, you will add your stakeholder analysis unless it is an excel sheet, in which case you can submit it as a separate document.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Final Case Study Project: Presentation of Findings (15 pt.)
Due Friday, 3/22 by 11:59 pm CST (finals week)
late submissions are not possible except in cases of extreme emergency verifiable by an “excused” absence
What to do to prepare for this assignment
•
Read the feedback on your Proposal and Stakeholder Analysis and make revisions if needed.
•
Consider which ethical theories you want to use based on the possibilities below and refresh your
knowledge of them by revisiting the material in the readings and tutorials.
Potential ethical theories to use for your two test cases (choose 2 frameworks with DIFFERENT
colors of highlighting)
•
Utilitarianism (greatest good and least harm for the greatest number)
•
Economic utilitarianism is NOT an option as it will recommend the same thing in every case
•
The stakeholder model of CSR
o This is utilitarianism that balances interests rather than appealing only to the greatest
number
•
Aristotelian and/or Confucian virtue ethics
o you can use both or choose one
•
Kantian ethics (the three duties of the categorical imperative)
•
Mora minimalism (the economic model of utilitarianism plus minimal duties, including the negative
duty to do no harm, discussed Week 4;)
•
The United Nations Ruggie Principles (this is a moral minimalism minus economic utilitarianism)
•
Maximalist principle-based ethics
o This is described in discussions of moral minimalism in the Week 4 material.
o If you use this, you will need to make clear which rights/duties you understand this position
to consider and should draw on the textbook material to do so.
How to format this assignment
• Use a Word (.docx) document.
• Use 12 pt., black, Times New Roman font and double spacing.
• Include your name and a title based on your topic.
• Use the section headings below:
o I. Proposal (include your revised proposal)
o II. Case Study 1: [insert ethical theory you used here]
o III. Case Study 2: [insert ethical theory you used here]
o IV. Analysis (this is NOT your stakeholder analysis!)
o V. Works Cited list
o VI. Stakeholder Analysis (if you used an excel sheet, submit as a separate document)
How to complete case studies (you will complete 2, each one is worth 5 points)
Each of the two case studies should be 2-4 paragraphs and do the following:
1) (2.5 pt.) Describe how the theory/framework you are using would determine that there is an ethical
problem.
For example, if you are using the Ruggie Principles, explain how your case demonstrates an
ethical issue with businesses failing to meet their duties as described in this framework. If you are
using a principle-based maximalist approach, explain which rights/duties seem to be violated. If
you are using utilitarianism, explain how the greatest good for the greatest number is not being
achieved and/or how happiness is being violated by drawing on stakeholder impacts. If you are
using Kantian principle-based ethics, explain which principle or duties are being violated. If you are
using virtue ethics, explain how virtue is not being demonstrated or encouraged and/or how vice is
being demonstrated or encouraged.
2) (2.5 pt.) Then, offer a response or solution to the ethical problem that you think the
theory/framework would recommend and explain how this response or solution would satisfy the
theory/framework you used.
How to complete the analysis section
Your analysis section should be 2-4 paragraphs and do the following:
1) (2.5 pt.) State and provide reasons for your opinion of the results of your case studies show
pertaining to a description of the ethical problem(s) at stake with your topic. Does one
theory/framework offer a better analysis of the ethical problems with your topic better than the
other? Why? Do you think both should be combined to fully illustrate the ethical problems as you
understand them? How? Do you find both solutions problematic for fully demonstrating the ethical
problems as you understand them? Why?
2) (2/5 pt.) Explain what you think the solution to the problems ought to be. Does one case study offer
a better solution than the other? Why? Can both suggestions be combined? How? Do you think
there is a better solution than the ones your case studies provided? What is it and why do you think
it is better than the others?
Stakeholder Analysis for TechSolutions Inc.:
1. Shareholders:
o Institutional investors
o Individual investors
o Venture capitalists
2. Producers:
o Employees (engineers, developers, designers, marketers)
o Management (executives, directors, managers)
o Contracting companies (outsourced service providers, consultants)
o Competitors in the tech industry
o Labor unions representing employees(Renaghan pg 8).
3. Directly Impacted Members of the Public:
o Consumers of TechSolutions’ products and services
o Employees’ families and dependents
o Local communities where TechSolutions operates offices or manufacturing
facilities
o Suppliers of TechSolutions (both upstream and downstream)
4. Indirectly Impacted Members of the Public:
o Future generations impacted by TechSolutions’ environmental policies and
practices
o Environmental organizations advocating for sustainability
o Communities affected by TechSolutions’ global supply chain decisions
o Those affected by TechSolutions’ data privacy and security practices (data
subjects)
5. Public Goods:
o Clean air and water (affected by TechSolutions’ manufacturing processes and
carbon footprint)
o Accessible and affordable technology (impacted by TechSolutions’ pricing
strategies and product accessibility initiatives)
o Digital infrastructure (impacted by TechSolutions’ contributions to
technological advancements and connectivity)
o Ethical and responsible business practices (impacted by TechSolutions’
corporate social responsibility initiatives)
This stakeholder analysis provides a comprehensive view of the various parties involved or
affected by TechSolutions Inc.’s operations, allowing the company to consider their interests
and concerns in its decision-making processes.
Step 2
Stakeholder
Shareholders
Producers
Currently Benefited
Institutional investors
Individual investors
Venture capitalists
Employees (some)
Management
Contracting companies
Labor unions representing
employees
Directly Impacted
Members of the Public
Currently Harmed
Employees (some)
Competitors in the tech industry
Communities where TechSolutions
operates
Those affected by data privacy and
security practices
Consumers of TechSolutions’
products and services
Employees’ families and
dependents
Suppliers of TechSolutions
Indirectly Impacted
Members of the Public
Environmental organizations
advocating for sustainability
Future generations impacted by
environmental policies and practices
Communities affected by global
supply chain decisions
Public Goods
Conflicts of Interest:
Accessible and affordable
Clean air and water
technology
Digital infrastructure
Ethical and responsible business
practices
1. Employees vs. Shareholders:
o Employees may advocate for better wages and working conditions, potentially
decreasing profits for shareholders who prioritize maximizing investment
returns.
2. Local Communities vs. Shareholders:
o Local communities where TechSolutions operates may push for stricter
environmental regulations or community benefits agreements, which might
increase operational costs for TechSolutions and consequently affect
shareholder dividends.
3. Future Generations vs. Shareholders:
o Shareholders focused on short-term profitability might refrain from investing
in long-term sustainable practices that benefit future generations, creating a
conflict between immediate financial gains and sustainable business
practices(Hasty pg 34).
4. Consumers vs. Shareholders:
o Consumers might demand lower prices or higher-quality products, potentially
reducing profit margins for TechSolutions and conflicting with the interests of
shareholders seeking maximum returns on their investments.
5. Employees vs. Management:
o Employees may prioritize job security and fair treatment, while management
may prioritize cost-cutting measures or operational efficiency, leading to
potential conflicts in labor relations and decision-making processes.
The Proposal
Amidst the digital revolution propelled by the widespread adoption of social media
platforms, ethical concerns surrounding the algorithms governing content dissemination have
become increasingly pronounced. These algorithms, designed to optimize user engagement,
inadvertently contribute to the proliferation of echo chambers, the amplification of
misinformation, and the dissemination of divisive content. The stakeholders encompass a
broad spectrum of global users engaging with various forms of content, from personal
anecdotes to sponsored advertisements (Hantrais et al., pg 260). The continuous influx of
information transcends temporal and spatial constraints, making social media platforms
unethical channels for communication and interaction.
The ethical concerns stem from the algorithms’ propensity to prioritize sensationalized
or controversial content over informative or constructive discourse. This raises pertinent
questions regarding social media corporations’ ethical responsibilities in mitigating the
adverse effects of their algorithms, particularly concerning issues such as cyberbullying,
ideological polarization, and the dissemination of false information. The societal
ramifications, encompassing erosion of trust in media, the polarization of public opinion, and
potential threats to democratic processes, underscore the urgency of addressing these ethical
concerns (Yazid & Mitra pg 61). The intricate interplay of technological design, business
imperatives, regulatory frameworks, and societal values shapes the ethical landscape of social
media platforms.
Addressing the ethical quandaries posed by social media algorithms necessitates a
concerted effort involving collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including technology
companies, regulatory authorities, civil society organizations, and academic researchers.
Potential solutions entail fostering transparency and accountability in algorithmic decisionmaking processes, promoting media literacy and critical thinking skills among users, enacting
stringent regulations to curb misinformation dissemination, and fostering interdisciplinary
research to comprehend the intricate dynamics at play. Achieving a balance between
technological innovation and ethical imperatives is crucial in navigating the complex ethical
terrain of social media algorithms while safeguarding societal well-being and democratic
principles.
Works Cited
Yazdi, Mitra V. “The digital revolution and the demise of democracy.” Tul. J. Tech. & Intell.
Prop. 23 (2021): 61.
Hantrais, Linda, et al. “Covid-19 and the digital revolution.” Contemporary Social Science
16.2 (2021): 256-270.
Hasty, Frederick, et al. “Heart rate variability as a possible predictive marker for acute
inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients.” Military Medicine 186.1-2 (2021):
e34-e38.
Renaghan, Eric, et al. “Exposures to Elevated Core Temperatures during Football Training:
The Impact on Autonomic Nervous System Recovery and Function.” Sports 12.1
(2023): 8.
Choosing a topic for your Final Case Study Project
Requirements for a topic:
•
Topic must be a situation, practice, or business policy (not a legal policy) that involves harm caused to
at least some stakeholders and that seems to pose at least one potential ethical problem.
•
Topic must be about something pertaining to business.
o Businesses do not include non-profits, NGOs
o Your topic may call attention to a lack of or failure of a piece of legislation but it should allow you
to demonstrate ethical problems rather than purely legal problems.
▪ Example of a legal problem: Legislation about child labor is lacking.
▪ Example of an ethical problem: Child labor results in harmful and unethical conditions for
children with very little regulation in place to protect them.
•
Keep your goal in mind when choosing a topic. You want to take on something you can describe in
reasonable detail in 2-4 paragraphs and can then apply ethical theories to in order to make judgments
about ethical problems and offer solutions to them.
Broad vs narrow topics, pros and cons
A narrow topic about a very specific situation can help you run a very detailed case study and help keep your
research focused. However, some problems may be so narrow you cannot find information about them. In this
case, you may need to broaden your topic.
Example: Trader Joe’s use of prison labor.
This is a great topic but detailed information about specifics may be inaccessible to the public, which could
prevent me from being able to give a detailed case description. (Note: This is an example; you may be able to
find this information.)
A broad topic can be helpful for looking at larger, systemic problems in business ethics. It can also be helpful
if detailed information about the kinds of problems you want to examine is not available for individual
businesses. However, some topics may be so broad you cannot accurately demonstrate potential ethical
problems with them. In this case, you might consider narrowing your topic or brining in specific examples of it.
Example: Prison labor in business.
This is a broad topic. If I used it, I would draw on data to demonstrate general problems and bring in a couple
of specific examples of businesses using it to help illustrate the potential ethical problems. OR I might consider
limiting it to use of prison labor in only one state, since wages and practices vary by state.
Potential topics for those who need help choosing one (some of these would need to be narrowed):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discrimination in hiring or compensation (particular businesses or particular issues)
The use of consumer surveillance for marketing research (particular businesses or particular methods)
Development or advertising of harmful products (particular businesses or particular kinds of products)
Environmental issues or land rights (particular businesses or particular cases)
Working and labor conditions (particular businesses or particular conditions)
You may use any topic from our textbook or readings but will need to find two research sources that
were not assigned in class.
If you are unable to choose a topic, email me and I will help you.
Your final project will contain these sections
I. Case Description (from proposal, with any needed revisions made)
II. Case Study 1: [insert name of theory used]
III. Case Study 2: [insert name of theory used]
IV. Analysis (this is NOT your stakeholder analysis; see prompt)
V. Works Cited (from proposal, plus any additions)
VI. Stakeholder Analysis (already created for proposal; if you used an Excel spreadsheet, attach
as a separate document instead of adding to this document)
Here is an example of a case study section
Using Axis Designs from Checkpoint 2
II. Case Study 1: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism asks that we consider all stakeholders to find the greatest benefit and least harm
for the greatest number of people and work toward social happiness and wellbeing.
Utilitarianism would deem Axis Design’s choice to skirt minimum wage increases by splitting into
two businesses an unethical choice for business growth because it benefits the minority of
stakeholders at the expense of the majority.
Axis Designs manipulated loopholes in the law to avoid paying incremental increases to
employees’ minimum wage each year. In addition to leaving employees with less earnings, this
strategy resulted in employees facing reduced hours when local orders lag. The economic
impact of both of these factors entails that employees are not guaranteed a living wage while
the business owners are able to make maximum profits and benefit from an increased labor
pool. Because employees and their families who are also impacted by their wages outnumber
other stakeholders, such as the owners and the local businesses they offer one-time orders to,
we can see that the greatest benefit and least harm for the greatest number has not been
achieved in this case.
To resolve this unethical exploitation, Axis Designs could merge their businesses back into one
and hire all employees on the minimum wage model with annual increases. Doing so would
require that the company stop taking local orders from non-contracted vendors for a two year
period while they recuperate expenses from their expansion but would result in a more ethical
and stable business long-term. In addition to creating maximum benefit for stakeholders and
avoiding unnecessary suffering from low wages, this is likely to increase overall happiness in the
workplace culture and create better team cohesion, which will benefit the business long-term.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
