BA 3102 Section #18Spring, 2019Analysis Paper #1 (Individual)Due March 18 This analysis paper involves a case analysis. You must first choose the case you wish to analyze. You can find the cases on our Canvas site, in the Assignments section. You’ll see a folder that contains several cases from which to choose. The cases involve one of four business areas: accounting, finance, management, and marketing. You are free to choose any case you wish, though you may wish to narrow it down by first selecting a business area. Within each area, read through the cases (they are around 1 page) and pick the one that most interests you. Each case presents an ethical dilemma. If you’re not sure you understand the dilemma in the case you choose, please contact me. Your paper should be divided into 3 separate sections as discussed below. Submit your paper through Canvas. Please put your last name in the document title when submitting. Also please submit your paper using Word. 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? In stating your decision options please avoid imagining an option that would solve the ethical issue in the case, as the purpose of this case is to assess your ability to apply accurately the ethical perspectives. Second, do a stakeholder analysis that lists the stakeholders to the decision, and include an explanation of how the decision would affect each stakeholder. Please present a table with plusses and minuses to summarize your ideas. See the ATTACHMENT for guidance 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 three main perspectives discussed in the course for making an ethical decision: utilitarianism, profit maximization, and universalism. You are free (and encouraged) to apply others discussed in the Deckop chapter as well; although apply at least these three main ones. Indicate what each perspective would say is the ethical course of action, and why. Be sure to refer back to your stakeholder analysis when discussing the utilitarian decision in the case. Please subdivide this section into 3 subsections – first, discuss what utilitarianism would say is the most ethical choice. Second, discuss what profit maximization would say is the most ethical choice. Third, discuss what universalism would say is the most ethical choice. To the extent possible, make links to the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate article, Carter article, and any other course reading that you find applicable. These articles may provide insight for your analysis. Section III. Indicate which of your decision options presented in Section I you would choose, and the degree to which it is consistent with each ethical perspective. Be as detailed as 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 for you in general. Suggested length: Approximately 5 double-spaced pages, normal sized font and margins, though your paper can be as long or short as you like. However it will be difficult to present an analysis of sufficient depth in less than 5 pages. Also, please put the case name at the top of your case analysis. EvaluationGrading Rubric: The maximum score for your paper is 40 points. It will be evaluated on five criteria, with points available as follows:A) your stakeholder analysis and application of utilitarianism (10 points)B) your application of profit maximization (7 points)C) your application of universalism (7 points)D) your final decision and rationale (7 points)E) how well your paper is written and organized (as discussed below) (9 points)Your application of additional readings, e.g., Carter and the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate articles should be considered if they strengthen your suggestions.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 assigned readings 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. 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.——————————————————————————————— ATTACHMENTHow 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 [note: for your paper don’t say “Decision A; use a descriptive label for the decision.]StakeholdersStockholders + – Employees — + [note – these stakeholders are justCustomers + – examples; your stakeholders willCommunity – +++ probably be at least somewhat different] . . . (etc.)Also, a good 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.
management_b_2019.pdf
marketing_a_2019.pdf
marketing_b_2019.pdf
finance_b_2019.pdf
management_a_2019.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
MINICASE: MGMT – 04
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
Little Enough or Too Much
Topic:
Characters:
Environmental Protection
Juan, Manager in new product development with a large chemical
company
Owen Gates, Plant Supervisor and Juan’s superior
Juan was recently hired by a large chemical company to oversee the construction of
production facilities to produce a new product. X Chemical developed a new industrial
lubricant which it felt it could produce at a price close to those of its competitors. The
plant to manufacture the lubricant was built on land adjacent to the East River. X
Chemical had already applied for and received the necessary permit to dump waste
materials from the process in the river. Several other chemical plants in the near vicinity
are also releasing waste materials into the river.
Juan is concerned because the government agency which oversees the permit process has
granted X Chemical a permit to release more waste in the river than previously
anticipated. An additional stage in the production process which would have reduced the
waste and recycled some materials became unnecessary due to the regulatory agency’s
decision. Because the additional process would have added capital and production costs, it
was not built as part of the existing plant. Yet, X Chemical has always stated publicly that
it would do all that it could to protect the environment from harmful materials.
The company has had mediocre performance for several quarters, and everyone is
anxious to see the new product do well. Tests have shown it to be a top-quality industrial
lubricant which can now be produced at a cost significantly below these of their
competitors. Orders have been flowing in, and the plant is selling everything it can
produce. Morale in the company has increased significantly because of the success of the
new product. Due to the success of the new product, all employees are looking forward to
sizable bonuses from the company’s profit sharing plan.
Juan is upset that the company failed to build the additional stage on the plant and fears
that the excess waste released today will cause problems for the company tomorrow.
Juan approaches Owen, the Plant Supervisor, with his concerns. Owen replies, “It’s up
to the government agency to protect the river from excess waste, and the company only
had to meet the agency’s standards. The amount of waste being released poses no threat to
the environment, according to the agency. The engineers and chemists who originally
designed the production process must have been too conservative in their rates. Even if the
agency made a mistake, the additional recycling and waste reduction process can be added
later when it becomes necessary. At this point, building the additional process would
require costly interruptions in the production process and might cause customers to switch
to our competitors. Heck, environmental groups might become suspicious if production
was stopped to add the additional process-they might see it as an admission of
wrongdoing.
Page 1 of 1
MINICASE: MGMT – 04
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
No one in the company wants to attract any unwarranted attention from the environmental
groups. They give us enough trouble as it is. The best thing we can do is make money
while the company can and deal with issues as they come up. Don’t go trying to cause
trouble without any proof. The company doesn’t like troublemakers, so watch your step.
You’re new here, and you wouldn’t want to have to find a new job.”
Juan is frustrated and upset. He can see all the benefits of the new product, but inside he is
sure the company is making a short-sighted decision which will hurt them in the long run.
The Vice President of Operations will tour the plant next week, and Juan is considering
approaching the officer with his concern. It might also be possible to contact the government
agency and request that the permit be reviewed. Juan is unsure what to do, but he feels he
should do something.
Author:
Page 2 of 2
Originally developed by Eric Heist, graduate student at Washington
University, as a class project in “Ethical Decision Making.” Edited and
submitted by Dr. Raymond L. Hilgert, Professor of Management and Industrial
Relations, Washington University.
MINICASE: MKTG – 06
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
The Pizza Puzzle
Topic:
Deceptive Advertising
Characters: George Hansen, General Manager, Augusta Marigold Inn, Subsidiary
of Hospitality Enterprises
Sharon Coombs, Food Services Manager, Augusta Marigold Inn
George Hansen is General Manager for the Marigold Inn in Augusta, Georgia. Sharon
Coombs is Restaurant and Food Services Manager for the Inn. She reports to George. Two
years ago, Sharon noticed a decline in room service business, the highest margin portion of
her operation. This decline coincided with an increase in the national sales of pizza delivery
and carryout firms as well as an increase in the number of empty pizza boxes from these
firms being left in guest rooms in the Inn. Her immediate response was to install a pizza
oven in the kitchen and offer room service pizza to guests. The effort met with modest
success, though it was well below her expectations. Questionnaires completed by departing
guests revealed a problem of product quality.
Focusing on this problem, Sharon improved the Inn’s pizza until blind taste tests judged it at
least equal in quality to the products of the two major pizza delivery competitors in Augusta.
Sales did not improve, convincing Sharon that the problem was a perceived mismatch
between the hotel’s image and guests’ expectations of pizza makers. Guests simply did not
seem to believe that the traditional steak and seafood restaurant at the Inn could make a
high-quality, authentic pizza. Based on this conclusion, Sharon presented the following
proposal to George:
“Sales of room service pizza are stagnant due to guests’ misperception that our product is
lower in quality than that of competitors. This misperception is based on the belief that until
we disassociate our pizza from the Marigold Inn name. Therefore, to capture more room
service pizza business, we should create a ‘Napoli Pizza’ image for our guest room delivery
service by:
•
Preparing ‘Napoli Pizza’ brochures for each guest room, complete with a phone number
with a prefix different from that of Marigold Inn. The number will reach a special phone
in room service, which will be answered, Napoli Pizza, authentic Italian pizza from old,
family recipes.’
•
Using special ‘Napoli Pizza’ boxes for delivering room service pizza to guests.
•
Issuing ‘Napoli Pizza’ hats and jackets to room service personnel for use in pizza
delivery. Room service waiters and waitresses will wear these garments to deliver pizza.
They will change to their regular uniforms for other deliveries.”
How should George respond to this proposal?
Author: Fred L. Miller, Associate Professor of Marketing, Murray State University
1992 Arthur Andersen & Co, SC. All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
MINICASE: MKTG – 28
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
Washing Dirty Laundry
Topic:
Advertising (Unethical Tactics)
Characters: Bruce Seth, project manager at a consumer products company
Priscilla Wheeling, Bruce’s boss
Bruce Seth, a project manager at a consumer products company, was wondering how he
should proceed with his recommendation for the Endirt commercials. Endirt had been doing
well in the market, but not a week went by without a customer (or former customer) writing
to complain about the commercial.
There were variations of the commercial, but the central theme was “Dirt on your shirt.” It
typically featured a woman saying, “Dirt on your shirt! Dirt on your shirt!” in a taunting
voice to a man whose shirt was soiled. The man looked at another lady (presumably his
wife), who was very embarrassed at the entire situation. Later shots showed her washing the
shirt after rubbing Endirt into it, and the other woman (or women) saying, “No more dirt on
your shirt!” The complaining letters, almost exclusively from women, expressed objections
to the commercial because it was demeaning to women and otherwise offensive as well. On
the one hand, the brand was doing well; it was the brand leader in a growing market, though
a much larger competing company was quite capable of beating Endirt with its brand. On the
other hand, were the rights of the women being infringed? All the letters seemed to imply
that. Bruce was a believer in the profit motive, but not at the cost of condoning unethical
behavior. He had been asked to make a recommendation for the commercial for the next TV
season. After reviewing the sales data and reading the letters of complaint, Bruce was
contemplating his next move.
Marketing research managers and project managers worked along with brand managers on
specific brand research issues. Bruce reported to Priscilla Wheeling, a marketing research
manager, and would provide recommendations to her and to the brand manager responsible
for Endirt. Priscilla was a capable, promising executive with excellent graduate degrees. She
was supporting her husband through his Ph.D. in history. She did not like the Endirt
commercial and made no secret of it. She proclaimed that she would never buy the brand
because the message was offensive and because of the role of the woman in the commercial.
Bruce was pursuing a graduate degree while working and putting his wife through college;
he certainly needed the job and the income. He was a recent recruit still in his probationary
period.
Bruce had reviewed all the letters, practically all of which were from women and strongly
negative. Many of them said, as Priscilla did, that they would not buy the brand because of
the offensive commercial and because it was demeaning to women. Secondary data showed
that the primary decision makers and purchasers of the product were women. Part of the
reason for Endirt’s success was believed to be the advertising message, which not only had a
high level of recall but a high level of association with the brand. Bruce wondered if, in spite
of its apparent success, it was ethical to continue with the advertising message if it infringed
on the rights of women, the major buyers of the brand.
Author: Beheruz N. Sethna, Ph.D., Gulf States Utilizes Professor of Business, Dean,
College of Business, Lamar University
1992 Arthur Andersen & Co, SC. All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
MINICASE: MKTG – 15
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
Life Insurance: Who Benefits, the Consumer or the Company?
Topic:
Selling
Characters: Eric, Sales representative for a large life insurance company
Potential clients of Eric
The company Eric represents
Eric is a sales representative for a large life insurance company. He has been with the
company for about 18 months. Things have been going well, or so he thinks. One concern he
has is about the product he sells most.
This product is an insurance and savings plan bundled together. It provides protection for
premature death, savings that can be used for retirement, or an emergency fund that can be
accessed quickly without hassle.
The problem Eric faces is that this insurance product is more expensive to purchase, and for
young families it provides the least amount of protection in case of premature death of the
breadwinner. Another drawback is the low return on savings, somewhere between 3 percent
and 6 percent net. The company pushes sales of this product because it is more profitable.
The commission Eric earns is 110 percent of the first year’s annual premium, so it is very
profitable for him and his family.
Eric also has another product that is considerably cheaper, that can provide much greater
insurance protection, and at the same time would let the insured invest the difference in
another product (i.e., an annuity) that provides a greater return. But the commissions paid by
the company are very low, and management frowns on too many of these policies being
sold.
The quandary is: If Eric does what is right for the consumer, he can’t provide for his own
family; if he sells the more expensive insurance product, then the protection doesn’t come
anywhere near meeting the needs of the family should the breadwinner die prematurely.
What should Eric do?
Author: Thomas W. Bose, MBA student, University of Central Oklahoma
Page 1 of 1
MINICASE: MGMT – 17
BUSINESS ETHICS PROGRAM
The Fitzgerald Machine Company
Topic:
Production/Operations Management
Characters:
Marcus Jones, recently hired to remedy problems meeting scheduled
deliveries
Jen Fitzgerald, VP of Operations, daughter of the company president
The Fitzgerald Machine Company is a $25MM per year custom metal fabrication shop. It
has a work force of 30 machinists and 15 office personnel Marcus Jones was hired from
Peptine Corporation three months ago as Fitzgerald’s production scheduler. His background
includes an undergraduate industrial engineering degree and three years of purchasing
experience with Peptine immediately after college. This made him a good fit for Fitzgerald’s
needs. He was hired by Jen Fitzgerald, Vice President of Operations and daughter of the
company president.
Recently the company has been having difficulty meeting delivery deadlines. Marcus
was hired to improve the company’s performance in on-time deliveries. So far, he has been
learning the systems of the operations and studying possible solutions, but he has not yet
determined the best course of action to recommend.
On Friday, June 21, a $500,000 order, which had been in the shop for nearly two months,
was scheduled for shipment. On the Wednesday before scheduled delivery, the customer
called and asked that delivery be delayed due to a labor dispute and work stoppage at his
location. Although he expected the strike to be settled within one week or less, he was
concerned that delivery of the order from Fitzgerald during the strike might cause
unnecessary misunderstandings in the labor dispute.Marcus discussed this request with Jen,
and they agreed to accommodate the customer’s request on the condition that the customer
agree to being billed on the originally scheduled delivery date and to pay on the originally
contracted payment terms. The customer accepted those terms.
On Friday morning, June 21, the production mgr. reported to Marcus that the order would
not be completed as scheduled and would probably require at least one more week to finish.
Concerned about the impact of this delay on his job status, Marcus decided to investigate the
cause of the delay before informing Jen of the problem. Before he could complete his
inquiry, Jen called to inform him that she had just mailed the invoice for the order as agreed
She also suggested that Marcus negotiate with the customer a storage fee for the order, which
would be paid in addition to the billing arrangement. Marcus wondered what he should say to
Jen next.
Dr. Eliot S. Miner, Associate Professor of Business, St. Norbert College
Author:
Co-author: Dr. William Roth, McCabe Chair of Business and Society, Allentown College
St. Francis de Sales
Page 1 of 1
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
