Business Law and Ethics

Business Law and Ethics
Semester 1, 2021
ETHICS CASE STUDY INDIVIDUAL REPORT
(Weighting Total – 30%)
Due: 12 April 2021
Time: 11:59 pm (23:59)
Submission: via Turnitin through UNI System by 11:59 PM on Monday 12 April 2021.
1. It is each student’s responsibility to check online submissions have been uploaded correctly (i.e. you should open the file from Turnitin to check this, once your files have been uploaded – ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THIS). Files are best uploaded as Pdf documents to avoid formatting errors.
2. Each student should check for a digital receipt from Turnitin at their UNI email address as proof of submission. This email should be retained until marks are received. No marks will be given for submissions where the file is corrupt and unreadable – it is the student’s responsibility to check submissions open correctly and are readable.
3. Should Turnitin be unavailable directly before submission (i.e. on the day of submission) keep checking back periodically AND check your UNI email as instructions will likely be issued from UNI if there are systems outages.
Type: Individual Assessment
Length: Maximum of 1650 words (+ 10% maximum)
This assessment item assesses the following unit objectives and learning outcomes:
Professional Communication (PC)
3.1 Use information literacy skills, and communicate effectively and professionally
in written forms and using media appropriate for diverse purposes and
contexts.
Social, Ethical and Global Understanding (SE)
5.1 Demonstrate and apply knowledge of ethical and legal principles and practices
in analysing and responding to business issues
The purpose of this assignment is to encourage you to explore some of the fundamental concepts and theories in business ethics, consider how these can be applied to real world business issues and communicate this knowledge effectively. The word limit reflects writing in a business context – be direct and to the point.

Your task is to:
Analyse a business-related ethical dilemma based on a real-world situation or event. You are to prepare a paper on this ethical dilemma (your chosen scenario/problem):
• Identify and describe the ethical dilemma (you can include facts in an appendix). Please select either one of the scenarios provided; or a real-life ethical dilemma that has received media attention during the past couple of years. Make sure you clearly explain why it is about (i) ethics; (ii) why it is a dilemma and (iii) how being in a business context influences the decision-maker’s perspective and ethical choices (for instance, how organizational forces might influence the decision – see slides 28 & 30 from week 1).
• Analyse the dilemma using three (3) ethical frameworks from weeks 2 & 3 of the unit – (i) Utilitarianism, (ii) Kantian ethics and (iii) Aristotle’s virtue ethics. To do this well, you will need to ensure your analysis clearly communicates your understanding of the tool/framework. Make sure you read the CRA as it will point to what you need to do to meet your grade aspirations.
• Propose a recommendation or “course of action” that addresses the ethical dilemma. Based on your analysis, you then need to provide a clear conclusion on what is the ethical thing to do. This should include a solution or recommendations for the decision maker (i.e. the manager/actor) to consider. The conclusion (and recommendation(s)) needs to be justified and linked to your dilemma and its analysis.
Note that there is no one “correct” or “model” answer – it is about justifying your arguments, working through the dilemma and forming a view on the most ethical outcome or action.
You are to limit the paper to a maximum of 1,650 words (+ 10%). This word limit includes headings, sub-headings, in-text citations and in-text references. It does not include appendices, your reference list, tables, figures and captions. It is expected to conform to standard UNI plagiarism requirements.
To meet the standard in the CRA, you need make sure your assessment piece satisfies ALL the dot points below the relevant criterion/grade combination. Marking does not work by “adding” across subpoints in any single criterion. Your grade is most often determined by the lowest subpoint in any single criterion because if you do not meet a sub-point, you do not meet the grade for the criterion in question.
For clarity, we have listed each criterion on a separate page (there are 5 criteria). There is also a more detailed CRA sheet that outlines examples of the differences for each grade/criteria combination.
Criterion 1 – Ethical dilemma (SE5.1) – maximum of 7 marks
• Demonstrate you can identify and describe an ethical dilemma focusing on the ethical values/principles/concepts from the BSB111 unit learning resources. This means you need to explain why the situation is an ‘ethical’ dilemma and what differentiates an ‘ethical’ dilemma from other types of dilemma (i.e. why is the dilemma not just about feelings, opinions or other kinds of standards in society).
• Explain the challenges (i.e. potential organisational forces) influencing ethical decision-making in a business context.
7 6 5 4 3 – 1
• Demonstrates an insightful understanding of how conflicting principles or values contribute to a challenging ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and explains (with nuance and/or deep insight) the trade-off between ethical standards; and • Explains clearly and correctly why the chosen scenario is an ethical dilemma; and
• The explanation is complete; and
• Clearly and logically explains why it is an ethical issue; and
• Clearly and logically explains why it is a dilemma; and • Explains to some extent why the chosen scenario is an ‘ethical’ problem (dilemma); and/or
• Identifies the key ethical principles or values involved – why it is a problem of ethics; and/or • Identifies an ethical dilemma; and
• Describes the dilemma with reference to ethical concepts.
• (3) Identifies an ethical issue; or
• (2) Identifies a dilemma or problem but not an ethical dilemma.
• Clearly, logically, and correctly outlines, with nuance and/or novelty, how the decision-maker’s context may influence their perspective, analysis and decisions.
• Clearly and logically explains the influence of the decision-maker’s business context on the ethical decision-making process.
• Recognises the influence of the business context on the choices made.
Must satisfy all these points
Must satisfy all these points Must satisfy minimum of 2 of these points
Must satisfy both points
This marking rubric applies only to submissions made in accordance with the assignment instructions.
10% above the word limit is acceptable. Grading will be based upon the text that is within the word limit (or 10% above)

Criterion 2 – Application of Utilitarian ethics (SE5.1) – maximum of 5 marks
• Demonstrate you can identify and apply Utilitarian ethics to analyze an ethical dilemma and determine how to respond to that ethical dilemma.
7 6 5 4 3 – 1
• Demonstrates a nuanced understanding of Utilitarian ethics; and
• the challenges associated with applying Utilitarian ethics to the ethical dilemma; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the key concepts and principles applicable to Utilitarian ethics; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the process or procedure for applying the framework to the ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and explains the key concepts and principles applicable to Utilitarian ethics; and
• Explains how Utilitarian ethics’ process and procedures can be applied to an ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and describes Utilitarian ethics; and
• May include an explanation of Utilitarian ethics’ process or procedures; and
• (3) Describes Utilitarian ethics; or
• (2) Identifies (names) an ethical framework from the unit learning resources;
and
• Present a systematic, thorough, coherent, and correct application of Utilitarian ethics to the ethical dilemma with no errors; and • Presents a correct application of Utilitarian ethics that conforms to the framework’s process and procedures; and • Presents a generally correct application of Utilitarian ethics that is systematic in its approach; and • Presents a generally coherent application of Utilitarian ethics to the case; and • (3) Utilitarian ethics has been applied to the dilemma; or
• (2) An ethical framework has been applied to the dilemma;
and
• Includes an insightful course of action arising from the analysis that captures the nuances of Utilitarian ethics and/or analysis and/or dilemma; and • Includes a clear, coherent and justified course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Incudes a reasonable course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Includes a plausible course of action arising from the analysis; and
• (3) Includes a proposed course of action/recommendation; or
• (2) May include a proposed course of action/recommendation;
and
• The analysis and proposed course of action are compelling and free of errors and omissions. • The course of action is clearly supported by, consistent with, and connected to the preceding analysis. • The course of action is supported by and consistent with the preceding analysis. • The course of action is weakly supported by the preceding analysis. (3) and (2) The course of action is may be supported by the preceding analysis.
This marking rubric applies only to submissions made in accordance with the assignment instructions.
10% above the word limit is acceptable. Grading will be based upon the text that is within the word limit (or 10% above)
Note: You must satisfy each dot point under the relevant CRA grade level. If you do not, you are awarded the lowest CRA according to the rubric. For instance, if demonstrate a nuanced understanding of Utilitarian ethics and challenges (say, in a sentence or two explaining it) that fits with a “7” in the CRA. BUT you do not have a good analysis of the dilemma (there are significant errors, but parts are correct) that fits with a “4” in the CRA. In this case, you would be awarded a “4” – i.e. you are awarded the lowest CRA subpoint earned by your answer.
Note: This marking rubric applies only to submissions made in accordance with the assignment instructions.
10% above the word limit is acceptable. Grading will be based upon the text that is within the word limit (or 10% above)
Criterion 3 – Application of Kantian ethics (SE5.1) – maximum of 5 marks
• Demonstrate you can identify and apply Kantian ethics to analyze an ethical dilemma and determine how to respond to that ethical dilemma.
7 6 5 4 3 – 1
• Demonstrates a nuanced understanding of Kantian ethics; and
• the challenges associated with applying Kantian ethics to the ethical dilemma; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the key concepts and principles applicable to Kantian ethics; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the process or procedure for applying the framework to the ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and explains the key concepts and principles applicable to Kantian ethics; and
• Explains how Kantian ethics’ process and procedures can be applied to an ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and describes Kantian ethics; and
• May include an explanation of Kantian ethics’ process or procedures; and
• (3) Describes Kantian ethics; or
• (2) Identifies (names) an ethical framework from the unit learning resources;
and
• Present a systematic, thorough, coherent, and correct application of Kantian ethics to the ethical dilemma with no errors; and • Presents a correct application of Kantian ethics that conforms to the framework’s process and procedures; and • Presents a generally correct application of Kantian ethics that is systematic in its approach; and • Presents a generally coherent application of Kantian ethics to the case; and • (3) Kantian ethics has been applied to the dilemma; or
• (2) An ethical framework has been applied to the dilemma;
• and
• Includes an insightful course of action arising from the analysis that captures the nuances of Kantian ethics and/or analysis and/or dilemma; and • Includes a clear, coherent and justified course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Incudes a reasonable course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Includes a plausible course of action arising from the analysis; and
• (3) Includes a proposed course of action/recommendation; or
• (2) May include a proposed course of action/recommendation;
• and
• The analysis and proposed course of action are compelling and free of errors and omissions. • The course of action is clearly supported by, consistent with, and connected to the preceding analysis. • The course of action is supported by and consistent with the preceding analysis. • The course of action is weakly supported by the preceding analysis. • (3) and (2) The course of action is may be supported by the preceding analysis.
Note: You must satisfy each dot point under the relevant CRA grade level. If you do not, you are awarded the lowest CRA according to the rubric. For instance, if demonstrate a nuanced understanding of Kantian ethics and challenges (say, in a sentence or two explaining it) that fits with a “7” in the CRA. BUT you do not have a good analysis of the dilemma (there are significant errors, but parts are correct) that fits with a “4” in the CRA. In this case, you would be awarded a “4” – i.e. you are awarded the lowest CRA subpoint earned by your answer.
Note: This marking rubric applies only to submissions made in accordance with the assignment instructions.
10% above the word limit is acceptable. Grading will be based upon the text that is within the word limit (or 10% above)
Criterion 4 – Application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics (SE5.1) – maximum of 5 marks
• Demonstrate you can identify and apply Aristotle’s virtue ethics to analyze an ethical dilemma and determine how to respond to that ethical dilemma.
7 6 5 4 3 – 1
• Demonstrates a nuanced understanding of Aristotle’s virtue ethics; and
• the challenges associated with applying Aristotle’s virtue ethics to the ethical dilemma; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the key concepts and principles applicable to Aristotle’s virtue ethics; and
• Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the process or procedure for applying the framework to the ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and explains the key concepts and principles applicable to Aristotle’s virtue ethics; and
• Explains how Aristotle’s virtue ethics’ process and procedures can be applied to an ethical dilemma; and
• Identifies and describes Aristotle’s virtue ethics; and
• May include an explanation of Aristotle’s virtue ethics’ process or procedures; and
• (3) Describes Aristotle’s virtue ethics; or
• (2) Identifies (names) an ethical framework from the unit learning resources;
and
• Present a systematic, thorough, coherent, and correct application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics to the ethical dilemma with no errors; and • Presents a correct application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics that conforms to the framework’s process and procedures; and • Presents a generally correct application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics that is systematic in its approach; and • Presents a generally coherent application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics to the case; and • (3) Aristotle’s virtue ethics has been applied to the dilemma; or
• (2) An ethical framework has been applied to the dilemma;
and
• Includes an insightful course of action arising from the analysis that captures the nuances of Aristotle’s virtue ethics and/or analysis and/or dilemma; and • Includes a clear, coherent and justified course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Incudes a reasonable course of action arising from the analysis; and
• Includes a plausible course of action arising from the analysis; and
• (3) Includes a proposed course of action/recommendation; or
• (2) May include a proposed course of action/recommendation;
and
• The analysis and proposed course of action are compelling and free of errors and omissions. • The course of action is clearly supported by, consistent with, and connected to the preceding analysis. • The course of action is supported by and consistent with the preceding analysis. • The course of action is weakly supported by the preceding analysis. • (3) and (2) The course of action is may be supported by the preceding analysis.
You must satisfy each dot point under the relevant CRA grade level. If you do not, you are awarded the lowest CRA according to the rubric. For instance, if demonstrate a nuanced understanding of Aristotle’s virtue ethics (say, in a sentence or two explaining it) that fits with a “7” in the CRA. BUT you do not have a good analysis of the dilemma (there are significant errors, but parts are correct) that fits with a “4” in the CRA. In this case, you would be awarded a “4” – i.e. you are awarded the lowest CRA subpoint earned by your answer.
Criterion 5 – Communication (PC 3.1) – maximum of 8 marks
• Communicate ideas clearly, logically, and consistently in a professional business style with correct grammar, punctuation, spelling and use of headings and other signposts to direct the reader’s attention.
7 6 5 4 3 – 1
• The response is very well written; and
• The response contains very few to no errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and expression; and
• The response is well written; and
• The response is characterised by good standards of spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting, and expression; and
• The response is clear; and
• The response is characterised by basic standards of spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting, and expression; and
• The response is coherent; and
• (3) The response is mostly coherent; or
• (2) The response is mostly incoherent; or
• (1) The response is written in English text;
and
• Communication flow enhances the argument or case presented; and • Communication flow is functional, clear, and coherent allowing the reader to draw meaning from the text in a single reading; and • Communication flow is sufficient to draw meaning from the text in a single reading; and • The communication flow is sufficient for communicating ideas; and • (3) The communication flow is mostly evident in the response; or
• (2) The communication flow is mostly lacking in the response;
and
• The logic of the ethical reasoning presented is clear and persuasive; and
• Logic of the ethical reasoning presented is clear and generally persuasive; and
• The logic of the ethical reasoning presented is coherent and consistent; and
• Logic of the ethical reasoning presented is coherent and generally consistent; and
• 3) In some instances the logical reasoning is coherent; or
• (2) Logical reasoning is identifiable;
and
• Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are clear and complete; and
• Links support the communication flow; and ethical reasoning; and • Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are clear, complete; and
• Links support the communication flow; and ethical reasoning; and • Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are generally correct; and • Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are present and mostly appropriate; and • (3) Links between sentences or paragraphs are generally identifiable; or
• (2) Paragraphs are lacking in the response.
and
• Formatting is appropriate for business communication purposes; and • Formatting is appropriate for business communication purposes; and • Formatting is sufficient for business communication purposes; and • Formatting is sufficient for business communication purposes; and • (3) and (2) Formatting is applied but insufficient;
and
• Referencing fully conforms to UNI standards for academic referencing
• Referencing is appropriate; and • Referencing is sufficient and accurate; and • Referencing is sufficient; and • (3) Referencing is included; or
• (2) Response does not include references.
• Have complied with word limits. • Have complied with word limits. • Have complied with word limits. • Have complied with word limits.
How we move from the CRA rubric to marks.
You will be awarded marks based on the application of this CRA to your assessment. To do this, we convert the CRA awarded to a mark out of 30 and add up these marks. Here is an example:
Criterion
# Criterion name Alignment to Learning Objective Marks associated with grade Hypothetical Grade Awarded
1 Ethical dilemma SE5.1 5/7 5
2 Application of Utilitarian ethics SE5.1 5/5 7
3 Application of Kant’s ethics SE5.1 5/5 7
4 Application of Aristotle’s virtue ethics SE5.1 2.5/5 4
5 Communication PC 3.1 6/8 6
Total 23.5 (78%) 6
So overall, this assessment piece was graded as a 6 (i.e. 23.5/30, which is 78%).
Order Now

Calculate a fair price for your paper

Such a cheap price for your free time and healthy sleep

1650 words
-
-
Place an order within a couple of minutes.
Get guaranteed assistance and 100% confidentiality.
Total price: $78
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?