BA 3102 Section #18

Spring, 2019

Analysis 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.

Evaluation

Grading Rubric: The maximum score for your paper is 40 points. It will be evaluated
on five criteria, with points available as follows:

1. A) your stakeholder analysis and application of utilitarianism (10 points)

2. B) your application of profit maximization (7 points)
3. C) your application of universalism (7 points)
4. D) your final decision and rationale (7 points)
5. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT

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 [note: for your paper don’t say

“Decision A; use a descriptive label
for the decision.]

Stakeholders
Stockholders + -

Employees -- + [note – these

stakeholders are just

Customers + - examples; your

stakeholders will

Community - +++ 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.