1

BMA250

MANAGERIAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Semester 1, 2013

Teaching Team:

Dr Mark Wickham

CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B

2

Contact Details

Unit Coordinator: Dr Mark Wickham

Campus: Hobart

Room Number: 312

Email: Mark.Wickham@utas.edu.au

Phone: 6226 2159

Fax: 6226 2170

Consultation Time: By Appointment

Tutor: Mr Rob Lewis

Campus: Launceston

Email: Rob.Lewis@utas.edu.au

Phone: 6324 3558

Consultation Time: By Appointment

3

Contents

Contact Details ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 2

Unit Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 4

Intended Learning Outcomes and Generic Graduate Attributes..………………………………………….. Page 5

Learning Expectations and Teaching Strategies Approach …………………….………………………………. Page 6

Learning Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 6

Details of Teaching Arrangements ………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 8

Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 9

Group Mark Allocation Adjustment Form……………………………………………………………………………… Page 13

Marking Schedule for the Major Assignment………………………………………………………………………… Page 15

Submission of Coursework ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 17

Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism ………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 18

Tutorial Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 19

Criterion Referencing Assessment Guidelines………………………………………………………………………. Page 21

Study Schedule …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 25

4

Unit Description

Sound and effective management and leadership require not only financial and technical expertise but also ethical competency. This unit provides a focus on ethical decision-making, and in particular introduces a series of frameworks for discerning what is right and wrong in important areas of business practice. Ethical competency is the ability to, a) perceiv e the ethical implications of a situation, b) engage in sound ethical reasoning, and c) develop practical problem solving strategies.

Pre-Requisite/Co-Requisite Unit(s)

Bachelor of Business Students: BMA101 and appropriate base level for relevant major (e.g. BMA121, BMA181, BMA151; BMA104 etc.); or All other students: the successful completion of any 2 level 200 units (i.e. 25% of level 200).

Enrolment in the Unit

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, students should not enrol in BMA units after the end of

week two of semester, as the School of Management cannot guarantee that:

any extra assistance will be provided by the teaching team in respect of work covered in the

period prior to enrolment; and

penalties will not be applied for late submission of any piece or pieces of assessment that

were due during this period.

Enrolment in Tutorials and Workshops

Students will be able to enrol in tutorials electronically through MyLO. Tutorial enrolments will be

open until the end of the first week of semester (Friday 1 March 2013). Students who have not

enrolled in a tutorial by this time will be allocated a tutorial by the unit coordinator. Variations in

tutorial enrolments will not be permitted after this time.

5

Intended Learning Outcomes and Generic Graduate Attributes

Intended Learning Outcomes

Graduate Attribute Outcomes

In this unit you will learn:

In assessing this unit I will be looking at your ability to: Assessment Methods

Knowledge, critical

evaluation and

application of the

ethical theories

presented in the

unit

Explain ethical theories and concepts. Case Analyses The assessments and teaching activities in this unit have been designed to develop the following graduate attributes in students: Knowledge: The ability to transfer knowledge to complex and

uncertain business situations and transmit that knowledge to

business professional peers for critical discussion. Extensive

functional knowledge of:

Ethics and its application to the business environment; and

To become a functional lifelong learner for professional and personal career aspirations.

Communication: The ability to engage in persuasive, succinct

written discussions to communicate and defend a position held.

Written communication skills to create clear and detailed analyses

and non-biased recommendations for marketing executives, CEOs,

and stakeholder groups.

Problem Solving: The ability to apply logical, critical and creative

thinking to complex business problems.

A critical grasp of theoretical frameworks and practices and the

ability to integrate and apply them to problem resolution in a

business context. The ability to locate, evaluate, analyse and use

information from a range of media.

Social Responsibility: The ability to articulate the ethical issues

involved in business planning and strategy development with

executives and key stakeholder groups.

Explain how ethical theories can be applied to identify and address business problems.

Case Analyses

Describe the application and limitations of ethical theory. Exam Essays

Apply ethics

theories and

concepts to

organisations

Identify and analyse a business problem in current organisation-based case studies.

Case Analysis

Demonstrate the use of ethical theories in managerial decision-making.

Exam Essays

Apply ethical theory to the current organisation-based case study and offer resolutions to the business problem.

Case Analysis

Use ethics theories and independent research to assess contemporary management issues

Conduct independent research on contemporary strategic issues.

Exam Essays

Assess ethical theories and issues using the lexicon/language/logic of ethical analysis.

Case Analysis + Exam Essays

Communicate

ethical theory,

analysis and

recommendations

Write clearly using the lexicon/language of strategy. Case Analysis + Exam Essays

Communicate in the format of case analysis and essays. Case Analysis + Exam Essays

6

Learning Expectations and Teaching Strategies/Approach

On completion of this unit, you should be able to:

Identify and define four major theoretical frameworks that support ethical decision-making

Analyse a series of case study facts and to identify the ethical dilemma that lies therein

Propose and justify your recommendations to overcome an ethical dilemma

Identify and discuss the major ethical issues facing contemporary business managers In order to achieve these learning outcomes, the unit will comprise a 13 week lecture series and a 12 week tutorial program (see page 25 for details). The assessment of the learning outcomes will occur through four pieces of assessment: one group presentation, three individual peer-evaluations, one major case analysis assignment, and one take-home examination.

Expectations

The University is committed to a high standard of professional conduct in all activities, and holds its

commitment and responsibilities to its students as being of paramount importance. Likewise, it

holds expectations about the responsibilities students have as they pursue their studies within the

special environment the University offers. The University’s Code of Conduct for Teaching and

Learning states:

Students are expected to participate actively and positively in the teaching/learning environment. They must attend classes when and as required, strive to maintain steady progress within the subject or unit framework, comply with workload expectations, and submit required work on time.

Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)

The University is committed to providing a safe and secure teaching and learning environment. In addition to specific requirements of this unit you should refer to the University’s policy at: http://www.admin.utas.edu.au/hr/ohs/pol_proc/ohs.pdf

Learning Resources

Prescribed Text

There is no prescribed text for this unit. See MyLO for access to the required readings in this unit. Recommended Texts

Beauchamp T, Bowie, N 2001, Ethical theory and business, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Carroll, AB & Bocholt, AK 2006, Business and society: ethics and stakeholder management, 6th edn, Thomson, Australia.

7

De George, RT 2006, Business ethics, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L 2005, Business ethics ethical decision making and cases, 6th edn, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Fritzche, DJ 2005, Business ethics: a global and managerial perspective, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Goodpaster, KE, Nash, LL & de Bettignies, H 2006, Business ethics, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Hartley, RF 2005, Business ethics: mistakes and successes, Wiley, USA. Hunt, RW, Hunt, MB & Cox, BG 2005, Ethics at work, Pearson, Australia. Larmer, RA 2002, Ethics in the workplace, 2nd edn, Wardsworth, Australia. Newton, LH & Lord, MM 2004, Taking sides, 8th edn, McGraw-Hill, USA. Pojman, LP 2006, Ethics: discovering right and wrong, 5th edn, Thomson, Australia. Trevino, LK & Nelson, KA 2007, Managing business ethics, 4th edn, Wiley, USA. Velasquez, MG 2006, Business ethics concepts and cases, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Weiss, JW 2006, Business ethics: a stakeholder and issues management approach, 4th edn, Thomson South-Western, Australia.

Journals and Periodicals

Apart from books, you will find it valuable to get into the practice of reading relevant articles from journals and periodicals (including newspapers and magazines). The following refereed journals publish articles concerning ethical and social issues related to business and management practice.

Business & Professional Ethics Journal

Business & Society

Business Ethics Quarterly

Business Ethics: A European Review

Journal of Business Ethics

Journal of Business Education

Useful Websites

http://www.utas.edu.au/management/student-resources Also, see MyLO for links to many useful ethics websites.

8

My Learning Online (MyLO)

MyLO software has been incorporated into the delivery of this unit to enhance the learning

experience by providing access to up to date course materials and by allowing for online discussion

through this web based environment.

To access MyLO from your own computer you will need the appropriate software, and hardware to

run that software. See Learning Online at http://uconnect.utas.edu.au/ for computer software you

will need.

Note: Older computers may not have the hardware to run some of the required software

applications. Contact your local IT support person or the Service Desk on 6226 1818 if you

experience difficulties. The School of Management has prepared a MyLO Information Sheet which

includes access guidelines and contact information. It is available to download as a word document

from the School of Management website: http://www.utas.edu.au/mgmt/student.htm

Privacy Policy and Notice

The School of Management takes the utmost care to protect the privacy and security of your personal information and to ensure its accuracy. If you have any concerns about your privacy in MyLO please contact the unit coordinator of this unit or view the University of Tasmania MyLO Privacy Policy Statement available from the university website on http://www.utas.edu.au/coursesonline/privacy.htm.

Details of Teaching Arrangements

Lectures There will be a series of 12 lectures held weekly throughout the semester. Tutorials

There will be a series of 11 tutorials held weekly throughout the semester (with the exception of week 8, due to the Anzac Day holiday). The tutorial program will commence in Week 2.

Communication, Consultation and Appointments

Consultation with the lecturer will be by appointment.

9

Assessment

Assessment Schedule

In order to pass this unit you must achieve an overall mark of at least 50 per cent of the total available marks. Details of each assessment item are outlined below.

Assessment Item Value Due Date Length

Group Presentation 10 marks Tutorials in Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 6

30 minutes maximum

Peer Evaluations x 3 5 marks each Tutorials in Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 6

To be submitted at the end of the tutorial session

Major Assignment 25 marks Monday, May 13th at 2pm

2500 words maximum

Take-Home Examination

50 marks TBA at 5pm Part A: 2000 words maximum Part B: Each essay is to be 1000 words maximum

* Word Limit: The word count includes such items as headings, in-text references, quotes and executive summaries. It does not include the reference list at the end of the assignment.

Concurrent Assessment Items 1 & 2: Group Presentation & Peer-Evaluations Task Description:

Students are required to form groups in their tutorials for the presentation/peer-evaluation assessment tasks. The presentation task will be worth 10 marks, and will be performed in Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 7 with the content assessed by their tutor.

Task Length: Presentation: 30 minutes maximum Peer-Evaluations: To be handed in at the end of the tutorial session

Due Date: In tutorials Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 6

Value: 10 marks for the presenting group 5 marks for each of the individual students’ THREE (3) peer-evaluations (i.e. 15 marks) Students are required to form groups in their tutorials for the presentation/peer-evaluation assessment tasks. The presentation task will be worth 10 marks with the content assessed by their tutor. Students witnessing the presentation series are required to perform THREE (3) peer-evaluations individually worth 5 marks each. The peer evaluations are to be handed in at the end of the tutorial session and will be assessed by the tutor.

10

NOTE: Students may hand in any written work they wish as part of their peer-evaluations - including work prepared in advance of the tutorial session.

Students that are unable to complete the presentation or peer-evaluation tasks on medical or compassionate grounds (work or other commitments are not considered 'compassionate grounds') may request that they be permitted to submit alternative coursework.

Topic for Group One: Utilitarianism. Download the Utilitarianism Case from the unit’s MyLO page, and use it as the basis for your tutorial presentation.

TASK: Define the elements of the Utilitarian theory of ethical obligation. In your definition, be sure to outline the steps required when attempting to undertake a Utilitarian analysis. Using the case available on MyLO, provide a Utilitarian analysis of the ‘Ford Pinto - An amazing true story’ case study. Detail and justify the decision you would make (as a Utilitarian) in this case.

Questions for peer-evaluation: 1. Did the group correctly define the Utilitarian theory of ethical

obligation? a) Discuss the extent to which their definition was accurate and

complete. b) Were there any other considerations the group could have included?

2. Did the group explain the steps in the application of Utilitarianism? a) Were the steps correctly identified? b) Were there any important points not covered by the group? What

were they? 3. Did the group apply Utilitarianism to the case study in an accurate and

effective manner? a) Did the group omit any important issues? What were they? b) Did the group present any interesting facts you think were

insightful? 4. Did the group present a logical and ethically justifiable set of

recommendations to the ethical dilemma they faced in this case? a) Were the recommendations logical given the group’s presentation

of the facts? b) What additional recommendations would you have included?

Topic for Group Two: Kantianism. Download the Kantianism Study from the unit’s MyLO page, and use it as the basis for your tutorial presentation. TASK: Define the elements of the Kantian theory of ethical obligation. In your definition, be sure to outline the steps required when attempting to undertake an effective Kantian analysis. Using the case available on MyLO, provide a Kantian analysis of the ‘Termination of a Work Colleague and Friend’ case study. Detail and justify the decision you would make (as a Kantian) in this case.

11

Questions for peer-evaluation: 1. Did the group correctly define the Kantian theory of ethical obligation?

a) Discuss the extent to which their definition was accurate and complete.

b) Were there any other considerations the group could have included? 2. Did the group explain the steps in the application of Kantianism?

a) Were the steps correctly identified? b) Were there any important points not covered by the group? What

were they? 3. Did the group apply Kantianism to the case study in an accurate and

effective manner? a) Did the group omit any important issues? What were they? b) Did the group present any interesting facts you think were

insightful? 4. Did the group present a logical and ethically justifiable set of

recommendations to the ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case? a) Were the recommendations logical given the group’s presentation

of the facts? b) What additional recommendations would you have included?

Topic for Group Three: Rights Download the Rights Case from the unit’s MyLO page, and use it as the basis for your tutorial presentation. TASK: Define the elements of the Rights theory of ethical action. In your definition, be sure to outline the steps required when attempting to undertake an effective Rights analysis. Using the case available on MyLO, provide a Rights analysis of the ‘Contentious Issue of Smoking versus Non -Smoking’ case. Detail and justify the decision you would make (as an Ethical Rights activist) in this case.

Questions for peer-evaluation: 1. Did the group correctly define the Rights theory of ethics?

a) Discuss the extent to which their definition was accurate and complete.

b) Were there any other considerations the group could have included? 2. Did the group explain the steps in the application of Rights?

a) Were the steps correctly identified? b) Were there any important points not covered by the group? What

were they? 3. Did the group apply Rights theory to the case study in an accurate and

effective manner? a) Did the group omit any important issues? What were they? b) Did the group present any interesting facts you think were

insightful? 4. Did the group present a logical and ethically justifiable set of

recommendations to the ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case? a) Were the recommendations logical given the group’s presentation

of the facts? b) What additional recommendations would you have included?

12

Topic for Group Four: Justice Download the Justice Case from the unit’s MyLO page, and use it as the basis for your tutorial presentation. TASK: Define the elements of the Distributive Justice theory of ethical action. In your definition, be sure to outline the steps required when attempting to undertake an effective Distributive Justice analysis. Using the case available on MyLO, provide a Distributive Justice analysis of the ‘Case of the Plant relocation’. Detail and justify the decision you would make (as a Distributive Justice activist) in this case. Questions for peer-evaluation: 1. Did the group correctly define the Distributive Justice theory of ethics?

a) Discuss the extent to which their definition was accurate and complete.

b) Were there any other considerations the group could have included? 2. Did the group explain the steps in the application of Distributive Justice to an ethical dilemma? a) Were the steps correctly identified? b) Were there any important points not covered by the group? What

were they? 3. Did the group apply Distributive Justice to the case study in an accurate

and effective manner? a) Did the group omit any important issues? What were they? b) Did the group present any interesting facts you think were

insightful? 4. Did the group present a logical and ethically justifiable set of

recommendations to the ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case? a) Were the recommendations logical given the group’s presentation

of the facts? b) What additional recommendations would you have included?

13

BMA250 Group Mark Allocation Adjustment Form

Your group’s presentation will be marked out of a score of 10. This document allows you to provide feedback as to what percentage of that mark you believe each individual member of your group should receive. Note: all members will receive 100% of the group’s mark unless this form is submitted to your tutor. If you feel that a group member has not contributed equally, please place a value of between 0% and 100% next to that group member’s name that reflects their level of input. The mark that students receive from their group’s presentation will equal:

(The group’s overall score) multiplied by (the individual’s average “contribution score”).

For example…Group A consists of John, Adam, Mary, and Jane. Their tutor awarded the group a score of 8/10 for their presentation. Because John and Jane did not contribute equally, Adam and Mary both filled in the Mark Adjustment form. After speaking to John and Jane about their input, their tutor altered the marks allocated as follows: Name Group’s Overall Score x % Contribution Student’s Score John 8 x 50% 4 Adam 8 x 100% 8 Mary 8 x 100% 8 Jane 8 x 75% 6

In the section provided below, please write the names of your fellow group members and the percentage of the score you believe that individual deserves. Student Names % Contribution ______________________________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________ _______________ _____________________________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________ _______________ Signed:________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________

14

Assessment Item 3 – Major Case Analysis Assignment

Task Description: Case Research and Analysis

Task Length: 2500 words Maximum (NB: There is no minimum word limit)

Due Date: Monday, May 13th at 2pm. Students are required to submit their Major Assignment in both hard copy and as an electronic document uploaded to the MyLO website.

Value: 25 marks

The ‘Rangers Tax Scandal’ In 2012, the Rangers Football Club (a team in the Scottish Premier League) was involved in a tax scandal. Your task is to research the facts underpinning The ‘Rangers Tax Scandal’, and to provide a written report* detailing your ethical analysis of the case.

OR

The ‘HSBC Money Laundering’ Scandal In 2012, the HSBC Bank was involved in a money laundering scandal. Your task is to research the facts underpinning the ‘HSBC Money Laundering’ scandal, and to provide a written report* detailing your ethical analysis of the case.

OR

The ‘Lance Armstrong Doping’ Case In 2012, Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the UCI after allegations of drug-cheating. Your task is to research the facts underpinning the ‘Lance Armstrong Doping’ case, and to provide a written report* detailing your ethical analysis of the case. *Your report must include a discussion of the following: 1. Describe the facts you feel underpinned the case. Be sure to include a brief account of the ethical assumptions and values of the major stakeholders in this case. 2. Who was the decision-maker in the case, and what conflicting demands did they have to accommodate? 3. What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case? 4. Using the Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights, and Distributive Justice approaches to ethical decision-making, provide an analysis of the ethical dilemma. 5. Present and justify the final recommendation you would have made to the decision-maker in this case had they asked you for advice on how to resolve their initial ethical dilemma. NOTE: You are not required to define any of the ethical theories in your assignment. You are required, however, to fully reference the case facts you report in your assignment.

15

BMA250 Managerial Social Responsibility

Marking Schedule for the Major Assignment

Student Name: ____________________________________________ Ability to identify the relevant issues and justify a logical ethical dilemma (6 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Provided little useful discussion Provided an excellent discussion Application of Utilitarianism (4 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Demonstrated a poor understanding Demonstrated an excellent understanding Application of Kantianism (4 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Demonstrated a poor understanding Demonstrated an excellent understanding Application of Rights (4 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Demonstrated a poor understanding Demonstrated an excellent understanding Application of Justice (4 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Demonstrated a poor understanding Demonstrated an excellent understanding Ability to provide a logical recommendation (2 marks):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Provided an illogical recommendation Provided an excellent recommendation The assignment was presented to the School of Management’s standards (1 mark):

NN-----------------------PP-----------------------CR----------------------DN-------------------HD Not to the required standard Conformed to a very high standard COMMENTS:

MARK ATTAINED: /25 GRADE:

SIGNED: ____________________________

16

Assessment Item 4 – Take-Home Examination

Format: Section A: Compulsory Case Analysis Section B: TWO (2) Essays from a Choice of FOUR (4) Questions

Duration: Section A: 2000 words MAXIMUM Section B: 1000 words MAXIMUM for each essay

Release Date and Time: DUE Date and Time: Value:

TBA at 5pm Students need only submit an electronic copy of their take-home examination via the MyLO website. TBA at 5pm 50 marks

The take-home examination will comprise TWO (2) parts. Part A consists of a compulsory 2000-word case analysis (worth 30 marks). Part B consists of TWO (2) 1000-word essays from a choice of at least FOUR (4) questions (worth 10 marks each). Part A: The compulsory case study will be chosen from a suite of cases available on MyLO – these cases will be made available to the students from Week 1 of semester. Once the take-home examination case is selected by the Unit Coordinator, students must complete the following tasks: 1. Describe the facts you feel underpinned the selected case. Be sure to include a brief account of the ethical assumptions and values of the major stakeholders in this case. 2. Who was the decision-maker in the selected case, and what conflicting demands did they have to accommodate? 3. What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case?

[Questions 1, 2 & 3 = 6 marks] 4. Using the Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights, and Distributive Justice approaches to ethical decision -making, provide an analysis of the ethical dilemma.

[20 marks] 5. Present and justify the final recommendation you would have made to the decision -maker in this case had they asked you for advice on how to resolve their initial ethical dilemma.

[2 marks] Additional Formatting and Expression Requirements: The analysis was presented to the School of Management’s standards.

[2marks] Part B: The essay questions will be focused on the lecture material delivered from Week 5 onwards, and students are required to answer TWO (2) questions from at least FOUR (4) alternatives.

[20 marks]

Supplementary Exams: Except in special circumstances and on the recommendation of the unit

coordinator or the Head of School, a student who fails will not be granted a supplementary

examination.

17

Special Consideration and Student Difficulties

If a student is experiencing difficulties with their studies or assignments, have personal or life

planning issues, disability or illness which may affect their course of study, they are advised to raise

these with their lecturer in the first instance. Students may also contact the Student Adviser, who

will be able to help in identifying the issues that need to be addressed, give general advice, assist by

liaising with academic staff, as well as referring students to any relevant University-wide support

services. The Student Adviser is located in room 318a in the Commerce Building in Hobart and is

contactable by phone on 6226 1916. In Launceston the Student Adviser is located in room A168 in

Building A and is contactable by phone on 6324 3312. There is also a range of University-wide

support services available including Student Services, International Services and Learning

Development. Please refer to the Current Students homepage at:

http://www.utas.edu.au/students/index.html

Should a student require assistance in accessing the Library, visit their website for more information

at http://www.utas.edu.au/library/

Students who have completed their examinations and who feel that they have been disadvantaged

due to illness or other circumstances affecting their study, may fill out a form to request that their

lecturer takes this into consideration when marking the examination. Forms should be submitted

directly to the relevant school, accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation, as soon as

possible after the completion of the examination. Granting of special consideration is at the

discretion of the lecturer and school. The relevant form can be found at the following website:

http://www.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/examinations_and_results/forms_files/index.htm#eits

Students with a non-English speaking background may be permitted to take a bilingual dictionary

into an exam. This dictionary must not be annotated, that is, it must have no notes written in it. In

order to use a bilingual dictionary, students must request permission from the Student Centre.

Submission of Coursework

Lodging Coursework Please remember that you are responsible for lodging your coursework on or before the due date.

We suggest you keep a copy. Even in the most ‘perfect’ of systems, items sometimes go astray.

Assignments must be submitted electronically through the relevant assignment drop box in MyLO.

All coursework must be handed in at 2.00 pm on the due date.

Requests for Extensions Written Coursework: Extensions will only be granted on medical or compassionate grounds and will not be granted

because of work or other commitments. Requests for extensions should be made in writing to the

unit coordinator prior to the due date. Medical certificates or other evidence must be attached and

must contain information which justifies the extension sought. Late assignments which have not

been granted an extension will, at the lecturer’s discretion, be penalised by deducting ten per cent

18

of total marks for each full day overdue. Assignments submitted more than five days late will

normally not be accepted by the unit coordinator.

Faculty of Business Late Assessment Policy

A full copy of the Faculty of Business late assessment policy is available from the Faculty homepage -

http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/business/business/policies.asp.

Academic Referencing and Style Guide

Students must obtain the following electronic publications which are available from the School of

Management website: http://www.utas.edu.au/management/student-resources

Writing Assignments: A Guide

Harvard Reference Style Guide

These resources should be used when completing coursework in this unit.

Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism

Academic misconduct includes cheating, plagiarism, allowing another student to copy work for an assignment or an examination and any other conduct by which a student:

(a) seeks to gain, for themselves or for any other person, any academic advantage or advancement to which they or that other person are not entitled; or (b) improperly disadvantages any other student.

Students engaging in any form of academic misconduct may be dealt with under the Ordinance of

Student Discipline, and this can include imposition of penalties that range from a

deduction/cancellation of marks to exclusion from a unit or the University. Details of penalties that

can be imposed are available in the Ordinance of Student Discipline – Part 3 Academic Misconduct,

see http://www.utas.edu.au/universitycouncil/legislation/.

Plagiarism is a form of cheating. It is taking and using someone else’s thoughts, writings or

inventions and representing them as your own, for example:

using an author’s words without putting them in quotation marks and citing the source; using an author’s ideas without proper acknowledgment and citation; or copying another student’s work.

If you have any doubts about how to refer to the work of others in your assignments, please

consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines, and the academic integrity

resources on the web at http://www.utas.edu.au/tl/supporting/academicintegrity/index.html.

The intentional copying of someone else’s work as one’s own is a serious offence punishable by

penalties that may range from a fine or deduction/cancellation of marks and, in the most serious of

cases, to exclusion from a unit, a course or the University.

The University and any persons authorised by the University may submit your assessable works to

a plagiarism checking service, to obtain a report on possible instances of plagiarism. Assessable

works may also be included in a reference database. It is a condition of this arrangement that the

19

original author’s permission is required before a work within the database can be viewed. For

further information on this statement and general referencing guidelines, see

http://www.utas.edu.au/plagiarism/ or follow the link under ‘Policy, Procedures and Feedback’ on

the Current Students homepage.

Tutorial Program Note that the tutorial program does not commence until week two of semester. Week 2—Introduction: Ethics and Business

1. Read the article by Barrier (1998) and discuss the following statement: ‘In order to make money in highly competitive markets, businesses must act unethically in one way or another’.

2. Using the ‘Ethics toolkit for managers’ on MyLO, identify the 10 myths about business ethics.

3. Using the ‘Ethical Relativism’ reading on MyLO, define what is meant by the term ‘ethical relativism’? What are the arguments for and against this concept? Given these arguments, does the concept offer a useful guide to action?

4. Read the ‘Case of the Collapsed Mine’. What were the ethical obligations of the parties involved in the case? To what extent did they fulfil their ethical obligations?

Week 3—Group 1 Presentation and Peer-Evaluation activity Week 4—Group 2 Presentation and Peer- Evaluation activity Week 5—Group 3 Presentation and Peer- Evaluation activity

Week 6Group 4 Presentation and Peer- Evaluation activity Week 7—Corporate Social Responsibility

1. Define the term ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR)? 2. What are the assumptions underpinning Friedman’s Classical perspective of CSR? What are

the criticisms of this perspective? 3. What are assumptions underpinning Freeman’s perspective of CSR? What are the criticisms

of this perspective? 4. Define the “Moral Minimum” perspective of CSR? 5. What are the four tests that underpin the “Kew Garden’s Principle”? Use examples to

demonstrate how this principle informs the Moral Minimum perspective of CSR.

Week 8—Trade Secrets, Conflicts of Interest & Insider Trading (ANZAC DAY) Case: The Boesky, Milken and an Insider Trading Case (Available on MyLO)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned case? 2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned case, and what competing

issues or duties did they face? 3. What was the ethical dilemma in the case? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemma. Week 9—Safety, Risk and Environmental Protection Case: The McDonald’s Polystyrene Case (Available on MyLO)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned case?

20

2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned case, and what competing issues or duties did they face?

3. What was the ethical dilemma in the case? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemma. Week 10—Whistle-Blowing Case: The Ford Pinto Case (Available on MyLO – Utilitarianism Case)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned case? 2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned case, and what competing

issues or duties did they face? 3. What was the ethical dilemma in the case? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemma. Week 11—Marketing, Truth and Advertising Case: The Nestlé Infant Formula Case (Available on MyLO)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned case? 2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned case, and what competing

issues or duties did they face? 3. What was the ethical dilemma in the case? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemma. Week 12—Rights & Obligations in the Workplace: Employment, Wages, Unions and OH&S Case: The Contentious Issue of Drug testing in the Workplace (Available on MyLO)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned case? 2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned case, and what competing

issues or duties did they face? 3. What was the ethical dilemma in the case? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemma. Week 13—Privacy at Work AND Discrimination, Affirmative Action & Reverse Discrimination Case 1: Drug and Polygraph Testing at Company X (Available on MyLO) Case 2: The Weber Case (Available on MyLO)

1. What do you believe represent the relevant case facts in the assigned cases? 2. Who do you believe the decision-maker is in the assigned cases, and what competing

issues or duties did they face? 3. What was the ethical dilemma in the cases? 4. Briefly describe how each of the ethical theories covered in this unit would be applied

to resolve the ethical dilemmas.

21

Presentation Criterion Referencing Assessment

Criterion High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

The Case Facts, Case issues & Ethical Dilemma

The Case Facts section will present an accurate representation of the case with no irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a detailed account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts section will present an accurate representation of the case with little irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a detailed account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts section will present an accurate representation of the case with some irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide an account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent by the theory.

The Case Facts section will present an accurate representation of the case with considerable irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a simple account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent by the theory.

The Case Facts section will present an inaccurate representation of the case and rely upon information irrelevant to the analysis. The Ethical Dilemma will provide an inaccurate account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and/or will be expressed in the manner inconsistent with theory.

The Definition and Application of the Ethical Theory to the resolution of the Ethical Dilemma

The group will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical and defensible resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The group will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The group will demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the ethical theory under review through the resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The group will demonstrate an incomplete understanding of the ethical theory under review through a flawed resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The group will demonstrate a poor understanding of the ethical theory under review. The group’s application of the theory will be illogical and indefensible given the set of case facts presented.

The Final Recommendation

The group’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically and defensibly, and where appropriate, provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

The group’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically, and where appropriate, provide additional viable strategies to the decision-maker.

The group’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma, and where appropriate, provide additional viable strategies to the decision-maker.

The group’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma, but will fail to provide additional viable strategies to the decision-maker.

The group’s final recommendation will fail to resolve the ethical dilemma logically and/or provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

Expression Response to questions Spelling & Grammar Presentation Style Within the time limit

The presentation will demonstrate a detailed command of ethical language and concepts. The case facts section will be represented concisely and the application of the theories will be explained clearly and logically. The group will be able to answer all questions posed to them succinctly and logically.

The presentation will demonstrate a command of ethical language and concepts. The case facts section will be represented concisely and the application of the theories will be explained clearly and logically. The group will answer most of the questions posed to them logically.

The presentation will demonstrate an understanding of ethical language and concepts. The majority of the case facts will be represented and the application of the theories will be explained clearly and logically. The group will answer most of the questions posed to them logically.

The presentation will demonstrate some confusion with ethical language and concepts. The important case facts will be represented and the application of the theories will be explained clearly and logically. The group will answer most of the questions posed to them logically.

The presentation will demonstrate no understanding of ethical language and concepts. Some important case facts will be omitted and the application of the theories will be poorly explained. The group will not answer the questions posed to them logically. The presentation may also exceed the time limit set.

22

Peer-Evaluation Criterion Referencing

Criterion High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

Review of the group’s presentation activity

The student will include their own summarised answer to the presentation topic as part of their work. The student will identify all of the theoretical and application issues present in the groups’ presentation.

The student will include their own summarised answer to the presentation topic as part of their work. The student will identify most of the theoretical and application issues present in the groups’ presentation.

The student will identify most of the theoretical and application issues present in the groups’ presentation.

The student will identify some of the theoretical and application issues present in the groups’ presentation.

The student will not identify any of the theoretical and application issues present in the groups’ presentation.

23

Major Assignment AND Take-Home Exam Case Analysis Criterion Referencing Assessment Criterion High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

The Case Facts, Case Issues & Ethical Dilemma

The Case Facts will be based upon an array of legitimate data sources with no irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a detailed and accurate account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts will be based upon an array of legitimate data sources with little irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide an accurate account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts will be based upon legitimate data sources with some irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a simplistic account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts will be based upon legitimate data sources with irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide a simplistic account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and will be expressed in the manner consistent with the theory.

The Case Facts will be based upon too few and/or illegitimate data sources. There will be a considerable amount of irrelevant information included. The Ethical Dilemma will provide an inaccurate account of the problem to be solved by the decision-maker, and/or will be expressed in the manner inconsistent with theory.

The Application of the Ethical Theories to the Resolution of the Ethical Dilemma

The student will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the four ethical theories through their accurate and logical application to the case facts and the logical and defensible resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The student will demonstrate a high level of understanding of the four ethical theories through their accurate and logical application to the case facts and the logical resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The student will demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the four ethical theories through their logical application to the case facts and the resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The student will demonstrate an incomplete understanding of the four ethical theories through a flawed application to the case facts and flawed resolution of the Ethical Dilemma.

The student will demonstrate a poor understanding of the four theories of ethical decision-making. The student’s application will be inaccurate and illogical given the set of case facts presented.

The Final Recommendation

The student’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically and defensibly, and where appropriate, provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

The student’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically, and where appropriate, provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

The student’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma, and where appropriate, provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

The student’s final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically, but will fail to provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

The student’s final recommendation will fail to resolve the ethical dilemma logically and/or provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision-maker.

Expression Spelling & Grammar Overall Presentation Referencing Page Numbering Double or 1.5 line spacing Within the word limit

The report will demonstrate a detailed command of ethical language and concepts. The report will conform to the presentation and referencing standards set in the School of Management’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines.

The report will demonstrate a command of ethical language and concepts. The report will conform to the presentation and referencing standards set in the School of Management’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines.

The report will demonstrate a reasonable understanding of ethical language and concepts. The report will conform to the presentation and referencing standards set in the School of Management’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines.

The report will demonstrate an incomplete understanding of ethical language and concepts. The report will conform to the presentation and referencing standards set in the School of Management’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines.

The report will demonstrate a poor understanding of ethical language and concepts. The report will fail to conform to the presentation and referencing standards set in the School of Management’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines.

24

Take-Home Exam Essays Criterion Referencing Assessment Criterion High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail

Definition of key concepts

The student will present an accurate and complete definition of all the key concepts required accurately to answer the essay question.

The student will present an accurate definition of the all the key concepts required accurately to answer the essay question.

The student will present a definition of the most important key concepts required accurately to answer the essay question.

The student will identify the key concepts required to answer the essay question.

The student will not identify or define the key concepts required accurately to answer the essay question.

Integration of the key concepts to answer the essay question asked.

The student will present a clear and logical account of how the complete array of key concepts can be integrated to answer the essay question exactly as asked.

The student will present a clear and logical account of how the key concepts can be applied to answer the essay question exactly as asked.

The student will present an account of how the key concepts can be used to answer the essay topic.

The student will present an account of how the key concepts are related to the topic area.

The student will not present a convincing account of how the key concepts can be integrated, and will not answer the essay question to any relevant degree.

Expression Spelling & grammar

The essay will demonstrate a detailed command of ethical language and concepts.

The essay will demonstrate a command of ethical language and concepts.

The essay will demonstrate a reasonable understanding of ethical language and concepts.

The essay will demonstrate an incomplete command of ethical language and concepts.

The essay will demonstrate a poor understanding of ethical language and concepts.

25

Study Schedule

Week

Start of Week

Required Reading

Topic

Due Dates

1

February 25

#1 and 2 Introduction to Ethics and Business

2

March 4

#3

Utilitarianism

3

March 11 #4 Kantian Ethics Group 1 Presentation

4

March 18 #5 Ethical Rights Group 2 Presentation

Mid-Semester Break – March 28 -April 3 2013

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

April 1

April 8

April 15

April 22

April 29

May 6

May 13

May 20

May 27

#6

#7, 8 & 9

#10, 11, 12, 13 & 14

#15, 16, 17 & 18

#19, 20 & 21

#22 & 23

#24, 25, 26 & 27

#28, 29 & 30

#31 & 32

Distributive Justice (Lecture on Thursday April 4th)

Corporate Social Responsibility

Trade Secrets,

Conflicts of Interest & Insider Trading

Safety, Risk &

Environmental Protection (Recorded lecture available on MyLO)

Whistle-Blowing

Marketing, Truth &

Advertising

Rights & Obligations in the Workplace: Employment, Wages,

Unions and OH&S

Privacy at Work: Rights Duties & Obligations

Discrimination, Affirmative

Action & Reverse Discrimination

Group 3 Presentation

Group 4

Presentation

Public Holiday (ANZAC Day)

Major Assignment Due May 13

Take-Home Examination Due: TBA at 5pm