Super Discount on this order. Order Now and Enjoy 20% Discount on its value. Use the code 889225e9 at the order form to compute the discount.
Ethics and Governance Summative Assessment: a case study about BAES and the SFO (in attachment) length of paper: 2000 (not above 2200) word counts do not include title page, contents page, glossary, tables, figures, illustrations, reference list at the end of the assignment and references bracketed in the text. Bibliography and appendices are not required.
due date : JAN 6
Layout ( an completed dialogue sheet and essay with references list. structure can refer to the assignment sample’ FN0360SM0378 Assignment” that I upload )
Font face – Arial
Font size – 12
Margins – 2.54 cm on all sides (ie Normal).
Line spacing: “one and a half” (1.5).
Pages must be numbered at the top right hand corner. The right margin should be left ragged (unjustified).
Reference style : (check details in assignment brief)
The Harvard method of referring to publications and of arranging references uses the author’s name and the date of the publication.
Such as journal reference:
Coutu, D. (2009) “Why Teams Don’t Work”, Harvard Business Review, 87(5), pp.98-105. EBSCO [Online]. Available at http://searchebscohost.com
(Accessed: 29th July 2011).
Note that the title of an article in a journal is not italicised. It is enclosed by speech marks. The name of the journal is italicised or underlined. If you refer to a book, the title of the book is italicised. It is not enclosed by speech marks.
The family name(s) of the author(s) comes first, each family name followed by the initials of an author’s given names; next follows the year of publication, in brackets; then the title of the article (or book); finally, the volume and issue number (in brackets), along with the pages where the article can be located. Lastly, add the name of the database where you found the information, followed by [Online] and the web address.
Wherever possible use the homepage URL rather than the full and extended web address.
Do not use footnotes for references specific resources: scholarly source
1: academic journals (especially international journals);
2: recommended list in teaching and learning plan/ Module reading list in my attachment (especially the core text–Hodgins, M and Shrives, P (core) (2010) Business Ethics and Corporate Governance). There are many relative materials in this book which are pointed out in each task.
3,For quotes from the case study, it is not necessary to enter a bracketed reference
The struture of the essay:
These four tasks are just about the content of the vacant dialogue sheet “SM0378 Dialogue sheet template 141011” in attachment. You should respond to all tasks in the order: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Within each task, they should follow the arrangement of the dialogue sheet. For example, in task 1, deal first with praise (laudable decisions). You can refer to the sample “FN0360SM0378 Assignment” in the attachment.
Content of essay:
1, complete the vacant dialogue sheet that you use to plan your responses. Fill the key points you want to explain in your essay. (refer to the Network rail case in the attachment)
2, each task with 500 words Key words of each task: please response to what the questions really ask! Connect the BAE case, then use the theory to support your answers, but do not cite the original text too much, just mention it briefly with own words.
Task 1: In the BAe Systems case-study, identify laudable, culpable and non-culpable decisions. Rank culpable decisions and show how context makes some difference to how much blame a culprit deserves. You do need references in task 1 but certainly not to other cases. Only task 4 involves other cases.
You can refer to the following materials: Task 1 is about decisions and Chapter 2 (pages 7-28) should help you think about decision making. In
chapter 4, pages 48-9 add some further arguments related to problems in decision-making. Chapter 11 (pages 170-190) should help you think about task 1 but also about task 3.
This task Is all about decisions. For explame, if someone denies getting 1bn , we cannot use this as a laudable/culpable [decision] coz the denial would be a kind of utterance for task 2, not a decision. Moreover, Whether you are attributing praise or blame, you need to say what good or harm is done
You should identify two laudable decisions (choose the most obvious ones )
identify one non-culpabele desicion (choose the most obvious one)
Non-culpable decisions (NCD) are those we cannot blame, because they may do some good but we cannot unambiguously praise them either, because many
of them are rearguard attempts to remedy faulty decisions.
When you explain the good that is done by a decision that some people might praise, you can allow for the fact that from different perspectives,
the same decision can be both good and bad. Then you could re-identify the decision as culpable and explain the harm that is done by a decision
that other people might blame. Try not to let political arguments take up too much space.
identify three culpable decisions (rank with mincul/midcul/maxcul)
explain why one is the first-worst, another is the third-worst while, in between, another is less bad than the first but worse than the third.
Culpability ranges (Sher, 2006: 28) from “Maximal” (max-cul) through “Mid-cul” to “Minimal” (min-cul). We want to see sound reasoning about how bad decisions are, compared to one another. just show why you rank something as worst and why you put something else lower down your list.
Outlining standard ways to place blame and to respond to it, interpret any defensive utterances by the culprits (and by their supporters); and
interpret their critics” (and victims”) utterances.
Answer guide: is about utterances.
All utterances are eligible for analysis, not just BAES – utterances, you can also use the utterances from SFO or the governance etc.
Task 2 is about disappointments, justifications, excuses, refusals and concessions but for these concepts you need to look outside the custom book
at the references which have been recommended in lectures 1 and 10.
ORD is about the disappointment/ blame in terms of out-come
PRD is about the disappointment/ blame in terms of person/ relationship
ORD+PRD any utterance expressing both
You can refer to the JERC analysis of the following matirals:
1, lectures 1 a SM0378 Reactive Communities L1 220911′ and lecture 10 K SM0378 Making and Accounting for Mistakes Lecture 10 151111 in the attachment.
2, Journal of Business Ethics (vol 19 number 4) that is relevant to Szwajkowski (1992). It covers Szwajkowski’s JERC analysis
3, Journal of Business Ethics Volume 8, Number 7, “Issues management and organizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethical business practices” Dennis E. Garrett, Jeffrey L. Bradford, Renee A. Meyers and Joy Becker
4, Journal of Business Ethics Volume 14, Number 11, “The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior ” Jeffrey L. Bradford and Dennis E. Garrett
Task3: Evaluate the use of standard normative doctrines to assess the conduct and attitudes on show in this case. Consider whether business should be exempt from such normative appraisal.
You can refer to the following materials:
Task 3 is about basic ethical doctrines, you can find in the core text chapter 8 (especially pages 123-128), chapter 9 (especially pages 138-146) and chapter 10 (pages 151-163), Chapter 11 (pages 170-190) ,Chapter 12 (pages 206-222) covers the same ground but is more difficult. The section on amoral business in chapter 4 (pages 49-50) should help you with the idea of exemption in task 3, but it would be better to go deeper into this by reading Goldman (1980), which you can find in the attachment.
con-doctrines” (can think about this question from egoist, benefit for majority)
Deo–doctrines” (can think about this question from duty and right, double standard)
Vir-doctrines— (to be excellent)
Argument for exemption
Task 4: In relation to this case and comparable cases, if standard ethical norms were not enough to protect victims of corporate misconduct, recommend something that might have protected them.
You can refer to the following materials in the core text:
For Task 4, it will help if you read Chapter 2 (pages 7-28), it contains suggestions for improving decision-makers thought processes that might provide ideas for task 4.
Also , chapter 6 (pages 80-82) about culture. Moreover, read chapter 8 (pages 116-122) and chapter 12 (pages 202-206), about egoism. As for regulatory issues, you can use chapters 15 (pages 257-8), 17 (pages 279-80), 18 (pages 288-90) and 19 (pages 298-302 and 309-310) as sources of what you need, in general, to know about various regulations. However, for the assignment on BAES, you need to look outside the core book because the relevant laws are not in it.
the weakness of normative constraints mean how social limits on behaviors sometimes fail to prevent unethical behaviour.so, just Point out Weakness on this aspect
potential of enhanced normative constraints mean how better social limits on behavior could be more successful and help prevent bad behaviour. So, Just recommend something to protect them.
Weaknesses of external constraints mean how codes, regulations, laws limits on behaviors sometimes fail to prevent illgal behaviour. so, just Point out Weakness of external constraints.
Potential of enhanced external constraints, also give some recommendation to protect those external constraints.
Compared with other similar case. You do not have to find a case of equal gravity. You need to find a case in which the misconduct was essentially similar. So you need to decide what the BAES case is essentially about. Then you have only one most important characteristic for which you then need a case that has the same characteristic, even though the comparator case may be more (or less) grave/serious.
please take most attention on my assignment brief, especially Assessment Criteria. Moreover, think about the trait analysis task 1-4 By the way, PLEASE check the plagiarism before sent to me.
Place an order of a custom essay for this assignment with us now. You are guaranteed; a custom premium paper being delivered within its deadline, personalized customer support and communication with your writer through out the order preparation period.