BMA250 Managerial Social Responsibility
Semester 1, 2014
THIS UNIT IS BEING OFFERED IN: HOBART / LAUNCESTON
Teaching Team: Dr Mark Wickham
CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B
1
Contents
Contact Details ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 2 Unit Description ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 3 Prior Knowledge &/or Skills OR Prerequisite Units ……………………………………………………………….. Page 3 Intended Learning Outcomes and Generic Graduate Attributes..………………………………………….. Page 4 Learning Expectations and Teaching Strategies Approach …………………….………………………………. Page 5 Learning Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 5 Details of Teaching Arrangements ………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 7 Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 8 Group Mark Allocation Adjustment Form……………………………………………………………………………… Page 12 Major Assignment Marking Sheet ………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 14 Submission of Assessment Items…………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 16 Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism ………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 19 Tutorial Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 20 Study Schedule …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 22
Contact Details Unit Coordinator
Dr Mark Wickham
Campus
Hobart
Room Number
312
Email
[email protected]
Phone
6226 2159
Fax
6226 2170
Consultation Time
By Appointment
Tutors
Mr Rob Lewis (Launceston) Mr Thomas Hogan (Hobart)
Email
[email protected] [email protected]
Consultation Time
By Appointment
2
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) perceive the ethical implications of a situation, b) engage in sound ethical reasoning, and c) develop practical problem solving strategies.
Prior Knowledge &/or Skills OR Pre-Requisite Unit(s) Students enrolling in BMA250 must have passed any 2 level 100 units (i.e. 25% of level 100).
Enrolment in the Unit Unless there are exceptional circumstances, students should not enrol in this unit after the end of week two of semester, as the Tasmanian School of Business and Economics (TSBE) 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.
3
Intended Learning Outcomes and Generic Graduate Attributes Intended Learning Outcomes In this unit you will learn:
Knowledge, critical evaluation and application of the ethical theories presented in the unit
Apply ethics theories and concepts to organisations
Use ethics theories and independent research to assess contemporary management issues
Communicate ethical theory, analysis and recommendations
In assessing this unit I will be looking at your ability to:
Assessment Methods
Graduate Attribute Outcomes
1) Explain ethical theories and concepts.
Case Analyses
2) Explain how ethical theories can be applied to identify and address business problems.
Case Analyses
3) Describe the application and limitations of ethical theory.
Exam Essays
4) Identify and analyse a business problem in current organisation-based case studies.
Case Analysis
5) Demonstrate the use of ethical theories in managerial decision-making.
Exam Essays
6) Apply ethical theory to the current organisation-based case study and offer resolutions to the business problem.
Case Analysis
7) Conduct independent research on contemporary strategic issues.
Exam Essays
Written communication skills to create clear and detailed analyses and non-biased recommendations for marketing executives, CEOs, and stakeholder groups.
8) Assess ethical theories and issues using the lexicon/language/logic of ethical analysis.
Case Analysis + Exam Essays
Problem Solving: The ability to apply logical, critical and creative thinking to complex business problems.
9) Write clearly using the lexicon/language of strategy.
Case Analysis + Exam Essays
10) Communicate in the format of case analysis and essays.
Case Analysis + Exam Essays
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.
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.
4
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. 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. 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.utas.edu.au/work-health-safety/
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 ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Carroll, AB & Bocholt, AK 2006, Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management, 6th ed., Thomson, Australia. De George, RT 2006, Business ethics, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L 2005, Business ethics ethical decision making and cases, 6th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 5
Fritzche, DJ 2005, Business ethics: a global and managerial perspective, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Goodpaster, KE, Nash, LL & de Bettignies, H 2006, Business ethics, 4th ed., 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 ed., Wardsworth, Australia. Newton, LH & Lord, MM 2004, Taking sides, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, USA. Pojman, LP 2006, Ethics: discovering right and wrong, 5th ed., Thomson, Australia. Trevino, LK & Nelson, KA 2007, Managing business ethics, 4th ed., Wiley, USA. Velasquez, MG 2006, Business ethics concepts and cases, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Weiss, JW 2006, Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach, 4th ed., 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/business-and-economics/ Also, see MyLO for links to many useful ethics websites.
My Learning Online (MyLO) This unit is web dependent and access to the online MyLO unit is required. Log into MyLO at: http://www.utas.edu.au/learning-teaching-online and then select BMA250 from the list of units. For help using MyLO go to http://www.utas.edu.au/learning-teaching-online/new-mylo/home . Technical requirements for MyLO For help and information about setting up your own computer and web browser for MyLO, see: http://uconnect.utas.edu.au/
6
You can access the University network and MyLO via a laptop computer or other mobile device. See: http://uconnect.utas.edu.au/uana.htm MyLO can be accessed in the Library computers and in computer labs. See: http://www.utas.edu.au/it/computing-distributed-systems/computer-labs-facilities-and-locations For further technical information and help, contact the UTAS Service Desk on 6226 1818 or at http://www.utas.edu.au/service-desk/
MyLO Expectations 1.
Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct across all modes of communication, either with staff or with other students. Penalties may be imposed if the Unit Coordinator believes that, in any instance or mode of communication, your language or content is inappropriate or offensive. MyLO is a public forum. Due levels of respect, professionalism and high ethical standards are expected of students at all times.
2.
Submission of assessment tasks via MyLO presumes that students have read, understood and abide by the requirements relating to academic conduct, and in particular, those requirements relating to plagiarism. All work submitted electronically is presumed to be “signed-off” by the student submitting as their own work. Any breach of this requirement will lead to student misconduct processes.
3.
MyLO is an Internet service for teaching and learning provided by the University. It is expected that at least once a day students will check MyLO.
Student Feedback via eVALUate At the conclusion of each unit students will be asked to provide online responses to a number of matters relating to the learning and teaching within that unit. All students are asked to respond honestly to these questions, as all information received is used to enhance the delivery of future offerings.
Changes to this Unit Based on Previous Student Feedback Students now have the opportunity to choose between three cases for their Major Assignment, and can determine the relative weighting of the two sections in the take-home examination to suit their strength at either (a) the description, or (b) the application of ethical theory. Students may now also allocate the relative weighting of the examination sections A and B – see the Examination assessment task for details.
Details of Teaching Arrangements Lectures There will be a series of 13 lectures held weekly throughout the semester.
7
Tutorials There will be a series of 12 tutorials held weekly throughout the semester. The tutorial program will commence in Week 2.
English Assist Students that have difficulty with English expression have the opportunity to seek support from student advisers as per the advice available from Student Administration. Alternatively, students can access support at the following web-site: hhttp://www.utas.edu.au/student-learning/learningresources
Communication, Consultation and Appointments Email Correspondence: Students are also expected to check their UTAS email site on a regular basis (at least three times a week). Students submitting requests or queries to staff via email should provide very clearly their: Family name: Preferred name; Student ID; Unit code (i.e. BFA103) and allow teaching staff at least two (2) business days to reply. Staff are not required to respond to emails in which students do not directly identify themselves, which are threatening or offensive, and that come from external (nonUTAS) email accounts. Students are advised not to have their UTAS email forwarded to an external email service (such as Gmail or Hotmail). In the past there have been significant issues where this has occurred, resulting in UTAS being blacklisted by these email providers for a period of up to one month. Consultation and Appointment: Consultation with the lecturer will be by appointment.
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 Items Group Presentation
Due Date Tutorials in Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 6
Value/Weighting 10 marks
Peer Evaluations x 3
Tutorials in Weeks 3, 4, 5 & 6
5 marks each
Major Assignment
Monday, May 12 th at 2pm
25 marks
Take-Home Examination (Released on Wednesday June 4th at 12pm)
Friday June 6 th at 5pm
50 marks
8
Concurrent Assessment Items 1 & 2: Group Presentation & Peer-Evaluations Task Description: Students are required to form groups in their tutorials for the presentation/peerevaluation assessment tasks. The presentation task will be worth 10 marks, with the content assessed by their tutor. 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. 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? 9
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 NonSmoking’ 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? 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? (More over-page) 10
Task Length
Presentation: 30 minutes maximum Peer-Evaluations: To be handed in at the end of the tutorial session
Assessment Criteria:
The assessment rubric is available on MyLO (in the “Other Tools” menu) 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.
Link to Unit’s Learning Outcomes: Due Date:
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10
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.
11
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:________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
12
Assessment Item 3 – Major Case Analysis Assignment Task Description:
Case Research and Analysis
The ‘PRISM Spying’ Scandal In 2013, a class action lawsuit against Apple, Microsoft, Google (and others) was filed in the USA charging systemic violations of privacy. Your task is to research the facts underpinning The ‘PRISM Spying’ scandal, and to provide a written report* detailing your ethical analysis of the case. OR The ‘Mars/Nestle Price Fixing’ Scandal In 2013, Mars and Nestle were charged with price fixing violations. Your task is to research the facts underpinning the ‘Mars/Nestle price Fixing’ scandal, and to provide a written report* detailing your ethical analysis of the case. OR The ‘Essendon Supplement’ Scandal In 2013, the Essendon Football Club was involved in a supplement scandal. Your task is to research the facts underpinning the ‘Essendon Supplement’ Scandal, 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 decisionmaking, 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. Task Length
2500 words Maximum (NB: There is no minimum word limit)
Assessment Criteria:
The assessment rubric is available on MyLO (in the “Other Tools” menu)
Link to Unit’s Learning Outcomes:
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10
Due Date:
Monday, May 12th at 2pm. Students are required to submit their Major Assignment as an electronic document ONLY - uploaded to the drop-box available on MyLO.
Value:
25 marks
13
Major Assignment Marking Sheet: Summary of Issues Needing Further Improvement Case Facts: □
The Case Facts section was incomplete and did not support the Ethical Dilemma sufficiently well
□
The Case Facts section was poorly written and confusing to read
□ The Case Facts section was insufficiently referenced (and therefore unconvincing to read) Case Issues □
The Case Issues section did not identify the decision-maker in the case (*if there is no specific name available, then the position that they held needs to be identified – e.g. CEO, CFO, employee etc.)
□ The Case Issues section did not describe the competing demands faced by the decision-maker Ethical Dilemma (incl. Case Facts and Case Issues, 6 marks): □
The Ethical Dilemma was illogical
□
The Ethical Dilemma was NOT expressed as two exactly opposite alternatives
□ The penalties associated with the Ethical Dilemma were not linked to the decision-maker specifically Utilitarianism (4 marks): □
The list of consequences was illogical and/or poorly expressed
□
The list of consequences was incomplete/far too brief to be useful to the reader (*more problematic if the assignment is under the word count)
□
The list included non-sequences
□
The justification of the Greatest Good was poorly explained
□ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present Kantianism (4 marks): □
The party to whom the decision-maker owes their primary duty was not identified accurately
□
The maxims included consequential considerations
□
The Universalisation test was not applied accurately
□
The Respect for Persons test was not applied accurately
□
The Respect for Autonomy test was not applied accurately
□ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present Rights (4 marks): □
The list of relevant “Rights at Play” was incomplete (*i.e. relevant stakeholders were not included in the list)
□
The list of relevant “Rights at Play” did not include the attached obligations
□
The “Clash of Rights” was not correctly identified
□
The resolution of the Clash of Rights was poorly explained
□ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present Justice (4 marks): □
The list of potential “worst-off parties” was incomplete (*includes relying on consequences)
□
The selected “worst-off party” was not logically justified
□
The outcomes for the “worst-off party” included reference to consequences
□ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present Final Recommendation (2 marks): □
The Ethical Dilemma was not resolved specifically
□ The penalty associated with the Ethical Dilemma alternative is not dealt with specifically Presentation Standards (1 mark): NB: any error here results in the loss of the whole 1 mark □
No page numbers
□
The text is not double or 1.5 line spaced
□
Inaccurate referencing standards applied in the text AND/OR the final reference list
□
Poor: expression, presentation, spelling, grammar, AND/OR exceeded the word limit
14
Assessment Item 3 – Individual Take-Home Examination Task Description:
Section A: Compulsory Case Analysis Section B: TWO (2) OR THREE (3) Essay Questions
The take-home examination will comprise TWO (2) parts. Part A consists of a compulsory 2000 word MAXIMUM case analysis (worth 20 or 30 marks – depending on how many essays are attempted in Section B). Part B consists of TWO (2) or THREE (3) 1000-word MAXIMUM 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 th e takehome 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? 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. Additional Formatting and Expression Requirements: The analysis was presented to the School’s standards. [20 or 30 marks] 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) or THREE (3) questions from at least FOUR (4) alternatives. [20 or 30 marks] Task Length
Section A: 2000 words MAXIMUM Section B: 1000 words MAXIMUM for each essay
Assessment Criteria:
The assessment rubric is available on MyLO (in the “Other Tools” menu)
Link to Unit’s Learning Outcomes:
2, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10.
Release Date/Time: Due Date:
Value:
Wednesday June 4th at 12pm Friday June 6th at 5pm Students need only submit an electronic copy of their take-home examination via the drop-box available on MyLO. 50 marks 15
Your final examination for this unit will be held during the scheduled examination period as indicated by Student Administration in correspondence to you. Examinations will normally be scheduled Monday to Saturday inclusive. Examinations may be held during the day or evening and students should consult the university information which will be made available towards the end of semester. You are advised to make any necessary arrangements with employers now for time off during the examination period to sit this examination. Your participation at the scheduled time is not negotiable unless there are exceptional circumstances. Note that you will be expected to sit the examination at your recorded study centre. To find out more go to the Exams Office website: http://www.utas.edu.au/exams/home .
How Your Final Result Is Determined. Your overall grade for the unit will be determined by summing the grade achieved for each of the individual assessment items.
Submission of Assessment Items Lodging Assessment Items Assignments must be submitted electronically through the relevant assignment drop box in MyLO. All assessment items must be handed in by 2.00pm on the due date. Where appropriate, unit coordinators may also request students submit a paper version of their assignments. All assignments must have a TSBE Assignment Cover Sheet, which is available as a blank template from the TSBE website: [http://www.utas.edu.au/business-and-economics/student-resources]. All assignments must include your name, student ID number, tutorial day/time, and your tutor’s name. If this information is missing the assignment will not be accepted and, therefore, will not be marked. Please remember that you are responsible for lodging your assessment items on or before the due date. We suggest you keep a copy. Even in ‘perfect’ systems, items sometimes go astray.
Late Assessment and Extension Policy In this Policy (a) ‘day’ or ‘days’ includes all calendar days, including weekends and public holidays; (b) ‘late’ means after the due date and time; and (c) ‘assessment items’ includes all internal non-examination based forms of assessment 2.
This Policy applies to all students enrolled in Faculty of Business Units at whatever Campus or geographical location.
3.
Students are expected to submit assessment items on or before the due date and time specified in the relevant Unit Outline. The onus is on the student to prove the date and time of submission.
4.
Students who have a medical condition or special circumstances may apply for an extension. Requests for extensions should, where possible, be made in writing to the Unit Coordinator on 16
or before the due date. Students will need to provide independent supporting documentation to substantiate their claims. 5.
Late submission of assessment items will incur a penalty of 10% of the total marks possible for that piece of assessment for each day the assessment item is late unless an extension had been granted on or before the relevant due date.
6.
Assessment items submitted more than five (5) days late will not be accepted.
7.
Academic staff do NOT have the discretion to waive a late penalty, subject to clause 4 above.
Academic Referencing and Style Guide In your written work you will need to support your ideas by referring to literature, reliable news articles, ‘works of art’ and/or inventions. It is important that you understand how to correctly refer to the work of others and maintain academic integrity. Failure to appropriately acknowledge the ideas of others constitutes academic dishonesty (plagiarism), a matter considered by the University of Tasmania as a serious offence. The appropriate referencing style for this unit is: the Harvard style. For information on presentation of assignments, including referencing styles: http://utas.libguides.com/referencing
Review of Assessment and Results Review of Internal Assessment It is expected that students will adhere to the following policy for a review of any piece of continuous/internal assessment. The term continuous/internal assessment includes any assessment task undertaken across the teaching phase of any unit (such as an assignment, a tutorial presentation, and online discussion, and the like), as well as any capstone assignment or take-home exam. Within five (5) days of release of the assessment result a student may request a meeting with the assessor for the purpose of an informal review of the result (in accordance with Academic Assessment Rule No. 2 Clause 22 – www.utas.edu.au/university-council/universitygovernance/rules). During the meeting, the student should be prepared to discuss specifically the marks for the section(s) of the marking criteria they are disputing and why they consider their mark(s) is/are incorrect. The assessor will provide a response to the request for review within five (5) days of the meeting. If the student is dissatisfied with the response they may request a formal review of assessment by the Head of School, with the request being lodged within five (5) days of the informal review being completed. A Review of Internal Assessment Form must be submitted with the formal review (http://www.studentcentre.utas.edu.au/examinations_and_results/forms_files/review_of_assessm ent.pdf).
Review of Final Exam/Result In units with an invigilated exam students may request a review of their final exam result. You may request to see your exam script after results have been released by completing the Access to Exam Script Form, which is available from the TSBE Office, or at the following link – http://www.utas.edu.au/business-and-economics/student-resources. Your unit coordinator will
17
then contact you by email within five (5) working days of receipt of this form to go through your exam script. Should you require a review of your final result a formal request must be made only after completing the review of exam script process list above. To comply with UTAS policy, this request must be made within ten (10) days from the release of the final results (in accordance with Academic Assessment Rule No. 2 Clause 22 – www.utas.edu.au/university-council/universitygovernance/rules). You will need to complete an Application for Review of Assessment Form, which can be accessed from www.studentcentre.utas.edu/examinations_an_results/forms_files/review_of_assessment.pdf. Note that if you have passed the unit you will be required to pay $50 for this review. The TSBE reserves the right to refuse a student request to review final examination scripts should this process not be followed.
Further Support and Assistance If you are experiencing difficulties with your studies or assessment items, have personal or lifeplanning issues, disability or illness which may affect your study then you are advised to raise these with your lecturer or tutor in the first instance. If you do not feel comfortable contacting one of these people, or you have had discussions with them and are not satisfied, then you are encouraged to contact the Director of Undergraduate Programs: Name: David Kronenberg Room: TBC Phone: TBC Email:
[email protected] Students are also encouraged to contact their Undergraduate 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. Please refer to the Student Adviser listings at www.utas.edu.au/first-year/student-advisers for your advisers contact details. There is also a range of University-wide support services available to students, including Student Centre Administration, Careers and Employment, Disability Services, International and Migrant Support, and Student Learning and Academic Support. Please refer to the Current Students website (available from www.utas.edu.au/students) for further information. If you wish to pursue any matters further then a Student Advocate may be able to assist. Information about the advocates can be accessed from www.utas.edu.au/governancelegal/students-complaints . The University also has formal policies, and you can find out details about these policies from the following link – www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/student-complaints/how-to-resolve-a-studentcomplaint/self-help-checklist.
18
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. 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. using ones’ own work from previously submitted assessment items if repeating a unit.
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.academicintegrity.utas.edu.au/ 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 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.
19
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 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? 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. 20
Week 10—Whistle-Blowing Case: The “Quality Management: Signing Off on a Substandard Product” Case (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 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
Study Schedule Week
Start of Week
Readings (R) Podcasts (P)
Topic
1
24 February
Ethics & Business
2
3 March
3
10 March
4
17 March
5
24 March
6
31 March
7
7 April
8
14 April
(R) 1.1 & 1.2 (P) 1.1 & 1.2 (R) 2.1 (P) 2.1 (R) 3.1 (P) 3.1 (R) 4.1 (P) 4.1 (R) 5.1 (P) 5.1 (R) 6.1 to 6.3 (P) 6.1 & 6.2 (R) 7.1 to 7.5 (P) 7.1 to 7.3 (R) 8.1 to 8.4 (P) 8.1 to 8.3
Due Dates
Utilitarianism Kantianism Ethical Rights Distributive Justice Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Group Presentation #1 Group Presentation #2 Group Presentation #3 Group Presentation #4
Trade Secrets, Conflicts of Interest & Insider Trading Safety, Risk & Environmental Protection (This class in on April 17th)
Mid-semester break: Friday 18 – Friday 25 April inclusive Week 8 Thursday 24 (cont’d) April 9 28 April 10 11
12 13
5 May
Classes resume (R) 9.1 to 9.4 (P) 9.1 (R) 10.1 & 10.2 (P) 10.1 (R) 11.1 to 11.4 (P) 11.1 & 11.2 (R) 12.1 to 12.3 (P) 12.1 & 12.2 (R)13.1 & 13.2 (P) 13.1 &13.2
Whistle-Blowing Marketing, Truth & Advertising Rights and Obligations in the Workplace: Employment, Unions and OH&S Privacy at Work: Rights, Duties & Obligations Discrimination & Affirmative Action
Major Assignment Due
Take-Home Examination Due: Friday June 6th at 5pm
22
