attached
1 BUSL 204 2019 – Case Study Essay Weighting: 30% Due: The case study essay is to be submitted via iLearn by 5pm Friday, 4th October. Your essay should include a cover page with: your student name your student number the following statement: “This essay is my own work” Files uploaded to iLearn should be in the following format: Surname_StudentID_CaseEssay. Deliverables One essay of 1500 words, excluding references. Note that 1500 words is the maximum – there will be a 5% penalty (1.5 marks) for exceeding the word count by each 250 words (e.g. 1501-1750 words, 5% penalty; 1751 to 2000 words, 10% penalty; etc.) You should use an essay structure, which includes an introduction, body and conclusion, organised into paragraphs. Your conclusion should summarise your essay’s main argument, which should critically evaluate the different ideas your essay covers. Research quality will be evaluated on both the quality of sources and how well these sources are applied to the case. As a guide, you should refer to two to five additional sources and at least half should come from peer-reviewed academic journals. Useful starting points for identifying appropriate sources are the recommended readings for each topic, Macquarie University library online search function and Google Scholar. Referencing Ensure you reference all sources you use in your assignment, including online sources. Direct quotes (i.e. statements not in your own words) should be included in quote marks in addition to being referenced. You may use any recognised referencing system (e.g. Harvard, APA), provided you use this system accurately and consistently. For further guidelines on referencing systems, see the library website. If you are yet to select a recognised system, one widely used system is APA 6. The Library has set up an institutional subscription for APA style Central, which provides tools for using this system. There is more information on using style central in this blog. Extensions and Penalties Late topic submissions and written assignments will be accepted up to 72 hours after the submission deadline. There will be a deduction of 10% of the total available marks made from the total awarded mark for each 24-hour period or part thereof that the submission is late (for example, 25 hours late in submission - 20% penalty). This penalty does not apply for cases in which an application for Special Consideration is made and approved. http://libguides.mq.edu.au/Referencing http://multisearch.mq.edu.au/MQ:Databases:MQ_ALMA51158399460002171 http://multisearch.mq.edu.au/MQ:Databases:MQ_ALMA51158399460002171 http://teche.ltc.mq.edu.au/style-alert-apa-style-central-toolbox-research-publishing/ 2 Marking: See the detailed marking rubric on iLearn. Questions Choose ONE of the following questions for your essay. To answer this question, you will need to draw on readings covered in the course as well as your own research. Question 1: After stating for 40 years that the primary obligation of business is to shareholders, in 2019 the Business Roundtable – comprised of 181 of the United States’ biggest companies – released a new statement that corporations have ‘a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders’. Critically analyse the Business Roundtable’s full statement in light of relevant ethics theory. Begin by outlining what, according to R. Edward Freeman, a stakeholder is. Then identify the main stakeholders the Business Roundtable identifies, and explain why, according to Freeman, businesses would have an ethical obligation to these stakeholder groups. Finally, critically evaluate the Business Council’s statement from Milton Friedman’s perspective: What, if anything, would Friedman think is wrong with the Business Roundtable’s statement? Conclude by analysing whether the Business Roundtable was right to issue this statement. Question 2: Australian brain surgeon Prof. Charlie Teo has recently been criticised after it was found that over 100 campaigns on the fundraising site GoFundMe related to patients seeking to raise money to pay for Prof. Teo’s surgery. According to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, patients who need brain surgery should be able to access this surgery for free through public hospitals. Critically evaluate the ethics of Prof. Teo delivering brain surgery at market rates. Your answer should consider both arguments for markets being an ethical way to deliver surgery (e.g. Read, Friedman, etc.) and relevant objections using Critical Theory. Begin by outlining ethical arguments in favour of ‘selling’ brain surgery at market prices. Then use at least two Critical Theorists to consider objections to this view. Conclude by analysing which perspective is most convincing, and why. https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/ https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-28/charlie-teo-defends-prices-after-criticism-from-colleague/11155648 3 Question 3: The Guardian newspaper recently reported findings from China Labour Watch that Foxconn has drafted in hundreds of school children as ‘interns’ to produce Amazon’s Alexa device, including working overtime and overnight shifts. Under what circumstance, if any, is Amazon ethically responsible for this practice? Begin by outlining the main arguments for and against companies being ethically responsible for the labour practices of suppliers in other countries. Then critically analyse Amazon’s responsibility for how school children have been employed at Foxconn in this case considering these perspectives. Conclude by analysing whether Amazon or other stakeholders (e.g. Foxconn or the local government) are most responsible for this issue. Question 4: A recent article summarises three initiatives performing arts organizations are using to address the over-representation of men in classical music composition and performance. The first initiative is blind auditions, where musicians audition for orchestras by sound only, such that their gender is hidden from their potential employer. The second initiative is performance prizes for women only. The third initiative is a quota, with the BBC pledging to commission half of new classical music from women by 2022. Critically evaluate which, if any, of these initiatives are ethically justified. Using at least two ethical theories, begin by outlining the main arguments in favour of each of these initiatives. Then consider possible objections to these initiatives. Conclude by analysing which initiatives are ethically justified, and why. Question 5: The weight-loss company Weight Watchers has recently been criticised for releasing an app targeted at children aged 8 to 17, in which children can set eating ‘goals’ and monitor which foods they eat to achieve these goals. Children can also ‘upgrade’ to a paid plan with a virtual eating ‘coach’. While Weight Watchers claim the app encourages healthy eating, parent groups are concerned it may encourage eating disorders. Critically evaluate the ethics of Weight Watchers releasing this app. Begin by distinguishing the main ways of apportioning responsibility for the harms a product may cause. Identify which form of responsibility is most appropriate in this case, and why. Then, using at least two ethics theories, consider the main ethical arguments for and against Weight Watcher releasing this app. Conclude with an analysis of whether it is ethical for Weight Watchers to release this app, and why or why not. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/aug/08/schoolchildren-in-china-work-overnight-to-produce-amazon-alexa-devices http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/report/143 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/20/beyond-the-dead-white-dudes-how-to-solve-the-gender-problem-in-australian-classical-music https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/weight-watchers-new-app-for-children-sparks-concern-20190819-p52il6.html https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/weight-watchers-new-app-for-children-sparks-concern-20190819-p52il6.html 1 BUSL 204 Case Study Essay – Marking Rubric 2019 Skill / Capability Excellent (HD/D) Very Good (Cr) (P) Proficient Not proficient Use of ethics theory • Applies relevant theory, interpreted using own insights • Insightful links between theories and / or draws out implications of theories for practice • Considers objections and critically evaluates relevant theory • Applies relevant theory to case, correctly interpreted • Links between theories and / or implications of theory for practice • Critically evaluates theory • Some reference to theory, generally correct but with some errors • Tends towards descriptive rather than critical use of theory • Some theory not relevant to case • No reference to theory, or theory not relevant or substantially misinterpreted. Case analysis • Excellent research combining appropriate academic and case sources • Case critically analysed, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of relevant theories / framework • Draws clear insights for case / practice • Well-researched using relevant academic and public sources • Case critically analysed using relevant theory • Draws insights for practice • Some research, but limited relevant academic or public references used • Some relevant connections between theory and case. • Analysis of case tends towards descriptive rather than critical • Few, or no, case or academic sources • Superficial discussion or analysis 2 Structure • Succinct and clear introduction and conclusion • Presented in paragraphs divided by key ideas • Ideas organised in cohesive and unified argument • Clear introduction and conclusion • Use of well- ordered paragraphs • Clear links between ideas and themes • Answers question in organised way, but partial or unclear essay structure. • No introduction and/or conclusion • No paragraphs • Ideas not connected Writing and Grammar • Excellent expression • Few if any grammatical errors • Clear expression • Few grammatical errors • Reasonable standard of expression • May have some grammatical errors • Many sentences not properly constructed • Many grammatical errors Response to Question • All parts of question answered in depth • Most parts of question answered thoroughly • All parts of question answered, but some areas could be further developed • Parts of questions ignored or not answered. Referencing • All sources referenced correctly, with close attention to referencing detail • All sources references, largely using system correctly • All sources referenced, but some errors in presentation or system • Some sources or direct quotes not referenced