Quality of work Expectation are
1)Expert should cover all point which is sent by me
2)Don't plagiarize from the internet, books, or social media. All the answer needed to be answered by yourself moreover all other works should write in simple English with good grammar (plagiarisms report must be, less than 10%)
3)This Assignment is about to report that must be professionally presented
4)All question answer needed to complete, with efficiently and abbreviations are not acceptable like (N/A), org)
5) The due date of this assignment is on (1/04/2020) This assignment work for 20%. Minimum 320 words and Maximum 400 words. No more or less than that
6) Expert needed to do PowerPoint and report
7) For PowerPoint - The expert should provide notes because I needed to present in front of the class.
8) please write in simple English for my Report and PowerPoint notes - this would help me a lot in understanding and also explaining in front ofclass
9) I wanted to get a good score for my part (Evaluation,)
TOPIC - Everett Stern's whistleblowing HSBC case This is Group Assignment ,so my part is to do Evidence. Evidence Establish the academic arguments that support your main claim. In-text references are mandator POWER POINT -Maximum 2 slides Presentation of a real-life, business-related moral problem, and a proposal for the best ethical approach to deal with it. Create a good Power Point presentation to engage your audience. It is fundamental that you give credit to your sources during your presentation Strong evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Use different theories of ethics to analyse your case. Implement the steps of moral reasoning. Your analysis must be logical, based on facts and ethical principles. The analysis must be based on factual evidence (related to the facts) and academic evidence (related to the moral analysis). Please provide short notes for presenter( Me ) to present in front of class. Please let know which books Expert had read for getting this evidence REPORT -300-400 words This document is the written report of your research and presentation. It is an investigation of the case study that must be based on a claim (your main idea in one sentence), the reasons why you consider there is a moral issue, evidence to support your claim, acknowledgement of others’ moral perspectives and your response to their view, a pre-concluding argument and a conclusion. Writing style. Be mindful of a variety of sentence structures and lengths, showing adequate control of word choice with a clear and concise style Referencing – Harvard Reference Style. Provide a list of references in alphabetical order. These must contain a wide variety of relevant (including academic) references sourced, correctly referenced with no errors. At least 3/5 references must be from academic texts or academic journals, rather than online articles from dubious journals or non-refereed journals. Academic Report Requirements. appendices (if applicable), correct use of grammar and spelling. Report must be written in Cambria, Times New Roman or similar font, Pt 12, 1.5 line spacing. FOR POWER POINT ONLY High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Introduction Concisely and clearly articulated the important elements of an introduction (introduces team, outlines the presentation, captures audience attention, etc.). Provided a good introduction but minor areas not clearly articulated. Minor changes required on the introduction of the presentation. Did not cover key elements of an effective introduction. Did not consider most of the important elements of an introduction. Engagement and Format Excellent presentation. Excellent effort to make content interesting and to engage the audience. Excellent use of basic features of Zoom. Smooth transition of speakers. Pace of speech consistently delivered. Very good presentation. Very good effort to make content interesting and to engage the audience. Very good use of basic features of Zoom. Smooth transition of speakers. Pace of speech consistently delivered. Good presentation. Good effort to make content interesting and to engage the audience. Good use of basic features of Zoom. Smooth transition of speakers. Good pace of speech. Adequate/basic presentation. At times unclear. Poor effort to make content interesting and to engage the audience. Uncertainty in the transitions of speakers. Mostly good pace of speech. Difficult to understand. Clear lack of effort to make content interesting or to engage the audience. Uncertainty in the transitions of speakers. Analysis of Information + Evidence Strong evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Good evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Some evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Little evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Poor evidence of analysis of appropriate information presented in a constructive way. Theories of ethics Excellent use of 3 or more theories of ethics, presented in a constructive way, to explain the conduct(s) in the case and a new proposed ethical approach. Very good use of 2 or more theories of ethics, presented in a constructive way, to explain the conduct(s) in the case and a new proposed ethical approach. Good use of 2 or more theories of ethics, to explain the conduct(s) in the case and a new proposed ethical approach. Poor use of theories of ethics, to explain the conduct(s) in the case and a new proposed ethical approach. Unclear use of theories of ethics to explain the case and/or the conclusion. Referencing and Research Excellent use of references and research. Good variety of relevant sources (including academic). Excellent use of Harvard referencing style. Minimum of 4 references appropriately applied within the presentation. Reference list provided listed in alphabetical order. Very Good use of references and research, good variety of relevant sources (including academic). Very good use of Harvard referencing style. Minimum 3 references appropriately applied within the presentation. Reference list provided listed in alphabetical order. Good use of references and research, good variety of relevant sources (including academic). Good use of Harvard referencing style. Minimum 3 references appropriately applied within the presentation. Reference list provided listed in alphabetical order. Basic use of references and research, basic variety of relevant sources. Mostly correct use of Harvard Referencing Style. At least 2 references appropriately applied within the presentation. Reference list provided listed in alphabetical order. Less than 2 references provided. Complete reliance on web references (non-academic). Over reliance of one reference. Conclusion Concisely and clearly articulated the important elements of a conclusion (re-cap main points, no new material provided, strong and positive finish). Provided good conclusion but minor areas not clearly articulated. Minor changes required on conclusion of presentation. Did not cover key elements of an effective conclusion. Conclusion was unclear or absent. Handling of questions / Short Tutorial activity Students are able to answer all questions from their classmates/lecturer about the topic. Students are able to answer most questions from their classmates/lecturer about the topic. Students are able to answer some questions from their classmates/lecturer about the topic. Students are able to answer hardly a few questions from their classmates/lecturer about the topic. Students are unable to answer any questions from their classmates/lecturer about the topic. Teamwork Clear evidence of teamwork and equal division of labour. Tasks have been distributed within the group. Very good evidence of teamwork and fairly good division of labour. Tasks have been distributed within the group. Some evidence of teamwork and some division of labour. Somewhat tasks have been distributed within the group. Little evidence of teamwork and no division of labour. Only some group members did all the work. No evidence of teamwork and no division of labour. Only one group members did all the work. Time Management Presentation is within the time allocation. Exact even distribution of speaking time among team members. Presentation is almost within the time allocation. Good even distribution of speaking time among team members. Presentation is slightly over or under the time allocation. Slightly uneven distribution of speaking time among team members. Presentation is well over or under the time allocation. Poor distribution of speaking time among team members. Presentation is far too short (less than 5 minutes) or far too long. Clear uneven distribution of speaking time among team members. Just helping notes for Expert? Notes that we cover in the Class … Hoping that this would help you Moral reasoning. Steps: 1. A moral judgement must be logical 2. Based on facts 3. Based on acceptable moral principles Major Theories of Ethics 1) Virtue theories (based on character) a) Aristotle’s virtue b) Ethic of care 2)Deontological theories (based on duty) a) Kant’s theory 3) Teleological theories (based on consequences) a) Egoism b) Utilitarianism Major Theories of Ethics Business Ethics Perspectivism and Relativism The personal worldwide view imperative Good business practice-The execution of business based on ethical principles and in the pursuit of a fair and transparent outcome for stakeholders. Fair Competition - The principle that offers concrete direction on how to behave as a business person: Discover the law, familiarise with professional standards and follow the most admired practitioners Ethical culture is the organisational capacity and organisational conditions that encourage ethical behaviours among a company’s employees. Corporate Culture Can be influential in shaping the way people behave in an organisation; ‘How people behave when they are not being watched’. Management must make explicit the values and behaviour it desires; otherwise the culture will develop its own norms, usually based on the types of behaviour that lead to success within the organisation. Conduct consistent with the corporation’s values must be rewarded and conduct inconsistent with them sanctioned. Ethical Leadership The implementation of ethics in corporate culture must come from the top-down. Top-level decision-making influences the behaviour of frontline employees and has a strong influence on corporate culture. Middle management and frontline supervisors must be ethical leaders too. Especially in large companies. Ethical Leadership Ethical leaders shall demonstrate normatively appropriate conduct through: personal actions and interpersonal relationships, the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision-making Ethical Leaders (Essential virtues) Personal morality Leader morality Emotional intelligence Role modelling Whistleblowing “Jeffrey Wigand” Table of contents Cover sheet……………………………………………………...1 Table of contents………………………………………………..2 Executive Summary………………………………………….…3 Introduction……………………………………….…………….4 General Information………………………………....………….5 Evidence of Research………………………..………………….7 Analysis of Information………………………………………...8 Conclusion…………………………………………………….10 Reference List…………………………………………………12 Executive Summary Jeffrey Wigand was a vice president of research and development for Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W). He got in trouble when he tried to make “safer cigarettes” product. When confronting the CEO directly he got fired. After his separation with Brown and Williamson following unethical practices of the company, he cooperated with governmental agencies and become their whistleblower. Although his effort to sue the company was successful. In the process, there was an ethical dilemma involved. Also, his decision and action to sue the company, risking his own life because he was not reporting anonymously. Based on evidence, analysis of information and our claim, theories were applied for this unique case. Jeffrey Wigand did what he believed was right becoming a whistleblower and reporting the company. We agreed to some extent for his decision. Introduction The third largest tobacco company in U.S.A (United States of America) have been caught of fraudulent in increasing nicotine in the cigarettes. Jeffrey Wigand, a former vice president of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W) company, found out about this deceitful act of the company and decided to disclose the truth to the public about what the company has been doing, by being a whistleblower. Once, Jeffrey Wigand encouraged the company to produce a