Http www bbc com news business 34324772

Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester T1 2020

Unit Code HC2121

Unit Title Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility

Assessment Type Individual Assessment

Assessment Title Individual Case Study Report on ‘The Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission to Emission

Fraud’

Purpose of the

assessment (with ULO

Mapping)

Students able to:

1. Compare and contrast diverse approaches to ethical decision making

2. Evaluate the implications of the legal pressure for ethical behaviour in

organisations

3. Examine ethical issues as they relate to basic values and the challenge of

determining an ethical issues in business

4. Understand how moral philosophies and values influence individual and group

ethical decision making in business

5. Apply and enhance problem-solving skills in solving and managing ethical

dilemmas within an organisation.

Weight 30 % of the total assessments

Total Marks 30%

Word limit Not more than 2,000 words

Due Date Regular Mode Students:

a. Report: Sunday, 7 June 2020, 5PM (week 10)

Submission

Guidelines

• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed

Assignment Cover Page.

• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm

margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page

numbers.

• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately

at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Assignment 2 Specifications

Task: Individual case study analysis (Report)

Topic: Case Study on “The Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission to Emission Fraud”

You are require to complete a detailed analysis and present your case assessment, analysis, and outside

research to the class based on the case study on ‘The Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission to Emission Fraud’.

The case study is available on your prescribed textbook:

Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L (2018), Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 12th ed,

Southwestern, Cengage Learning

You are required to answer the questions located at the end of the case study and the questions are as

follows:

1. Explain how the culture of Volkwagen created this ethical scandal

2. While Volkswagen claimed to support ethics and sustainability, how can they recover from this

ethical disaster?

3. Do you believe this scandal will lead to tougher scrutiny of companies environmental claims in

the future? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• The scandal explained: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

• VW executive pleads guilty:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/07/25/jailed-volkswagen-exec-plead-

guilty-u-s-diesel-scandal/508525001/

• How a West Virginia lab detected the VW scandal:

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443053672/how-a-little-lab-in-west-virginia-caught-

volkswagens-big-cheat

• The scandal’s impact on VW’s long-term future: https://www.wired.com/story/vw-diesel-

scandal-future-automakers/

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Assignment Structure

Ideally, your report needs to consist at least the following structure:

1. Executive Summary: ideally one page, but no more than two

2. Section 1: Introduction

3. Section 2: Main body of the report consists of the questions at the end of the case study (or as

above)

4. Section 3: Conclusions

5. Reference List: In between 15-20 references

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Marking Criteria

HC2121 Indvidual Assignment Marking Rubric (Rubric)

Content Categories Substantially Exceeds Expectations Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet

Expectations Unacceptable

Scope (15%)

1. Applies unit material with logical order of ideas, with no

gaps in information.

2. Completely addresses the concepts, theories and material

issues covered in unit and called for in the assignment

instructions, and is supported by text and/or other literature.

3. Best and most applicable points are presented while

unnecessary content is left out.

4. Points are logical and well- supported by evidence and

research.

1. Applies unit material with some logical

order of ideas, with minimal gaps in

information.

2. Substantially addresses issues covered in

unit and called for in the assignment

instructions, and is supported by text and/or

other literature.

3. Important points are presented while

unnecessary content is left out.

4. You make your point, but could present

more logically. Points are supported by

evidence and research.

1. Applies unit material

with gaps in information.

2. Addresses some of the

issues covered in unit and

called for in the

assignment instructions,

3. Some important points

are addressed, but not

fully covered.

4. You made some points,

but they were not

logically related to the

case itself.

1. Does not apply the unit

principles and material as

called for in the case

study.

2. Does not address the

relevant issues posed by

the case study.

3. You fail to make any

important points and

analyze the material

presented in the unit and

case study.

4. You fail to make your

point, and do not use the

concepts, theories and

material presented in the

unit.

1. Paper lacks flow from

point to point, order of

ideas is not clear, and

gaps in information are

present. Structure lacks

organization.

2. Major themes

mentioned in the

assignment instructions

have not been met and

are not supported by

literature.

3. Applicable points are

not presented and paper

is full of unnecessary

content.

4. Points are not logical

and are not supported by

evidence and research.

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Originality (5%)

Demonstrates critical thinking about the topic and the

student’s own impressions and interpretations of research.

The research is not merely presented, but is interpreted and

applied to overall themes.

1. Demonstrates critical thinking about the

topic and the student’s own impressions and

interpretations of research.

The research is presented, could be better

interpreted and applied to overall themes.

Case study lacks some

critical thinking about the

topic and the student’s

own impressions and

interpretations of

research.

The research presented

could be better

interpreted and applied

to overall themes.

1. Case study lacks critical

thinking about the topic

and the student’s own

impressions and

interpretations of

research.

The research is not

interpreted and applied to

overall themes.

1. No critical thinking

about the topic and the

student’s own

impressions and

interpretations of

research.

The research is not

interpreted and applied

to overall themes.

Presentation (5%)

Professional, no editing or revision required.

1. Proper citing of references and HARVARD REFERENCE

GUIDELINE Style, no editing or revision required.

2. Proper sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling, no

editing or revision required.

Professional, some light editing may be

useful.

1. Follows HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE

format with few errors.

2. Few or no errors but sentence structure

could be improved.

Revision Suggested.

1. Follows HARVARD

REFERENCE GUIDELINE

format about 50% of the

time.

2. Overlooked errors in

sentence structure,

punctuation, and spelling.

Revision Required.

1. Follows HARVARD

REFERENCE GUIDELINE

format less than 50% of

the time.

2. Overlooked several

errors in spelling,

punctuation, and/or

sentence structure

showing carelessness.

Revision Required. 1.

Does not follow

HARVARD REFERENCE

GUIDELINE format.

2. Many errors in both

mechanics and sentence

structure; extremely

poorly written.

Integration (5%)

1. Various themes and concepts throughout the paper are

integrated and incorporated to form even stronger support for

the thesis.

Concepts are not presented independently of one another,

but as part of a whole.

1. Various themes and concepts throughout

the paper are integrated and incorporated to

form strong support for the thesis.

Concepts, overall, are presented as a whole.

1. 50% of the themes and

concepts throughout the

paper are integrated and

incorporated to support

the thesis.

50% of concepts are

presented as a whole.

1.Themes and concepts

are not integrated and

incorporated to support

the thesis.

Concepts are not

presented as a whole.

Themes and concepts do

not support the thesis.

Concepts are poorly

presented.

HOLMES INSTITUTE

FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment V01

Comments:

____________________________________________________________________________