Assessment task details:

You are required to choose one (1) of the following three contemporary ethics issues (Topics 1, 2 or 3) for analysis and produce a board briefing paper for tabling at the next meeting of the company’s board of directors.

Board members gain a great deal of information about the decisions they need to make through the papers they receive prior to a board meeting. Board papers are often prepared by non-board members. Papers cover a variety of functions, from providing general information to a call for action. For example, section 180 of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 outlines that directors have a statutory duty of care to have read the board papers to be able to contribute effectively to board meetings.

In this briefing paper you will argue either in the affirmative (for) or the negative (against), providing a critical argument with evidence to support your argument.

Whilst the tone of this writing is slightly different to an essay, this briefing paper must have essay-like qualities. That is, you are required to formulate an argument, undertake research to locate academic references, and support your argument with theories covered in this course.

You are also required to table recommendations for the board to consider based on your analysis of the issue, including future action and possible barriers (these must be theory driven/evidence based).

To formulate your argument, you are required to undertake research to locate academic references using online databases (e.g. EBSCO, Proquest, Emerald, Science Direct etc). You must to use at least 12 academic references to support your argument.

Literature pointers will be provided on the Ethics & Governance Canvas site. Also, please read the Ethics & Governance – Guide to Assessment 1: Research Essay for details on essay writing, research and referencing requirements for this assessment.

E&G Assessment Guide

See also the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) Directors Tools on Board Papers Meeting Effectiveness (Links to an external site.)

Topic 1: Walmart and Foreign Corruption

Walmart has agreed to pay $US282 million (AUD $407 million) to settle US federal allegations of overseas corruption. Once upon a time it was possible to get away with having differing ethical stances in different jurisdictions. In a globalised world is it ethical and still possible to practice ethical relativism? (Answer with reference to course literature, theory, concepts and research.)

Literature pointers:

Barakat, M 2019, ‘Walmart to pay $407m over foreign corruption charges’, Australian Financial Review, 21 June, https://www.afr.com/business/retail/walmart-to-pay-407m-over-foreign-corruption-charges-20190621-p51zys (Links to an external site.) [viewed 27 June 2019].

Hartman, LP & Desjardins, J 2008, Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility, McGraw-Hill irwin, Boston, pp 63-109. see Chapter 3: Philosophical ethics and business https://equella.rmit.edu.au/rmit/file/0815e3d6-0fcf-3116-63ae-98e378546eae/1/31259007731461.pdf (Links to an external site.)

(Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)Jones, TM & Ryan, LV 1998, ‘The effect of organizational forces on individual morality: Judgment, moral approbation, and behavior’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 431-45.

Scherer, AG & Palazzo, G 2011, The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy, Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931.

Trevino, LK and Nelson, KA 2011, Managing business ethics : straight talk about how to do it right, Chapter 3: Deciding what’s right: a psychological approach, pp. 71-110, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley.