HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
| Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines | |
| Trimester | T2 2019 |
| Unit Code | HC2121 |
| Unit Title | Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility |
| Assessment Type | Group Assessment |
| Assessment Title | Group Case Study Report and Presentations on ‘Herbalife Reborn’ |
| 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 | 35 % of the total assessments |
| Total Marks | 25% for Group Report + 10% for Group Presentation |
| Word limit | Not more than 3,000 words |
| Due Date | Regular Mode Students: a. Report: Report: Sunday, 29 September 2019, 5PM (week 10) b. Presentation: Held in class in between week 10-11 (During tutorial) Block Mode Students (Block Mode 1 – (Week 1- Week 5 +12)) a. Report: Sunday, 5PM, 25 August 2019 b. Presentation: Held in class in between 19-24th August 2019 Block Mode Students (Block Mode 2 – (Week 6 – Week 11) a. Report: Sunday, 5PM, 29 September 2019 b. Presentation: Held in class in between 30th September to 5 October 2019 |
| 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 – Group Assignment V03
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
Assignment 2 Specifications
Task: Group Report + Presentation
Topic: Case Study on “Herbalife Reborn”
Students will form into groups of a minimum of 3 (three) students and maximum 4 (four) students. You are
not allowed to submit the assignment as an individual assignment. Each group will complete a detailed
analysis and present their case assessment, analysis, and outside research to the class based on the case
study on ‘Herbalife Reborn’. 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. Why has Herbalife’s multilevel compensation model been confused with a pyramid scheme?
2. Describe the differences between a legitimate business model and a pyramid scheme
3. How has Herbalife demonstrated social responsibility?
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
• FTC decision on Herbalife: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pressreleases/2016/07/herbalife-will-restructure-its-multi-level-marketing-operations
• Multilevel marketing vs. pyramid schemes: https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/newsevents/consumer-tips/2015/03/opportunity-or-scam-multi-level-marketing-vs.-pyrasmidschemes/
• FTC decision on BurnLounge: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/usappeals-court-affirms-ruling-favor-ftc-upholds-lower-court
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 – Group Assignment V03
Presentations will run for approximately 10 minutes. To successfully assess a case, you must engage in
additional research to gather more background information as well as current information on the company
and situation. The class presentation should present the case, elicit discussion and summarise the main
points as far as your group has determined.
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
Marking criteria
| HC2121 Report Marking Rubric (Group) | ||||
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Mark |
| Format and Organization |
All required sections are included, and each is effectively organized. No formatting errors exist. |
All required sections are included but one may need to be organized better. No formatting errors exist. |
All required sections are included but one or two are poorly organized. One formatting error exists. |
Sections are poorly organized and some are missing. A few formatting errors exist. |
| Symptoms | Symptoms are clearly identified and clustered, with each cluster of symptoms pointing toward an underlying problem. |
Identification of symptoms is good, sufficient, and clearly articulated |
Sufficient symptoms are identified; understands differences between symptoms and problems. |
Insufficient symptoms are identified; symptoms are confused with problems. |
| Problem Analysis |
Each problem is analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly. |
Each problem is analyzed well. |
At least one problem is analyzed adequately, but analysis needs more critical attention. |
No analysis is offered. Only facts are repeated without scrutiny. |
| Evaluation of Alternatives |
Pros and cons are provided for each alternative and each is very convincing. |
Pros and cons are provided for each alternative and are, overall, generally convincing. |
Pros and cons are provided for most alternatives. Most key points are convincing. |
Pros and cons are not provided for each alternative. Some are weak. |
| Recommended Course of Action |
Recommendations are directly responsive to problems and provide effective, efficient, feasible recommendations. Responsibilities for actions are included |
Recommendations are actionable and responsive to problems. They’re effective, efficient, and feasible. |
Recommendations are adequate but need attention regarding who will implement them, how they’ll be implemented, and what needs to get done. |
Recommendations suggest simple solutions (such as outsourcing or hiring consultants) and are vague, unrealistic, expensive, too complex, or not related to problems. |
| Grammar | No grammatical errors exist. |
Few grammatical errors exist and don’t impede meaning. |
Some grammatical errors exist but generally don’t impede meaning. |
Numerous grammatical errors exist and impede meaning. |
| Sources and referencing |
Report contains no errors in documentation (including citations, signal phrases, or References). Student introduces and analyzes found information in a professional manner. |
Minimal documentation errors exist; student understands how to use signal phrases; cite sources; compile a References page; and in general, introduce and analyse found information. |
Some documentation errors exist but student generally understands how to use signal phrases; cite sources; compile a References page; and in general, introduce and analyse found information. |
Found information is not documented correctly. Errors exist with signal phrases, citations, and References. Found information is not introduced or analysed adequately. |
| Task completion |
Student has understood the objective of the task and completed the assignment as instructed and has made extensive reference to the ethical theory throughout and where relevant. |
Student has understood the objective of the task and mostly completed the assignment as instructed, with some mention of the ethical theories |
Student has not fully understood the objective of the task and makes little mention or referral to the ethical theories |
Student has misunderstood the objective of the task and failed to follow instructions, with no mention or referral to the ethical theories |
| Total | /32 |
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
| Converted to 25% | /25 |
| Student Name | Student Id |
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
| HC2121 Presentation Marking Rubric (Group) | ||||
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Mark |
| Visual Appeal | There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Visually appealing/engaging. |
There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Significant visual appeal. |
There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing or too much going on. |
There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read and too much information had been copied onto them. No visual appeal. |
| Comprehension | Extensive knowledge of topic. Members showed complete understanding of assignment. Accurately answered all questions posed. |
Most showed a good understanding of topic. All members able to answer most of audience questions. |
Few members showed good understanding of some parts of topic. Only some members accurately answered questions. |
Presenters didn’t understand topic. Majority of questions answered by only one member or majority of information incorrect. |
| Presentation Skills |
Regular/constant eye contact, The audience was engaged, and presenters held the audience’s attention. Appropriate speaking volume & body language. |
Most members spoke to majority of audience; steady eye contact. The audience was engaged by the presentation. Majority of presenters spoke at a suitable volume. Some fidgeting by member(s). |
Members focused on only part of audience. Sporadic eye contact by more than one presenter. The audience was distracted. Speakers could be heard by only half of the audience. Body language was distracting. |
Minimal eye contact by more than one member focusing on small part of audience. The audience was not engaged. Majority of presenters spoke too quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand. Inappropriate/disinterested body language. |
| Content | The presentation was a concise summary of the topic with all questions answered. Comprehensive and complete coverage of information. |
The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Most important information covered; little irrelevant info. |
The presentation was informative but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. |
The presentation was a brief look at the topic but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. |
| Preparedness/ Participation/ Group Dynamics |
All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. Extremely prepared and rehearsed. |
Slight domination of one presenter. Members helped each other. Very well prepared. |
Significant controlling by some members with one minimally contributing. Primarily prepared but with some dependence on just reading off slides. |
Unbalanced presentation or tension resulting from over helping. Multiple group members not participating. Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal. Dependence on slides. |
| Total | /20 | |||
| Converted to 10% | /10 |
| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Group Assignment V03
| Student Name | Student Id |
Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The post HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility appeared first on My Assignment Online.