This analysis paper involves a case analysis. You must first choose the case you wish to analyze. You can find the cases along with these directions on Canvas.

The cases involve one of four business areas: accounting, finance, management, and marketing. You are free to choose any case you wish. I suggest picking the one that most interests you or is closest to your major. Each case presents an ethical dilemma. If youre not sure you understand the dilemma in the case you choose, please contact me.

Your paper should be divided into 3 separate sections as discussed below. Please put your last name in the document title when submitting. Also, please submit your paper using Word (i.e., a doc format). Please dont submit your paper in a PDF format.

Section I. Each case ends with a decision to be made. First, putting yourself in the role of the person making the decision, indicate your key decision options. What basic choices do you have? In stating your decision options please avoid imagining a solution that would solve the ethical issue in the case, as the purpose of this case is to assess your ability to apply accurately the ethical perspectives. Second, do a stakeholder analysis that lists the stakeholders to the decision, and include an explanation of how the decision would affect each stakeholder. Please present a table with plusses and minuses to summarize your ideas. See the ATTACHMENT for a format for the table.

Note: Do not summarize the case in your paper unless you wish to make some additional assumptions. Assume the reader knows the content of your case.

Section II. Analyze your decision options from an ethical standpoint. To do this, apply each of three main perspectives discussed in the course for making an ethical decision: utilitarianism, profit maximization, and universalism. You are free (and encouraged) to apply others discussed in the Deckop chapter as well; although apply at least these three main ones. Indicate what each perspective would say is the ethical course of action, and why. Be sure to refer back to your stakeholder analysis when discussing the utilitarian decision in the case.

Please subdivide this section into 3 subsections In one subsection discuss what utilitarianism would say is the most ethical choice. In the second, discuss what profit maximization would say is the most ethical choice. In the third, discuss what universalism would say is the most ethical choice.

To the extent possible, make links to the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate article, Carter article, and any other course reading that you find applicable. These articles may provide insight for your analysis.

Section III. Indicate which of your decision options presented in Section I you would choose, and the degree to which it is consistent with each ethical perspective. Be as detailed in possible in describing the decision you would make and/or the action(s) you would take. If one or more of the perspectives disagrees with your decision, indicate why you do not choose to follow the guidance of that perspective(s). Say what is wrong with the perspective for you, either in the context of this decision, and/or for you in general.

Suggested length: Approximately 5 double-spaced pages, normal sized font and margins, though your paper can be as long or short as you like. However, it will be difficult to present an analysis of sufficient depth in less than 5 pages.

Evaluation

Grading Rubric: The maximum score for your paper is 40 points. It will be evaluated on four criteria, with 10 points available for each:

A) your stakeholder analysis and application of utilitarianism (10 points)

B) your application of profit maximization (10 points)

C) your application of universalism (10 points)

D) how well your paper is written and organized (as discussed below) (10 points)

Your application of additional readings, e.g., Carter and the Mackey-Friedman-Rodgers debate articles, will be considered extra credit and can improve your grade.

Please note: To get a good grade on this paper (i.e., A or B), you need to apply the ethical perspectives (i.e., utilitarianism, profit maximization, universalism) in depth. This will require a thorough understanding of the ethical perspectives. If after reviewing the assigned readings and Part 2A video you do not feel you possess this depth of understanding, you should contact me so that we can go over the ethical perspectives to enhance your understanding.

Writing and organization: spelling, grammar, sentence construction as well as clarity in presentation are evaluated. If your paper does not meet a basic threshold in terms of spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, it will be returned un-graded and you will be asked for a revision, which will be graded as late.

ATTACHMENT

How to construct a stakeholder analysis table (for Section I):

List your decision options across the top, the stakeholders along the side, and in the table indicate with plusses and minuses (i.e., + & -) the effect of each decision on each stakeholder. If a decision has a strong effect on a particular stakeholder, you can indicate this with more than one + or -.

For example, a generic stakeholder analysis table might look like:

---------------------------------------------------

Decision

Decision A Decision B [note: for your paper dont say Decision A; use a descriptive label for the decision.]

Stakeholders

Stockholders + -

Employees -- + [note these stakeholders are just

Customers + - examples; your stakeholders will

Community - +++ probably be different]

.

.

.

(etc.)

To conduct your utilitarian analysis, count-up the plusses and minuses, and pick the decision where the plusses most outweigh the minuses. In the above table, Decision A has 2 plusses and 3 minuses, for a net of minus 1. Decision B has 4 plusses and 2 minuses, with a net of plus 2. So, from a utilitarian perspective, Decision B is more ethical.

Incredible Shrinking Potato Chip Package Topic: Cost vs. price vs. value issues Characters: Jen, Brand Manager for potato chips at a regional salty snacks manufacturer Derek, Marketing Director for the regional salty snacks manufacturer Jen has been concerned about the profitability of the various items in her line of potato chips. According to her potato suppliers, the recent drought caused a 35 percent reduction in the potato crop compared to one year ago, resulting in a 25 percent hike in potato prices to large buyers like Jens company. Potatoes accounted for almost all of the content of her chips (which also consisted of vegetable oil, one of three different flavoring spices, and salt), plus there were packaging costs. To hold the line on margins, which of late had been slim at only about 5 percent due to fierce competition from several other local and regional brands, Jen would need to raise potato chip prices about 15 percent. On her most popular 7.5 oz. size, which had a price spot of $2.19 on the package, this would require a price hike of $.33, bringing the price up to $2.52. Jen wondered what would be the appropriate strategy to deal with this unfortunate circumstance. She was very reluctant to raise the price to maintain the margin. First, she feared incurring the bad will of her loyal customers; it wouldnt be perceived as fair by them. Moreover, she was worried about competitive responses; her other larger competitors might be willing to incur a loss in the short-run to keep their customer bases and to attract price-hiking rivals customers. Jen couldnt afford such a strategy since she was evaluated solely on the basis of monthly net profits. Historical data in this industry revealed another possible competitive maneuver in the face of rising ingredient costs: hold the line on prices and package size while reducing the net weight of the package. Jen was concerned that this might be a deceptive practice. She recalled from a Consumer Behavior course she had taken in college a concept known as the just noticeable difference. This said that relatively small changes in a stimulus (such as a price hike or content shrinkage) go unnoticed by consumers. Jen felt intuitively that the price increase necessary to maintain margins would be noticed, given the price sensitivity of buyers for snack foods. However, the past industry data suggested that perhaps buyers might not notice the package size reduction needed to sustain profits, which in this case would be 1.1 ounces. Jen asked her boss, Derek, the Marketing Director, about the advisability of reducing the net weight of the potato chips. Derek said that this was a practice known variously as downsizing and package shorting. It was a very common practice among packaged goods manufacturers. For instance, he said, candy bar manufacturers are subject to constantly fluctuating ingredient prices, and because there are expected (fair or reference) prices for candy bars, package sizes are frequently adjusted without informing consumers. Jim said that was a nonissue since marketers have been above board in labeling products accurately as to weight, serving size, price, and quantity. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration had no laws against the practice. Derek recommended downsizing the potato chips, but he made it clear to Jen that the ultimate decision was up to her. Jen still had her doubts. After all, it would seem that consumers who are in the habit of buying a particular product size generally dont scrutinize the net weight label on subsequent purchases. If this were true, it seemed to Jen that downsizing would be a deceptive practice.