Description

 

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA

TAKE-HOME EXAMINATION FOR DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS

BMA250 Managerial Social Responsibility

Time Allowed: Your answers MUST be uploaded to MyLO on

(No late submissions will be accepted for ANY reason)

Instructions:

This examination consists of two sections, Section A and Section B.

BMA250 Managerial Social Responsibility

SECTION A CASE STUDIES

The compulsory case study will be chosen from the cases available in this folder. Students must individually complete the following tasks (within the 1500 words) for a total of 20 marks.

Question 1

Describe the facts you feel underpinned the ethical dilemma in the case. 

Question 2

Who was the decision-maker in the selected case, and what conflicting demands did they have to accommodate?

Question 3

What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision-maker in this case? 

Question 4

Using the Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights, and Distributive Justice approaches to ethical decision-making, provide an analysis of the ethical dilemma. 

Question 5

Present and justify the final recommendation you would have made to the decision-maker in this case had they asked you for advice on how to resolve their initial ethical dilemma.

 Additional Formatting and Expression Requirements: The analysis was presented to the TSBE standards.

 SECTION B ESSAY QUESTIONS (30 marks)

Candidates must answer THREE (3) of the following FIVE (7) questions. Each question in Section B is worth 10 marks for a total of 30 marks.

Your essay answers should be 800 words in length. All answers should be formatted in Times New Roman font, size 12 font, 1.5/Double line spacing with normal margins. You are not expected to provide references in your work, but ALL answers submitted must be 100% your own written work.

Question 6

Define Friedman’s and Freeman’s perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Using examples to illustrate your answer, describe how the Moral Minimum perspective assists an organisation to achieve sustainability and accountability in their operations.

 [10 marks]

Question 7

Define what is meant by the term “Insider trading”.  What are the potential problems that arise from insider trading in the workplace, and what strategies might a manager implement to avoid them?

 [10 marks]

Question 8

Define the concept of ‘acceptable risk’ in terms of the production and sale of goods and services. Using examples, discuss how the ethical doctrine of ‘Do No Avoidable Harm’ informs the way in which potentially hazardous goods and services need to be produced and marketed.

 [10 marks]

Question 9

Define notion of ‘whistle-blowing’ as it applies to the organisational context. Using an example, demonstrate how the Kew Garden’s principle would define whistle-blowing as a right. Using an example, demonstrate how the Kew Garden’s principle would define whistle-blowing as an obligation.

 [10 marks]

Question 10

Define the notions of ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ discrimination as they apply the workplace context. Using the four theories covered in the unit, describe the differences between the two types of discrimination.  What strategies could managers adopt to minimise instances of dysfunctional discrimination occurring in their workplace?

 [10 marks] 

Question 11

Identify and define the mahor ethical issues that may arise in the development of a marketing mix (i.e Price, Place, Product and Promotion). What strategies might a manager employ to avoid the ethical issues that exist in the ‘truth in advertising’ debate?

[10 marks]

Question 12

Using the four theories covered in the unit, describe the differences between ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ discrimination. What strategies could managers adopt to minimise instnaces of dysfunctional discrimination occuring in their workplace?

[10 marks]

 

Solution

BMA250 Managerial Social Responsibility      

QUESTION 1

The case ‘Merck and the cure for River Blindness is based on a number of facts surrounding the situation at the time. The first fact depicted in the case is that despite of other business activities such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), the main duty of a business is directed towards its shareholders. This is because, the case highlights that most pharmacaeutical business do not consider making “orphan drugs” as no profit is made in them. If such drugs were viable in terms of profits, most pharmacaeutical businesses would invest in them owing to their potential huge market. The second fact noted is that the role of a business to the wider community goes beyond provision of goods and services. The case has demonstrated that businesses have a role beyond CSR-a role similar to that of a government body-assisting where they can whole heartedly without listening to critics. Such a supportive role is even more important for a product such as a drug which is necessary for enhancing human lives. The third fact depicted in the case entails the disadvantage the poor countries, and thus, the poor people have in the society and in the world. Despite of over 18 million people affected by the River Blindness disease, governments from the developed countries were non-committed to help people from the poor countries access the drugs. It is even worse that even after the drugs proved effective after their initial test, no serious commitment was shown by the developed countries. The fourth fact that is evident from the case takes into account that a good deed is priceless no matter who is supporting it or not supporting it. Merck’s effort to help with River Blindness cure were out of benevolence despite the fact that the company would have been condemned for not manufacturing a drug that was needed so badly.

QUESTION 2

The decision maker in the Merck case was the CEO. The CEO of the company was faced by a tough challenge of balancing between the needs of the shareholders and those of the wider society. From the shareholders’ point of view, the CEO was supposed to maximize the profits by focusing on markets that were viable. As such, the shareholders were adamant that manufacturing the orphan drugs amounted to “waste” of the company resources, and thus the money they had invested in the organization. The CEO was supposed to “sing along the shareholders’ song” of profitability without any concern for the welfare of the community. On the other hand, the CEO was expected to align with the consumer groups demands of manufacturing the orphan drugs. From the consumer lobby groups point of view, failure to manufacture the drugs amount to unethical conduct that should be condemned strongly until the leaders of the organization adhered to their demands. The consumer groups believed that it was the responsibility of the company to assist without any delay in critical situations such as drug provision. The Board of Directors of Merck was also involved in making critical decisions. Like the CEO, they had to balance between the needs of the shareholders and those of the consumers. When the board gave the green light to continue with the human tests, it angered the shareholders as a cost of $50 million would be used in the initial stage. It became worse when another $50 million required in regulatory test, and annual $100 million for distribution was approved by the board………………………………..Click the purchase icon ABOVE to purchase full solution at $20