Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment 2 Information Subject Code: BUS102 Subject Name: Introduction to Management Assessment Title: Case Study Weighting: 35% Total Marks: 35 Due Date: Week 10 (3.55pm (AEDT) Monday 22 May 2017) .Assessment Description Length: 1100 - 1200 CASE STUDY: The 5 Biggest Corporate Scandals of 2015 Chris Matthews, Stephen Gandel Dec 28, 2015 From Volkswagen's Dieselgate to Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, to Sepp Blatter, the disgraced former head of soccer's international governing body, 2015 did not disappoint on corporate scandals. The allegations weren't as big as, say, Enron or Madoff, the characters were just as captivating. Shkreli was defiant on Twitter. Perhaps the most blatant was Volkswagen, which ran commercials of its engineers as angels even when company officials were setting up elaborate systems to lie to customers and get around pollution controls. Here are the most compelling corporate fiascos and alleged frauds of 2015. The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal When Volkswagen revealed in September that it had installed software on millions of cars in order to trick the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions testers into thinking that the cars were more environmentally friendly than they were, investors understandably deserted the company. Volkswagen lost roughly $20 billion in market capitalization, as investors worried about the cost of compensating customers for selling them cars that weren't compliant with environmental regulations. The company not only has to deal with compensating their customers, but it will also need to contend with potential fines from regulators as well as a reputational hit that could severely affect its market share. FIFA Corruption Scandal The only surprising fact about the FBI’s indictment of FIFA officials for racketeering, fraud, and other offenses was that the charges came from the United States, where soccer’s popularity lags the rest of the world. The corruption part was the least remarkable aspect of the news, as FIFA officials had long been suspected of taking bribes in exchange for granting broadcasting rights for games and hosting rights for events like the World Cup. Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. The FBI also indicted five sports marketing executives at the same time. And the scandal spooked some of America’s largest corporations, including Coca-Cola and McDonald’s-top FIFA sponsors. These firms called on the governing body to fire its leadership and enact tough reforms. Toshiba Accounting Scandal No list of corporate screw-ups would be complete without a good old-fashioned accounting scandal. In September, electronics conglomerate Toshiba admitted that it had overstated its earnings by nearly $2 billion over seven years, more than four times its initial estimate in April. CEO and President Hisao Tanaka resigned from the firm, and an independent investigators found that “Toshiba had a corporate culture in which management decisions could not be challenged” and “Employees were pressured into inappropriate accounting by postponing loss reports or moving certain costs into later years.” Valeant's Secret Division In October, short seller Andrew Left accused drug company Valeant of using a specialty pharmacy company Philidor to artificially inflate its sales. Valeant denied the charges. But the fact that Valeant had never discussed its close ties to Philidor raised questions about Valeant's, and Philidor's, sales practices. It also shook investors' confidence in the acquisitive drug company, which had racked up debt as it did deals. Valeant (VRX, +1.28%) could still be on the hook if Philidor broke any laws. Valeant employees appear to have worked at Philidor under aliases to hide their identities. And Valeant had paid $100 million for an undisclosed option to acquire Philidor for no additional dollars whenever it wanted, essentially giving Valeant ownership of the company. Valeant has appointed a special committee of its board, and an outside investigator, to look into the company's ties to Philidor, but it has yet to report its findings. Valeant said that Philidor sales never amounted to more than 7% of its total sales. Valeant's shares fell 75% in the wake of these revelations, to just over $70 from a high of $260. Also contributing to the stock fall was the fact that Valeant had been accused over the summer of price gouging, buying up drugs and then rapidly raising their prices. A number of members of Congress, including presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, have called for an investigation into the company's drug pricing practices. And in early October, the company confirmed that it had received a federal subpoena. Many well known hedge funders, including Bill Ackman, who has defended the company, suffered big losses on Valeant stock in the wake of the scandal. Turing Pharmaceuticals and Martin Shkreli Martin Shkreli became known as the bad boy of the drug industry after his drug company, Turing, increased the price of a 62-year-old drug that treated HIV patients by 5,000% to $750 a pill. But it's what he did before that could land him in jail. In mid-December, the government arrested Shkreli on charges of stock fraud related to his activities while at Retrophin, the drug company he ran before Turing. The former hedge fund manager is accused of using shares of Retrophin to pay off investors who had lost money with a hedge fund he ran in the past. The government described Shkreli's alleged behaviour as similar to a ponzi scheme. Shkreli, who maintains he is innocent, says there is little evidence of fraud because his investors didn't lose money. Shkreli, who has been defiant on Twitter about the allegations against him, bought the sole copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album for $2 million. He has had called himself the most successful Albanian. Mother Teresa, also an Albanian, presumably would not be proud. Reference Matthews, C & Gandel, S 2015 ‘The 5 biggest corporate scandals of 2015’, Fortune, 28 December, viewed 9 March 2017, Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Your Task: The assessment does not require an introduction, conclusion or table of contents. Please refer to the marking criteria to assist as a guideline to help you complete the tasks. You are to research and answer all of the following: 1. The case study has identified several ethical issues that have arisen with five different companies. Give a summary of the different ethical issues that have occurred with these companies. (150 words worth 5 marks) 2. Ethical dilemmas can occur within an organisation which can challenge individual and management decision making. Explain where the responsibilities lie when it comes to managing ethical behaviour. Is it the responsibility of the individual or of management? (400 words worth 10 marks) 3. Using one of the examples profiled in the case study identify what caused the breaches of ethical conduct. In your answer consider elements such as the management style of those in charge and the culture of the organisation. (300 words worth 10 marks) 4. Some organisations promote their corporate culture as one that supports ethical behaviour. Using any organisation of your choice as an example, explain the strategies they have in place to prevent inappropriate and unethical decision making from occurring. (350 words worth 10 marks) Reference guide: in-text referencing and reference list may include references using weekly readings, text books, news articles from respected publications, and journal articles. Referencing should be in Harvard style - refer to Kaplan ‘Harvard Referencing Concise Guide’ Use a minimum of one reference per question KBS presentation guidelines: Arial, size 11.5 font, 1.5 spacing Submission: PDF and submit to Turnitin by the due date. Late submissions will incur a late penalty. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Marking Rubric High Distinction 85 – 100% Distinction 75 – 84% Credit 65 – 74% Pass 50 – 64% Fail 0 – 49% Question 1 150 words /5 • Clearly understands ethical issues and gives comprehensive explanations • All aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a substantial range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are well structured and clear so the reader can focus on what is written. • Vocabulary is professional, appropriate and extensive • Grammar, spelling and punctuation are flawless, which allows the reader to focus on the message. • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct • No plagiarism • Clearly understands ethical issues and gives in-depth explanations • Most aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a wide range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are consistently well structured • Vocabulary is comprehensive • Minimal errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with minimal exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with limited errors • No plagiarism • Understands ethical issues and gives sound explanations • Some aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are mainly well structured • Vocabulary is sound • Some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with some exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with some errors • No plagiarism • Shows some understanding of the ethical issues and provides explanations • Aspects of the discussion are sometimes relevant • Discussion is supported by some sources but not always credible and current • Sentences and paragraphs are readable but with grammatical errors • Vocabulary is limited • Substantial errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with a number of exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format contains significant errors • No apparent incidents of plagiarism • Shows limited understanding basic or no explanations • Meaning is unclear • Many of the aspects of the discussion are not relevant • Discussion is not supported by credible and current sources (does not use minimum references) • Comments are poorly structured and unclear • Many grammatical, vocabulary and spelling errors • The main points and new technical terms are not explained, or are ambiguous • Document poorly presented and does not comply with KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format incorrect or omitted • Evidence of plagiarism Question 2 400 words /10 • Clearly understands responsibilities of individuals and management • All aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a substantial range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are well structured and clear so the reader can focus on what is written. • Vocabulary is professional, appropriate and extensive • Clearly understands responsibilities of individuals and management • Most aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a wide range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are consistently well structured • Vocabulary is comprehensive • Minimal errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Understands responsibilities of individuals and management • Some aspects of the discussion are relevant • Discussion is supported by a range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are mainly well structured • Vocabulary is sound • Some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Shows some understanding of the responsibilities of individuals and management • Aspects of the discussion are sometimes relevant • Discussion is supported by some sources but not always credible and current • Sentences and paragraphs are readable but with grammatical errors • Vocabulary is limited • Substantial errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Shows limited understanding of the responsibilities of individuals and management • Meaning is unclear • Many of the aspects of the discussion are not relevant • Discussion is not supported by credible and current sources (does not use minimum references) • Comments are poorly structured and unclear • Many grammatical, vocabulary and spelling errors COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. • Grammar, spelling and punctuation are flawless, which allows the reader to focus on the message. • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct • No plagiarism • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with minimal exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with limited errors • No plagiarism • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with some exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with some errors • No plagiarism • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with a number of exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format contains significant errors • No apparent incidents of plagiarism • The main points and new technical terms are not explained, or are ambiguous • Document poorly presented and does not comply with KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format incorrect or omitted • Evidence of plagiarism Question 3 300 words /10 • Clearly identifies where breaches occur • Analysis demonstrates comprehensive understanding and valid judgement, supported by a substantial range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are well structured and clear so the reader can focus on what is written. • Vocabulary is professional, appropriate and extensive • Grammar, spelling and punctuation are flawless, which allows the reader to focus on the message. • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct • No plagiarism • Clearly identifies where breaches occur • Analysis demonstrates an indepth understanding and sound judgement, supported by a wide range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are consistently well structured • Vocabulary is comprehensive • Minimal errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with minimal exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with limited errors • No plagiarism • Understands where breaches occur • Analysis demonstrates a sound understanding and judgement, supported by a range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are mainly well structured • Vocabulary is sound • Some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with some exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with some errors • No plagiarism • Shows some understanding of where breaches occur • Analysis demonstrates some understanding and judgement, supported by some sources but not always credible and current • Sentences and paragraphs are readable but with grammatical errors • Vocabulary is limited • Substantial errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with a number of exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format contains significant errors • No apparent incidents of plagiarism • Shows limited understanding where breaches occur • Analysis does not demonstrate an understanding and is not supported by credible and current sources (does not use minimum references) • Comments are poorly structured and unclear • Many grammatical, vocabulary and spelling errors • The main points and new technical terms are not explained, or are ambiguous • Document poorly presented and does not comply with KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format incorrect or omitted • Evidence of plagiarism Question 4 350 words /10 • Clearly identifies preventative steps using high quality examples • All aspects of the discussion are relevant • Analysis demonstrates comprehensive understanding and valid judgement, supported by a substantial range of credible and current sources • Clearly identifies preventative steps using quality examples • Most aspects of the discussion are relevant • Analysis demonstrates an indepth understanding and sound judgement, supported by a wide range of credible and current sources • Identifies preventative steps using appropriate examples Some aspects of the discussion are relevant • Analysis demonstrates a sound understanding and judgement, supported by a range of credible and current sources • Sentences and paragraphs are • Identifies some preventative steps using some examples • Aspects of the discussion are sometimes relevant • Analysis demonstrates some understanding and judgement, supported by some sources but not always credible and current • Sentences and paragraphs are • Able to identify limited preventative steps and not able to using examples • Meaning is unclear • Many of the aspects of the discussion are not relevant • Analysis does not demonstrate an understanding and is not COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. • Sentences and paragraphs are well structured and clear so the reader can focus on what is written. • Vocabulary is professional, appropriate and extensive • Grammar, spelling and punctuation are flawless, which allows the reader to focus on the message. • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct • No plagiarism • Sentences and paragraphs are consistently well structured • Vocabulary is comprehensive • Minimal errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with minimal exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with limited errors • No plagiarism mainly well structured • Vocabulary is sound • Some errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with some exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format correct with some errors • No plagiarism readable but with grammatical errors • Vocabulary is limited • Substantial errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation • Document professionally presented in terms of KBS guidelines and assignment instructions with a number of exceptions • In-text referencing and reference list format contains significant errors • No apparent incidents of plagiarism supported by credible and current sources (does not use minimum references) • Comments are poorly structured and unclear • Many grammatical, vocabulary and spelling errors • The main points and new technical terms are not explained, or are ambiguous • Document poorly presented and does not comply with KBS guidelines and assignment instructions • In-text referencing and reference list format incorrect or omitted • Evidence of plagiarism Total /35