UNIVERSITY OF VISION STRATEGY OPPORTUNITY WESTMINSTER WESTMINSTER BUSINESS SCHOOL SCHOOL OF ORGANISATIONS, ECONOMY, AND SOCIETY Module title: Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Module code: 5HURM0O09W Assessment title: Scandal Group Presentation - Coursework 1 (CW1) Assessment weighting: 25% Submission method: In-class presentation, Online Turnitin Blackboard Assessment format: In-class live presentation & PowerPoint Slides Word limit or Length of presentation: 20-minute presentation Semester 2, 2023/2024 ASSESSMENT BRIEFING Page | 1 The Assessment The coursework one (CW1) is based on a case analysis and includes theoretical and practical considerations of Business Ethics topics (covered from week 1 to week 6). Requirements: The presentation will provide the highlights of your group ability to undertake business ethics analysis. Groups will be randomly chosen by your tutor to present. The sequence of presentations will be announced one week in advance by your seminar leader. All group members must fully participate in the preparation and delivery of the final presentation. No marks will be given to a student if they are not present with their group on their scheduled presentation time slot. Harvard Style referencing must be used in the body of the presentation and in a list of references at the end of the presentation slides. *The presentation (using .pptx or .ppt file format) should be submitted by one person on behalf of the group via Turnitin by the submission deadline at 1pm. Group formation: Each group MUST have four to six students; groups are formed by the students. For this coursework, students will be expected to sign a group learning contract. The completed group learning contract will be uploaded to Blackboard as required. Format: 20-minute presentation + 2-3 mins Q&A. There should be no more than twenty slides in total (excluding a list of references). It is the in-class group presentation that will happen in the seminar session. The first slide should include all group members' full name and student ID, module name and code, and assessment title. Task: In groups, students will select ONE corporate scandal from a given list below: FTX cryptocurrency scandal Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal Volkswagen emissions scandal Wells Fargo scandal Apple's batterygate scandal ● ● Lululemon scandal ● Enron scandal Students will investigate the ethical issues of the scandal using ethical theories and discuss the conditions that allowed the company to engage in questionable actions. Moral collapse, ethical dilemmas, and stakeholders (including Influence/Interest matrix - Stakeholder analysis matrix) should be considered along with the analysis. Lastly, suggest how the company can be transformed and become more ethical and socially responsible. The group presentation assesses the extent to which the students demonstrate: 1) Ability to use ethics theories to investigate and explain the scandal 2) Ability to link the scandal to Business Ethics topics Page | 2 3) Ability to present their findings in an engaging and convincing way using a range of media and academic literature The recommended structure, but not limited to: 1. Introduction: group members (full name & ID) and presentation agenda/outline 2. A brief background of the scandal (2 slides max.) 3. Ethical issues/considerations of the scandal case 4. Applying ethical theories to the scandal analysis 5. Conditions allowing unethical/questionable business practice: ethical breakdowns, moral collapse, and ethical dilemmas 6. Stakeholder analysis (including influence/interest matrix) linked to the scandal 7. Recommendations: how the company can be transformed and become more ethical and socially responsible 8. Closing remarks 9. A list of references LEARNING OUTCOMES ADDRESSED: Analyse a variety of contemporary ethical theories that attempt to address these problems. (LO2) ● Make a critical evaluation of current business practices in relation to ethics in business and corporate social responsibility. (LO4) ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The assessment criteria and weightings show you what is important in the assessment and how marks are shared across each criterion. When you are completing your assessment remember you need to fulfil the brief and the assessment criteria below. The students will be assessed according to their ability to: 1. Identify ethical issues and construct clear ethical arguments 2. Apply theoretical ethical approaches to the case 3. Demonstrate understanding of problems and ethical implications to the case 4. Evaluate approaches and draw logical conclusions for ethical and socially responsible organisations. 5. Present the case and analysis in a convincing and engaging way Criterion Evidence of Understanding and Relevant Literature: Evidence of sound understanding of the Business Ethics theories and in-depth knowledge of the various perspectives. Weighting 25% Page | 3 Application of Theories to the Case: Ability to link theory with the case or cases, to identify ethical problems and to deliver logical and well supported arguments and conclusions within a practical context. Evidence of Critical Analysis and Reflective thinking: Evidence of critical analysis and reflective thinking that uses theories and practical considerations as part of a personal and well supported view on business ethics and the role of responsibility in the contemporary business setting. Presentation, Structure and Style: Engaging and convincing presentation, clear structure and appropriate referencing Total 40% Details of Assessment criteria: CW1 25% 10% 100% The University has arrangements for marking, internal moderation, and external scrutiny. Further information can be found in Section 12 of the Handbook of Academic Regulations, westminster.ac.uk/study/current-students/resources/academic-regulations Evidence of Understanding and relevant Literature (25) Should refer to relevant theories and frameworks, showing a good understanding of the business ethics and moral collapse. There should be evidence of theoretical underpinning throughout the discussion. Marks will be deducted for inappropriate use of theory, for example citing works that have little or no relevance to the topic. Application of Theories to the Case (40) Should show a good use of theories to the case, including examples from the case but also explaining how they demonstrate the theory and how they relate to the assignment and questions. The examples will be appropriate and very clearly presented. The case should be explained through relevant theories and business ethics topics covered in weeks 1 to 6. Evidence of Critical Analysis and Reflective Thinking (25) The discussion should be critical and reflective in relation to theories and the case. Appropriate practical recommendation should be focused, supporting the views of ethical/unethical corporate behavior and business ethics. Page | 4 Presentation, Structure and Style (10) Should be clearly presented and well structure for the audiences to understand the case through academic discussion and arguments. Any tables and figures/frameworks used should be explained. There should be an appropriate structure and flow of presentation. Marks should be deducted if the work is poorly cited. The Harvard referencing system should be adopted. Professionalism, engaging presentation, and quality of slides are important. Page | 5