union carbide corporation and bhopal sp20

Read the Union Carbide Corporation and Bhopal case that begins on page 384 of your Business, Government, and Society textbook. In lieu of answering the questions that follow the case, you will respond to the prompt below;

Consider the concerns as described in this case and prepare a memorandum that addresses the concerns described below. Your memo should be completed in narrative form (you may use headings if you choose to do so for organizational purposes, but do not list your responses in bullet form). Maximum page length: 10 pages (double spaced).

Identify all of the potential ethical issues you see (if any). Describe and analyze the implications of each issue, including who or what were affected by the company’s response. In identifying issues and addressing their implications, your discussion should be as comprehensive as possible—you should consider any economic, social, or ecological implications.

Additionally, your analysis should thoroughly identify and discuss at least two potential courses of action that the company could have taken with respect to each issue you have discussed. Clearly demonstrate your reasoning process—identify and explain any ethical principles or arguments you are relying on; do not simply state unsupported conclusions.

If you apply any approaches to ethical reasoning that you learned about in this course, clearly state what they are and how you are applying them to this case. Of the possible solutions you identified, which would you recommend that the company should have adopted as a resolution? Again, fully explain and justify your recommendations. Finally, explain how you would implement each solution you have recommended.

This assignment accounts for 10% of your overall grade in the course.

Rubric

Grading Rubric for Union Carbide Case (2)

Grading Rubric for Union Carbide Case (2)

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies the facts, ethical issues/dilemmas

20.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Describes the ethical issues/dilemmas in detail, to include those beyond the obvious; identifies relevant facts

14.0 pts

Meets Expectations

List the facts of the case, but some may not be relevant to the issues. Recognizes that there are ethical issues/dilemmas, but only the most obvious issues/dilemmas are covered; thereby demonstrating a narrow understanding.

8.0 pts

Below Expectations

No understanding of the facts of the case. Demonstrates no awareness that ethical issues/dilemmas exists, or fails to identify them with the necessary detail and specificity to lead to subsequent and meaningful analysis and decision-making.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsiders & Identifies Stakeholders (both internal and external)

20.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Identifies and prioritizes the impacts on all relevant stakeholders and their various perspectives; identifies who should be involved in the decision-making

14.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Identifies some key stakeholders, but demonstrates no, or insufficient awareness of whether, or how they should be prioritized or involved in the decision-making

8.0 pts

Below Expectations

Fails to identify relevant stakeholders and who should be involved in the decision-making

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies and applies a models/frameworks of ethical analyses (e.g., Deontological) for each ethical issue

20.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Identifies and applies a models and/or frameworks of ethical decision-making/analyses, and explains how these various models inform decision-making Note: Consequentialist (long term, short term, symbolic), Obligations, Virtue Ethics

14.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Identifies model or framework for ethical decision making but does not do so for each ethical issue or does not apply the model and provide explanation of the application

8.0 pts

Below Expectations

Does not identify or apply any model or framework for ethical decision making; uses more of an unattributed and arbitrary approach to solving the issue or applies the framework in inappropriate ways

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeChooses a course of action/makes a recommendation

10.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Formulates at least two courses of action; explains which option is best; and articulates a plan for implementing that decision;

7.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Formulates at least two courses of action but either fails to explain which option is best or fails to articulate a plan for implementing it

4.0 pts

Below Expectations

Formulates only one course of action; may or may not how action will be implemented

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCSR

10.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Identifies ecological, social, and economic factors in a business context and articulates their complexities.

7.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Identifies ecological, social, and economic factors in a business context, but incompletely articulates their complexities.

3.0 pts

Below Expectations

Fails to identify more than one dimension of ecological, social, and economic factors in a business context.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph Construction/Organization

10.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

All paragraphs include introductory sentence, explanations or details, and concluding sentence

7.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Most paragraphs include introductory sentence, explanations or details, and concluding sentence

4.0 pts

Below Expectations

Paragraph structure was not clear and/or sentences were not typically related within the paragraphs

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Mechanics

10.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

-Paper contains less than 2 errors in grammar, punctuation, or spelling. -Language is clear and precise.

7.0 pts

Meets Expectations

-Paper contains 2-5 grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.

4.0 pts

Below Expectations

-Paper contains 6 or more grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors.

10.0 pts

Total Points: 100.0