case study
Page 0 of 13
HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T2 2020
Unit Code HC2121
Unit Title Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility
Assessment Type Individual Assessment
Assessment Title Individual Case Study Report on Case 20 ‘Enron: Not Accounting for the future’
Purpose of the
assessment (with ULO
Mapping)
Students able to:
1. Compare and contrast diverse approaches to ethical decision making
2. Evaluate the implications of the legal pressure for ethical behaviour in
organisations
3. Examine ethical issues as they relate to basic values and the challenge of
determining ethical issues in business
4. Understand how moral philosophies and values influence individual and group
ethical decision making in business
5. Apply and enhance problem-solving
Weight 30% of the total assessments
Total Marks 30 marks
Word limit Not more than 2,000 words
Due Date Sunday of Week 10, 27/09/20, at 23 59
Submission
Guidelines
• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed
Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm
margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page
numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately
at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Page 1 of 13
HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment
Assignment Specifications
Task: Individual case study analysis (Report)
Topic: Case Study on “Enron: Not Accounting for the future”
You are required to complete a detailed analysis and present your case assessment, analysis, and outside
research based on the case study on ‘Enron: Not Accounting for the future’.
The case study is available on your prescribed textbook:
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L (2018), Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 12th ed,
Southwestern, Cengage Learning
You are required to answer the questions located at the end of the case study and the questions are as
follows:
1. How did the corporate culture of Enron contribute to its bankruptcy?
2. Did Enron’s bankers, auditors, and attorneys contribute to Enron’s demise? If so, how?
3. What role did the company’s chief financial officer play in creating the problems that led to Enron’s
financial problems?
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Ungagged.net: The Other Side of the Enron Story offers the perspectives of Enron employees who believe
they were the victims of the federal government’s desire to get convictions and place blame:
http://ungagged.net.
Interactive graph of Enron’s stock price and the actions of important Enron executives and partners:
http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2013797,00.html.
Former Enron CFO confronts fraud examiners: http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Former-Enron-
CFO-Andrew-Fastow-Meets-Fraud-Examiners-67263-1.html.
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
http://ungagged.net/
http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2013797,00.html
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Former-Enron-CFO-Andrew-Fastow-Meets-Fraud-Examiners-67263-1.html
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Former-Enron-CFO-Andrew-Fastow-Meets-Fraud-Examiners-67263-1.html
Page 2 of 13
HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment
Assignment Structure
Ideally, your report needs to consist of at least the following structure:
1. Executive Summary: One page
2. Section 1: Introduction
3. Section 2: Main body of the report consists of the questions at the end of the case study (or as
above)
4. Section 3: Conclusions
5. Reference List: Between 15-20 references
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Page 3 of 13
HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment
HC2121 Individual Assignment Marking Rubric (Rubric)
Substantially
Exceeds
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Meets
Expectations
Does Not Meet
Expectations Unacceptable
Scope (15%)
1. Applies unit
material with
logical order of
ideas, with no
gaps in
information.
2. Completely
addresses the
concepts, theories
and material
issues covered in
unit and called for
in the assignment
instructions, and
is supported by
text and/or other
literature.
3. Best and most
applicable points
are presented
while
unnecessary
content is left out.
4. Points are
logical and well-
supported by
evidence and
research.
1. Applies unit
material with some
logical
order of ideas, with
minimal gaps in
information.
2. Substantially
addresses issues
covered in
unit and called for
in the assignment
instructions, and is
supported by text
and/or
other literature.
3. Important points
are presented while
unnecessary
content is left out.
4. You make your
point, but could
present
more logically.
Points are
supported by
evidence and
research.
1. Applies unit
material
with gaps in
information.
2. Addresses
some of the
issues covered in
unit and
called for in the
assignment
instructions,
3. Some
important points
are addressed,
but not
fully covered.
4. You made
some points,
but they were
not
logically related
to the
case itself.
1. Does not apply
the unit
principles and
material as
called for in the
case
study.
2. Does not
address the
relevant issues
posed by
the case study.
3. You fail to
make any
important points
and
analyze the
material
presented in the
unit and
case study.
4. You fail to
make your
point, and do not
use the
concepts,
theories and
material
presented in the
unit.
1. Paper lacks
flow from
point to point,
order of
ideas is not
clear, and
gaps in
information are
present.
Structure lacks
organization.
2. Major
themes
mentioned in
the
assignment
instructions
have not been
met and
are not
supported by
literature.
3. Applicable
points are
not presented
and paper
is full of
unnecessary
content.
4. Points are
not logical
and are not
supported by
evidence and
research.
Originality
(5%)
Demonstrates
critical thinking
about the topic
and the
student’s own
impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research is
not merely
Demonstrates
critical thinking
about the
topic and the
student’s own
impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research is
presented, could be
better
Case study lacks
some
critical thinking
about the
topic and the
student’s
own impressions
and
interpretations
of
research.
Case study lacks
critical
thinking about
the topic
and the student’s
own
impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research is
not
No critical
thinking
about the topic
and the
student’s own
impressions and
interpretations
of
research.
The research is
not
Page 4 of 13
HC2121 Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility – Individual Assignment
presented, but is
interpreted and
applied to overall
themes.
interpreted and
applied to overall
themes.
The research
presented
could be better
interpreted and
applied
to overall
themes.
interpreted and
applied to
overall themes.
interpreted and
applied
to overall
themes.
Presentation
(5%)
Professional, no
editing or revision
required.
1. Proper citing of
references and
HARVARD
REFERENCE
GUIDELINE Style,
no editing or
revision required.
2. Proper
sentence
structure,
punctuation, and
spelling, no
editing or revision
required.
Professional, some
light editing may be
useful.
1. Follows
HARVARD
REFERENCE
GUIDELINE
format with few
errors.
2. Few or no errors
but sentence
structure
could be improved.
Revision
Suggested.
1. Follows
HARVARD
REFERENCE
GUIDELINE
format about
50% of the
time.
2. Overlooked
errors in
sentence
structure,
punctuation, and
spelling.
Revision
Required.
1. Follows
HARVARD
REFERENCE
GUIDELINE
format less than
50% of
the time.
2. Overlooked
several
errors in spelling,
punctuation,
and/or
sentence
structure
showing
carelessness.
Revision
Required.
1. Does not
follow
HARVARD
REFERENCE
GUIDELINE
format.
2. Many errors
in both
mechanics and
sentence
structure;
extremely
poorly written.
Integration
(5%)
Various themes
and concepts
throughout the
paper are
integrated and
incorporated to
form even
stronger support
for
the thesis.
Concepts are not
presented
independently of
one another,
but as part of a
whole.
Various themes and
concepts
throughout
the paper are
integrated and
incorporated to
form strong
support for the
thesis.
Concepts, overall,
are presented as a
whole.
50% of the
themes and
concepts
throughout the
paper are
integrated and
incorporated to
support
the thesis.
50% of concepts
are
presented as a
whole.
Themes and
concepts
are not
integrated and
incorporated to
support
the thesis.
Concepts are not
presented as a
whole.
Themes and
concepts do
not support the
thesis.
Concepts are
poorly
presented.