ASSESSMENT
This task requires you to work both individually and as part of a group to consider the Corporate Social Responsibility performance and stated values of two similar organisations and apply the Giving Voice to Values framework.
PART A - BUSINESS VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT
This activity is based on the exercise on page 226 of ‘Business Ethics' (Crane & Matten, 2010).
For this component, you need to work in a group of five (5) students to consider the values and social performance of two companies. You are required to consider and discuss the companies as a group, but must submit your responses to the questions as individuals.
1. As a group, select two companies that produce social reports and whose values are identified on their websites or in other company documents (that are publicly available). At least one of these companies must have had the social responsibility and/or performance of their business activities queried and the two companies selected by your group must be either:
(a) From different industries but in the same country; or
(b) From the same industry but different countries.
By Week 5, your group must provide the names of the companies you have selected to research, and the industry and country within which they operate.
2. As a group, research each of your companies to determine their company values, their approaches to social responsibility and their reporting of their social performances.
3. As an individual, you are required to submit responses to the following questions:
i. Identify and describe the two companies you have researched; the countries and/or industries in which they operate.
ii. What differences are evident between the two companies in terms of the range of issues dealt with in their social reports and the depth of coverage on specific issues?
iii. To what extent can these differences be explained by the country or industry differences? What other explanations might there be?
iv. Assess the apparent quality of the social accounting approach utilized by each company according to Zadek et al.'s (1997) criteria.
v. Discuss the extent to which the social reports provided by these companies reflect their stated values.
vi. Briefly reflect on your groups' discussions of these companies. In what ways did the ideas presented by your group confirm your own conclusions, influence your thinking and/or present another perspective to you?
- A score will be allocated for presentation, written expression, spelling, grammar, punctuation and referencing.
Referencing: You are required to follow the APA style of referencing for this task. There is no set number of references required. It is recommended, however, that you independently seek out resources in addition to those provided by the lecturer.
Qi - describe the two companies that have been researched. Responses should:
- clearly identify and describe the two companies being researched
- clearly describe the industries and countries in which these companies operate
- Clearly describe the social reporting/performance issue for which one of these companies has been challenged.
Qii - What differences are evident between the two companies in terms of the range of social, environmental and economic issues dealt with in their reports and the depth of coverage on specific issues? Responses should:
- compare the style, content and presentation of the social reports provided by each company
- critically analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches to social reporting evident in the reports
- comment on the range of issues covered and the depth of the coverage
Qiii - To what extent can these differences be explained by the country or industry differences? What other explanations might there be? Responses should:
- Discuss the differences between industries and/or countries (such as development, culture, attitudes, regulations, market maturity, technologies etc.) that may have contributed to the differences in approaches to social responsibility discussed in Qi
- Demonstrate critical thinking and analysis to provide an insightful explanation of these differences
Qiv- Assess the apparent quality of the social accounting approach utilized by each company according to Zadek et al.'s (1997) criteria. Responses should:
- Provide some brief commentary on the extent to which each of the companies does or does not meet the eight criteria identified by Zadek et al (1997) as the key principles of quality of social reporting, as outlined on P. 216 (Crane & Matten, 2010).
- Identify which key principles are met (and how they are met) by each company's social reporting
- Identify which principles have not been met
Qv - Discuss the extent to which the social reports reflect the values of your selected companies. Responses should:
- Identify each company's values (including their Mission Statement, Values, Business Principles etc.) as stated on their websites, reports or in other company documentation
- Critically analyse each company's social reports in terms of the extent to which their stated values align (or do not align) with their approaches to social responsibility and sustainability (based on the evidence in the reports)
Qvi - Briefly reflect on your groups' discussions of these companies. In what ways did the ideas presented by your group confirm your own conclusions or present another perspective to you? Responses should:
- Reflect on the group discussions about the social reporting of the two companies selected
- Identify key points of agreement and disagreement with other group members
- Discuss how the different perspectives provided by group members contributed to your own consideration of the performance of these companies
Presentation (expression, structure, referencing, organisation, word count - not including cover sheet and references etc.)
Part B - Application of GVV Framework
In this group task you will work with the same group members as for Assessment 2 - Part A. This task requires your group to consider the social reporting/performance issue or ethical dilemma identified in your research of one of the companies compared in Assessment 2 - Part
A. As a group, you are required to:
1. Write a fictional scenario of how this social performance issue/ethical dilemma could have emerged for people involved with this company;
2. Develop a script in which the central character in this scenario applies the Giving Voice to Values framework to the give voice to his/her values ;
3. Present your script to the class as a role play.
1. Scenario Development
Develop a fictional scenario that outlines how ethical dilemma could have presented itself at this company. This scenario should be written as a narrative piece, similar in format and style to the GVV/Babson scenarios. Your scenario should describe a possible workplace situation that illustrates the emergence of this dilemma as a values conflict for one or more people. It should introduce the key stakeholders & characters, the key facts and the background information that has led to this issue.
2. Script Development
Your group is required to develop a script in which the central character you're your scenario applies the Giving Voice to Values framework in response to the values conflict or ethical dilemma identified in your scenario. Your script should address:
- What is the ethical dilemma/values conflict presented in your scenario?
- Who are the stakeholders and what is at stake for the key parties (including those who disagree with you)?
- What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? That is, what are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
- What levers/arguments could you use to influence those with whom you disagree?
- What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the arguments be made? When and in what context?
3. Role Play Presentation
Present this script to the class group as a role play. This role play should clearly identify the ethical dilemma from the scenario and demonstrate the application of the GVV framework. The presentation of the script should be clear and enable the audience to engage with the issues. All group members must be meaningfully included. Creativity and expression is encouraged.
Word limit: 2000 words