Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

I need help with the case memo attached. Please read all of the attachment. Needs to be at least 2 pages. Case Memos #1 In this assignment, students will read and analyze a case study. In response to the case study, students will write an analysis in business memo format, addressed to the Board of Directors for the company. The memo is written by the student acting as a hired consultant for the company. The case study to be analyzed, Giant Motors Recall Policy, is attached. By completing this assignment, students will meet the outcome(s): • identify ethical issues that arise in domestic and global business environments using an understanding of ethical concepts and of legal and business principles; • develop and evaluate alternatives to, and recommend solutions for, ethical dilemmas, taking into account ethical and legal requirements and the essential mission of the business enterprise • effectively communicate to internal and external business stakeholders the complexities of ethical issues, suggesting and analyzing various solutions in order to ensure appropriate business practices and accountability Requirements of Case Memo #1: • Draft memo using the prescribe format (subheadings/sections) prescribed below; • All sections must be comprehensive, in-depth and fully justified; • Resources from previously assigned course materials or from your own research may be used to justify and support rationale; • All in-text citations and resources must be in APA style; • Submit the completed case in the Assignment Folder. Memorandum Format: TO: FROM: RE: DATE: INTRODUCTION: Brief 1-paragraph intro to subject of memo. FACTS SUMMARY: Summarize and explain the facts that are directly significant and relevant to the ethical dilemma in this case. ETHICAL DILEMMA: Discuss the either/or ethical dilemma facing the company. ETHICAL ISSUE: Discuss the most significant ethical issue (there is more than one, but choose one) related to, and arising from, the ethical dilemma and then, explain the ethical issue and why it is an ethical/moral issue, etc. ALTERNATIVES: List, explain and justify two (2) possible alternatives/solutions to address and resolve the ethical dilemma and ethical issue discussed above. Each alternative should be comprehensive so that it addresses the related ethical issue. Alternatives should be feasible, logical, directly related to resolving the ethical dilemma and addressing the ethical issues in the case. Alternatives are expressed in the form of propositions or prescriptive statements suggesting action and are framed by asking the normative question, what could or should the company do? Consider consequences. Identify relevant stakeholders and the effects on them, pros and cons, etc. of each alternative. Apply ethical theories in context of your evaluations, but do not overdo this aspect. For example, teleological or consequentialist theorists would examine who the stakeholders are, both internal and external to the company, and the positive and negative consequences for each stakeholder group, etc. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend one and only one (1) alternative from the two (2) alternatives suggested above. Justify and explain your choice discussing: • why you chose this alternative • how, specifically, the recommendation will address the ethical dilemma and ethical issues • how the recommendation will likely impact relevant stakeholders • pros and cons of recommendation • feasibility of recommendation • how the recommendation will be implemented • Apply ethical theories, resources from previously assigned course materials, or resources from your own research to justify and support your recommendation. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS for RECOMMENDATION: Discuss potential implications arising from recommendation for: • the company • other businesses within the industry • other industries CONCLUSION: Summarize the case and its ethical issues, implications, etc. Case Memo 1 Case Ethics Case Problem (GIANT MOTORS RECALL POLICY) Giant Motors, a large auto manufacturer headquartered in the Midwest, has had a difficult decade in terms of the downturn in the economy, profits turning into losses, leadership, and legal issues. Recently it seems to have turned the corner on all fronts and is profitable again. Unfortunately, a major controversy regarding the safety of its automobiles has arisen. The company has been forced to recall many of its 2007-2011 automobiles because of steering malfunctions, which have lead to a number of accidents and a reported 40 fatalities since 2007. The press, the National Transportation Board, and consumer groups are pounding Giant about its failure to issue a recall years ago when the steering problems were first reported to Giant, claiming that lives could have been saved, and injuries prevented had Giant issued an earlier recall. In the past, Giant has issued recalls when ordered to by the government, or when there is a clear pattern of a defect leading to injuries. In this case, Giant contends that no such pattern existed and of course there was no recall demand by government agencies; that reports of the steering problem were sporadic, vague, and the link between to steering issue and the injuries/deaths unproven. Historically, Giant and other manufacturers are inundated with false claims of manufacturing defects. Giant contends that trial lawyers are famous for alleging manufacturing defects that are never proven. If recalls were made based on anecdotal evidence, or on the basis of a few defects in the millions of vehicles produced annually, the company would have gone out of business years ago. Giant, like most other manufacturing companies, uses a cost benefit analysis when it comes to consumer safety. Recognizing that no vehicle will ever be perfectly safe, it installs safety features, and recalls models for defects when the threat to consumer safety outweighs the cost of the safety feature or the recall. Often times, this is guess work. The Ford Pinto case, going back forty years is the classic example. Allegedly, Ford engineers that the placement of the gas tank in the Pinto would cause some small number of fires upon impact, leading to injuries and death. However this small number did not justify a re-engineering of the Pinto to make it safer – the costs of such a reengineering would cost more than anticipated profits. The anticipated small number of claims filed for death or injury would be satisfied within the anticipated profit margin. In the Ford Pinto case, the cost benefit analysis was flawed and far more injuries, deaths, and claims occurred. You are hired as a consultant to submit a plan to Giant on revision of its recall policy. In particular Giant advises that it wants to have a sound ethical basis for its recall policy, as well as a financially sustainable policy. (The company cannot simply recall all units of a model simply because there is a safety complaint about one or several vehicles of that model.) In formulating your recommendation, consider the material in your readings, class discussions, and include the following: criteria for recall; percentage of vehicles in model line reporting defects before recall is considered; timing of investigation of reported defects; whether and how an estimates of the number of injuries, deaths, and dollar amounts for claims should enter into the recall decision. Case MeMemo #1 Grading Rubric (15%) Outstanding Superior Good Substandard Failure 5.25 4.46 3.94 3.41 2.89 Critical thinking/reasoning demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking, is consistent in accurately interpreting questions & material; provides solid assumptions, reasoning & claims; thorough analysis & evaluation with sound conclusions shows good critical thinking; accurately interprets most questions & material; usually identifies relevant arguments/reasoning/claims; offers good analysis & evaluation with fairly sound conclusions shows occasional critical thinking; questions & material is at times accurately interpreted; arguments/reasoning/claims are occasionally explained; offers fair analysis & evaluation with a conclusion shows little critical thinking, misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates; justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions lacks critical thinking consistently offers biased interpretations; ignores or superficially evaluates; argues using poor reasoning, and/or unwarranted claims 5.25 4.46 3.94 3.41 2.89 Application of concepts/development arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implication and extensions of the material and concepts arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate student’s understanding of the material and concepts arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; student may resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas does not exist 2.25 1.91 1.69 1.46 1.24 Attention to instructions demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements 1.50 1.28 1.13 .98 .83 Clarity, including grammar writing is clear and easy to follow; grammar and spelling are all correct; formatting gives a professional look and adds to readability most ideas are presented clearly; occasional spelling and/or grammar issues wordy; some points require rereading to understand fully; more than an occasional spelling and/or grammar unclear and difficult to understand; frequent spelling and grammar issues largely incomprehensible writing/poorly written in terms of mechanics and structure .75 .64 0.56 .49 .41 Adherence to APA style (6th ed.) no APA style errors attempts in-text citation and reference list but 1 or 2 APA style errors are present attempts in-text citation and reference listing; APA style errors are present: inconsistencies in citation usage can be found throughout the document attempts either in-text citation or reference list but omits the other no attempt at APA style

I need help with the case memo attached. Please read all of the attachment. Needs to be at least 2 pages.
 Case Memos #1
In this assignment, students will read and analyze a case study.  In response to the case study, students will write an analysis in business memo format, addressed to the Board of Directors for the company.  The memo is written by the student acting as a hired consultant for the company.
The case study to be analyzed, Giant Motors Recall Policy, is attached. 
By completing this assignment, students will meet the outcome(s):
•	identify ethical issues that arise in domestic and global business environments using an understanding of ethical concepts and of legal and business principles;
•	develop and evaluate alternatives to, and recommend solutions for, ethical dilemmas, taking into account ethical and legal requirements and the essential mission of the business enterprise
•	effectively communicate to internal and external business stakeholders the complexities of ethical issues, suggesting and analyzing various solutions in order to ensure appropriate business practices and accountability
Requirements of Case Memo #1: 
•	Draft memo using the prescribe format (subheadings/sections) prescribed below;
•	All sections must be comprehensive, in-depth and fully justified; 
•	Resources from previously assigned course materials or from your own research may be used to justify and support rationale; 
•	All in-text citations and resources must be in APA style;
•	Submit the completed case in the Assignment Folder. 
Memorandum Format:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
 
INTRODUCTION:  Brief 1-paragraph intro to subject of memo.
FACTS SUMMARY:  Summarize and explain the facts that are directly significant and relevant to the ethical dilemma in this case.  
ETHICAL DILEMMA:  Discuss the either/or ethical dilemma facing the company.  
ETHICAL ISSUE:  Discuss the most significant ethical issue (there is more than one, but choose one) related to, and arising from, the ethical dilemma and then, explain the ethical issue and why it is an ethical/moral issue, etc.  
ALTERNATIVES:  List, explain and justify two (2) possible alternatives/solutions to address and resolve the ethical dilemma and ethical issue discussed above.   Each alternative should be comprehensive so that it addresses the related ethical issue.
Alternatives should be feasible, logical, directly related to resolving the ethical dilemma and addressing the ethical issues in the case.
Alternatives are expressed in the form of propositions or prescriptive statements suggesting action and are framed by asking the normative question, what could or should the company do? Consider consequences.  Identify relevant stakeholders and the effects on them, pros and cons, etc. of each alternative. Apply ethical theories in context of your evaluations, but do not overdo this aspect.  For example, teleological or consequentialist theorists would examine who the stakeholders are, both internal and external to the company, and the positive and negative consequences for each stakeholder group, etc.
RECOMMENDATION:  Recommend one and only one (1) alternative from the two (2) alternatives suggested above.   Justify and explain your choice discussing:
•	why you chose this alternative
•	how, specifically, the recommendation will address the ethical dilemma and ethical issues
•	how the recommendation will likely impact relevant stakeholders
•	pros and cons of recommendation
•	feasibility of recommendation
•	how the recommendation will be implemented
•	Apply ethical theories, resources from previously assigned course materials, or resources from your own research to justify and support your recommendation. 
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS for RECOMMENDATION:  Discuss potential implications arising from recommendation for: 
•	the company
•	other businesses within the industry
•	other industries
CONCLUSION:   Summarize the case and its ethical issues, implications, etc.
Case Memo 1 Case
 
 
 
 
Ethics Case Problem (GIANT MOTORS RECALL POLICY)
 
 
 
Giant Motors, a large auto manufacturer headquartered in the Midwest, has had a difficult decade in terms of the downturn in the economy, profits turning into losses, leadership, and legal issues. Recently it seems to have turned the corner on all fronts and is profitable again. Unfortunately, a major controversy regarding the safety of its automobiles has arisen.
 
 
 
The company has been forced to recall many of its 2007-2011 automobiles because of steering malfunctions, which have lead to a number of accidents and a reported 40 fatalities since 2007. The press, the National Transportation Board, and consumer groups are pounding Giant about its failure to issue a recall years ago when the steering problems were first reported to Giant, claiming that lives could have been saved, and injuries prevented had Giant issued an earlier recall.
 
 
 
In the past, Giant has issued recalls when ordered to by the government, or when there is a clear pattern of a defect leading to injuries. In this case, Giant contends that no such pattern existed and of course there was no recall demand by government agencies; that reports of the steering problem were sporadic, vague, and the link between to steering issue and the injuries/deaths unproven.
 
 
 
Historically, Giant and other manufacturers are inundated with false claims of manufacturing defects. Giant contends that trial lawyers are famous for alleging manufacturing defects that are never proven. If recalls were made based on anecdotal evidence, or on the basis of a few defects in the millions of vehicles produced annually, the company would have gone out of business years ago. Giant, like most other manufacturing companies, uses a cost benefit analysis when it comes to consumer safety.  Recognizing that no vehicle will ever be perfectly safe, it installs safety features, and recalls models for defects when the threat to consumer safety outweighs the cost of the safety feature or the recall. Often times, this is guess work.  The Ford Pinto case, going back forty years is the classic example. Allegedly, Ford engineers that the placement of the gas tank in the Pinto would cause some small number of fires upon impact, leading to injuries and death. However this small number did not justify a re-engineering of the Pinto to make it safer – the costs of such a reengineering would cost more than anticipated profits. The anticipated small number of claims filed for death or injury would be satisfied within the anticipated profit margin. In the Ford Pinto case, the cost benefit analysis was flawed and far more injuries, deaths, and claims occurred.
 
 
 
You are hired as a consultant to submit a plan to Giant on revision of its recall policy. In particular Giant advises that it wants to have a sound ethical basis for its recall policy, as well as a financially sustainable policy. (The company cannot simply recall all units of a model simply because there is a safety complaint about one or several vehicles of that model.)
 
 
 
In formulating your recommendation, consider the material in your readings, class discussions, and include the following: criteria for recall; percentage of vehicles in model line reporting defects before recall is considered; timing of investigation of reported defects; whether and how an estimates of the number of injuries, deaths, and dollar amounts for claims should enter into the recall decision. 
Case MeMemo #1 Grading Rubric (15%)
 	Outstanding	Superior	Good	Substandard	Failure
 	5.25	4.46	3.94	3.41	2.89
Critical thinking/reasoning	demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking, is consistent in accurately interpreting questions & material; provides solid assumptions, reasoning & claims; thorough analysis & evaluation with sound conclusions	shows good critical thinking; accurately interprets most questions & material; usually identifies relevant arguments/reasoning/claims; offers good analysis & evaluation with fairly sound conclusions	shows occasional critical thinking; questions & material is at times accurately interpreted; arguments/reasoning/claims are occasionally explained; offers fair analysis & evaluation with a conclusion	shows little critical thinking, misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates; justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions
 
 	lacks critical thinking consistently offers biased interpretations; ignores or superficially evaluates; argues using poor reasoning, and/or unwarranted claims
 	5.25	4.46	3.94	3.41	2.89
Application of concepts/development	arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implication and extensions of the material and concepts	arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate student’s understanding of the material and concepts	arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded  in the readings of material or external sources of material	arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; student may resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material	a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas does not exist
 	2.25	1.91	1.69	1.46	1.24
Attention to instructions	demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment	demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment	demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment	failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment	did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements
 	1.50	1.28	1.13	.98	.83
Clarity, including grammar	writing is clear and easy to follow; grammar and spelling are all correct;  formatting gives a professional look and adds to readability	most ideas are presented clearly; occasional spelling and/or grammar issues	wordy; some points require rereading to understand fully; more than an occasional spelling and/or grammar	unclear and difficult to understand; frequent spelling and grammar issues	largely incomprehensible writing/poorly written in terms of mechanics and structure
 	.75	.64	0.56	.49	.41
Adherence to APA style  (6th ed.)	no APA style errors	attempts in-text citation and reference list but 1 or 2 APA style errors are present	attempts in-text citation and reference listing; APA style errors are present: inconsistencies in citation usage can be found throughout the document	attempts either in-text citation or reference list but omits the other	no attempt at APA style

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now