Thesis sentence:<\/strong> Writing an effective APA7 ethics case study paper on business decision making requires demonstrating how ethical frameworks guide corporate actions, decision outcomes, and alternative pathways that could lead to more responsible, transparent, and sustainable business practices.<\/p>\n Utilize How to Analyze a Case Study<\/em> in the Week 1 Lesson to help you prepare this Assignment. It\u2019s helpful to carefully read your chosen case study multiple times and highlight where ethical issues and decision-making steps appear, as these details will shape your discussion and examples.<\/p>\n Consider the actions of the business in the Case Study you selected and write an APA7 paper that covers the following. Begin by selecting a case study that genuinely interests you and represents a meaningful ethical dilemma in business, as this will allow you to write with depth and authentic insight.<\/p>\n Paper Instructions:<\/p>\n APA 7th Edition Style format for paper structure and citations. Before you begin writing, review the latest updates from the American Psychological Association on formatting and ethical citation practices, as small formatting details can significantly impact grading and professionalism. <\/p>\n The following outline suggests pages and organizational elements for your paper. Additional APA Help Sources and Paper Guidance are listed below, including a video for how to set up an APA7 paper in Word. When writing, remember to keep your paragraphs clear and concise, using subheadings to guide your reader through the logical flow of your analysis.<\/p>\n All sources listed in your Reference list must be cited in-text in your paper\u2019s narrative. It\u2019s strongly encouraged to integrate a balance of academic research and practical examples to strengthen the credibility of your analysis and argument. <\/p>\n Minimum 5 credible references, including: Please see: How to Know if A Source is Credible?<\/a> [Purdue website]<\/p>\n Word length: 1400 – 1600 Title page and References list not included (See Grading Rubric). Carefully plan your sections to ensure a consistent flow of information within this word range and avoid unnecessary repetition or overly long quotations.<\/p>\n Sample Answer Snippet:<\/strong> A well-crafted ethics paper should explain how moral reasoning shapes leadership choices and corporate accountability. For example, examining General Motors\u2019 2015 ignition switch case shows how utilitarian versus deontological frameworks lead to very different ethical evaluations. A balanced paper also reflects on public trust, transparency, and long-term stakeholder impact in decision making. Conclude by evaluating how companies can foster ethical cultures that prevent similar dilemmas in the future.<\/p>\n ****ASSIGNMENT Write a Paper:<\/strong><\/p>\n Utilize\u00a0How to Analyze a Case Study<\/a>\u00a0in the\u00a0Week 1 Lesson t<\/strong>o help you prepare this Assignment.<\/p>\n Consider the actions of the business in the Case Study you selected and write an\u00a0APA7 paper\u00a0<\/strong>that covers the following:<\/p>\n Paper Instructions:<\/strong><\/p>\n Reference<\/p>\n Booth, R. A. (2003). Form and function in business organizations.\u00a0The Business Lawyer,\u00a058<\/em>(4), 1433-1448. http:\/\/ezproxy.apus.edu\/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Ftrade-journals%2Fform-function-business-organizations%2Fdocview%2F228448447%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/ezproxy.apus.edu\/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fbusiness-case-corporate-social-responsibility%2Fdocview%2F2767298432%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289<\/a><\/p>\n What Are Business Ethics & Their Importance? | HBS Online<\/a><\/p>\n Hattingh, H. L., King, M. A., Hope, D. L., & George, E. (2019). Pharmacy ethical reasoning: a comparison of Australian pharmacists and interns.\u00a0International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy,\u00a041<\/em>(4), 1085-1098. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11096-019-00815-5<\/a><\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Caughron, J., Antes, A., Stenmark, C., Thiel, C., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. (2011). Sensemaking Strategies for Ethical Decision Making.\u00a0Ethics & Behavior<\/em>,\u00a021<\/em>(5), 351\u2013366. https:\/\/doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu\/10.1080\/10508422.2011.604293<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Criminal Charges Against General Motors And Deferred Prosecution Agreement With $900 Million Forfeiture<\/strong><\/p>\n Thursday, September 17, 2015<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n For Immediate Release<\/strong><\/p>\n U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York<\/p>\n Loretta E. Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States, Anthony Foxx, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d), Calvin L. Scovel, III, Inspector General of the United States Department of Transportation (\u201cDOT-OIG\u201d), Christy Goldsmith Romero, Special Inspector General of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (\u201cSIGTARP\u201d), and Diego Rodriguez, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\u201cFBI\u201d), announced the filing of criminal charges against General Motors Company (\u201cGM\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), an automotive company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that has designed, manufactured, assembled, and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn brand vehicles, among others.\u00a0 GM is charged with concealing a potentially deadly safety defect from its U.S. regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (\u201cNHTSA\u201d), from the spring of 2012 through February 2014, and, in the process, misleading consumers concerning the safety of certain of GM\u2019s cars.\u00a0 The defect consisted of an ignition switch that had been designed and manufactured with too-low torque resistance and could therefore move easily out of the \u201cRun\u201d position into \u201cAccessory\u201d or \u201cOff\u201d (the \u201cDefective Switch\u201d).\u00a0 When the switch moved out of Run, it could disable the affected car\u2019s frontal airbags \u2013 increasing the risk of death and serious injury in certain types of crashes in which airbags were otherwise designed to deploy.\u00a0 The models equipped with the Defective Switch were the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt; the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Pontiac G5; the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Saturn Ion; the 2006 and 2007 Chevrolet HHR; the 2007 Saturn Sky; and the 2006 and 2007 Pontiac Solstice. To date, GM has acknowledged a total of 15 deaths, as well as a number of serious injuries, caused by the Defective Switch.<\/p>\n Mr. Bharara also announced a deferred prosecution agreement with GM (the \u201cAgreement\u201d) under which the Company admits that it failed to disclose a safety defect to NHTSA and misled U.S. consumers about that same defect.\u00a0 The admissions are contained in a detailed Statement of Facts attached to the Agreement.\u00a0 The Agreement imposes on GM an independent monitor to review and assess policies, practices, and procedures relating to GM\u2019s safety-related public statements, sharing of engineering data, and recall processes.\u00a0 The Agreement also requires GM to transfer $900 million to the United States by no later than September 24, 2015, and agree to the forfeiture of those funds pursuant to a parallel civil action also filed today in the Southern District of New York.<\/p>\n The criminal charges are contained in an Information (the \u201cInformation\u201d) alleging one count of engaging in a scheme to conceal material facts from NHTSA and one count of wire fraud.\u00a0 If GM abides by all of the terms of the Agreement, the Government will defer prosecution on the Information for three years and then seek to dismiss the charges.<\/p>\n Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said: \u201cEvery consumer has the right to expect that car manufacturers are taking their safety seriously.\u00a0 The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that the products Americans buy are safe; that consumers are protected from harm; and that auto companies follow the law.\u201d<\/p>\n Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: \u00a0\u201cGeneral Motors not only failed to disclose this deadly defect, but as the Department of Justice investigation shows, it actively concealed the truth from NHTSA and the public.\u00a0 Today\u2019s announcement sends a message to manufacturers: Deception and delay are unacceptable, and the price for engaging in such behavior is high.\u201d<\/p>\n Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: \u00a0\u201cFor nearly two years, GM failed to disclose a deadly safety defect to the public and its regulator.\u00a0 By doing so, GM put its customers and the driving public at serious risk.\u00a0 Justice requires the filing of criminal charges, detailed admissions, a significant financial penalty, and the appointment of a federal monitor.\u00a0 These measures are designed to make sure that this never happens again.\u201d<\/p>\n NHTSA Administrator Mark R. Rosekind said: \u00a0\u201cToday\u2019s action strengthens NHTSA\u2019s efforts to protect the driving public. \u00a0It sends a message not only to GM, but to the entire auto industry, that when it comes to safety, telling the full truth is the only option.\u201d<\/p>\n DOT Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel, III, said: \u00a0\u201cTo the families and friends of those who died and to those who were injured as a result of crashes related to GM\u2019s defective ignition switches, I offer my deepest sympathies for your loss and my highest admiration for the strength you demonstrate every day.\u00a0 As is true for Secretary Foxx and the Department of Transportation, safety is and will remain the highest priority of my office, and we will continue to work relentlessly to ensure accountability throughout the Department and transportation sector.\u00a0 The OIG is committed to working with our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners in pursuing those who commit criminal violations. The efforts of this dedicated multi-agency team and the agreement reached with General Motors, and that with Toyota in March 2014, must continue to serve as a clarion call to all auto manufacturers and their suppliers of the need to be vigilant and forthcoming to keep the public safe.\u201d<\/p>\n SIGTARP Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero said: \u00a0\u201cGeneral Motors\u2019 criminal conduct found by SIGTARP and our law enforcement partners defies comprehension.\u00a0\u00a0 Our investigation uncovered that GM learned about a life-threatening ignition switch defect that would cause air bags not to inflate, but concealed the deadly safety defect from its regulator, and from people buying used cars from GM dealers. \u00a0The worst part about this tragedy is that it was entirely avoidable.\u00a0 GM could have significantly reduced the risk of this deadly defect by improving the key design for less than one dollar per vehicle but GM chose not to because of the cost. \u00a0Americans stepped up and bailed out General Motors with $50 billion; and General Motors must step up and make substantial corporate changes to prevent anything like this from happening again. SIGTARP commends U.S. Attorney Bharara for bringing these charges and standing united in the fight against TARP-related crime.\u201d<\/p>\n FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Diego Rodriguez said: \u00a0\u201cGM concealed a safety defect from consumers and regulators, which put drivers at risk.\u00a0 The resolution of this case shows that safety should never take a backseat to expediency.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the allegations in the Information, as well as other documents filed today in Manhattan federal court, including the Statement of Facts:<\/p>\n From the spring of 2012 through February 2014, GM deceived consumers and failed to make a required disclosure to NHTSA, its U.S. regulator, by regarding the connection that certain of its personnel had identified between the Defective Switch and airbag non-deployment. \u00a0GM also falsely represented to consumers that vehicles equipped with the Defective Switch posed no safety concern.<\/p>\n Early Knowledge of the Defective Switch<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n GM engineers knew before the Defective Switch even went into production in 2002 that it was prone to easy movement out of the Run position.\u00a0 Testing of a prototype showed that the torque return between the Run and Accessory positions fell below GM\u2019s own internal specifications. \u00a0But the engineer in charge of the Defective Switch approved its production anyway.<\/p>\n In 2004 and 2005, as GM employees, media representatives, and GM customers began to experience sudden stalls and engine shutoffs caused by the Defective Switch, GM considered fixing the problem. \u00a0However, having decided that the switch did not pose a safety concern, and citing cost and other factors, engineers responsible for decision-making on the issue opted to leave the Defective Switch as it was and simply promulgate an advisory to dealerships with tips on how to minimize the risk of unexpected movement out of the Run position. \u00a0GM even rejected a simple improvement to the head of the key that would have significantly reduced unexpected shutoffs at a price of less than a dollar a car.<\/p>\n At the same time, in June 2005, GM made public statements that, while acknowledging the existence of the Defective Switch, gave assurance that the defect did not pose a safety concern.<\/p>\n GM\u2019s Knowledge that the Defective Switch Causes Airbag Non-Deployment<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n By the spring of 2012, GM knew that the Defective Switch presented a safety defect because it could cause airbag non-deployment in certain GM cars.\u00a0 Specifically, GM personnel investigating the cause of a series of airbag non-deployment incidents learned that the Defective Switch could cause frontal airbag non-deployment in at least some model years of the Cobalt, and were aware of several fatal incidents and serious injuries that occurred as a result of accidents in which the Defective Switch may have caused or contributed to airbag non-deployment. \u00a0This knowledge extended well above the ranks of investigating engineers to certain supervisors and attorneys at the Company.<\/p>\n GM\u2019s Failure to Disclose the Defect and Recall Affected Cars<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n Yet not until approximately 20 months later, in February 2014, did GM first notify NHTSA and the public of the connection it had identified between the Defective Switch and airbag non-deployment incidents. \u00a0The Company thus egregiously disregarded NHTSA\u2019s five-day regulatory reporting requirement for safety defects.<\/p>\n Moreover, for much of the period during which GM failed to disclose this safety defect, it not only failed to correct its June 2005 assurance that the Defective Switch posed no safety concern but also actively touted the reliability and safety of cars equipped with the Defective Switch, with a view to promoting sales of used GM cars. \u00a0Although GM sold no new cars equipped with the Defective Switch during this period, GM dealers were still, from in or about the spring of 2012 through in or about the spring of 2013, selling pre-owned Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn brand cars that would later become subject to the February 2014 recalls. \u00a0These sales were accompanied by certifications from GM, assuring the unwitting consumers that the vehicles\u2019 components, including their ignition systems and keys, met all safety standards.<\/p>\n GM\u2019s delay in disclosing the defect at issue was the product of actions by certain personnel responsible for shepherding safety defects through GM\u2019s internal recall process, who delayed the recall until GM could fully package, present, explain, and handle the deadly problem. \u00a0Rather than move swiftly and efficiently toward recall of at least the population of cars known to be affected by the safety defect and thus certainly destined for recall, GM personnel took affirmative steps to keep the Company\u2019s internal investigation into airbag non-deployment caused by the Defective Switch \u201coffline\u201d \u2013 outside of GM\u2019s regular recall process.<\/p>\n Moreover, on at least two occasions while the Defective Switch condition was well known by some within GM but not disclosed to the public or NHTSA, GM personnel made incomplete and therefore misleading presentations to NHTSA assuring the regulator that GM would and did act promptly, effectively, and in accordance with its formal recall policy to respond to safety problems \u2013 including airbag-related safety defects.<\/p>\n GM\u2019s Acceptance of Responsibility and Cooperation in the Government Investigation<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n In February 2014, GM finally conducted a recall of approximately 700,000 vehicles affected by the Defective switch.\u00a0 By March 2014, the recall population had grown to more than 2 million vehicles.<\/p>\n Since February 2014 and the inception of this federal criminal investigation, GM has taken exemplary actions to demonstrate acceptance and acknowledgement of responsibility for its conduct.\u00a0 GM, among other things, conducted a swift and robust internal investigation, furnished the Government with a continuous flow of unvarnished facts gathered during the course of that internal investigation, voluntarily provided, without prompting, certain documents and information otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege, provided timely and meaningful cooperation more generally in the federal criminal investigation, terminated wrongdoers, and established a full and independent victim compensation program that has to date paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in awards.<\/p>\n *\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n ****Discussion Prompt{No More than 300 words}<\/strong><\/p>\n Scenario<\/strong><\/p>\n This Discussion is based on the following hypothetical scenario:<\/p>\n You are a business consultant. Angel and Maris are budding entrepreneurs who are smart, creative, charismatic, and energetic. However, they lack knowledge of business structures or an understanding of how to balance risk and efficiency in organizing a business. They have invented a unique wearable AI app that can be added to a \u201csmart\u201d watch or built into a wrist or ankle bracelet to monitor, track, and analyze the wearer\u2019s pulse\/heart rate, body temperature, and blood pressure, and report the data to the wearer\u2019s designated healthcare provider or other third party as the wearer chooses; the AI also analyzes the data over designated time periods and keeps a running comparison to the wearer’s history against diagnostic statistics. They are calling this app \u201cMvMe.\u201d Angel and Maris are also working on other innovations. So far, their arrangement has been an informal de facto partnership, using a back room in Angel\u2019s house as a shared workspace. They live in the State of Virginia. But now they realize they need to get serious about their business plan. An investor is interested in funding production and beta testing of MvMe. They want to minimize their personal liability in their business operations. Maris recently read a blog about LLC, C-Corp, and S-Corp structures, but does not know which one would be best for them. They have asked for your advice.<\/p>\n Discuss!<\/strong><\/p>\n Consider Angel and Maris\u2019 situation, including stakeholders and likely strategic planning for their business. Which of the following business structures are best for Angel and Maris?<\/p>\n For your initial response:<\/p>\n \u2192Recommend one of the above three business structures and explain why it is the best option for their situation; and<\/p>\n \u2192Summarize at least one (1) business legal risk that Angel and Maris will minimize by organizing their business with your recommended business structure.<\/p>\n Reference sources to assist your work:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How to Write an APA7 Case Study Analysis Paper on Business Ethics and Decision Making Thesis sentence: Writing an effective APA7 ethics case study paper on business decision […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[880],"tags":[1218,1220,1219,1216],"class_list":["post-477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-professional-ethics-essays","tag-ethical-decision-making-framework","tag-case-study-analysis-in-business","tag-ethics-in-corporate-decisions","tag-apa7-business-ethics-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=477"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":479,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/477\/revisions\/479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\none (1) APA7 citation of the listed source(s) given above for the Case Study you selected; and
\none (1) APA7 citation of at least one (1) of the Core References listed above at the top of the Assignment.
\nIt\u2019s recommended to use current literature (2018\u20132026) that addresses evolving perspectives on business ethics and decision-making frameworks such as deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and stakeholder theory.<\/p>\nSuggested References (2018\u20132026)<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n