College of Business and Economics

Department of Finance and Economics

International Finance FNA304 – Spring 2016

LO3: Ethics dimension in finance decision making

Allocated mark (5%)

Submission deadline: 06/4/2016, by 12:00 PM midnight

The number of words should be between 800 and no more than 1200 (excluding the cover page, abstract, footnotes, and references,…)

Description of the case study:

Many Multinational enterprises (MNEs) have recently incorporated the ethical dimension in their investment and business model and strategy. Ethics in MNEs is gaining ground and becoming increasingly important, and managers have to strike a delicate balance between value maximization and ethics.

You need to choose one of the companies listed below and conduct a case study analysis, critically evaluating how ethically oriented your chosen company is and how it manages the tradeoff between value maximization and ethics.

You need to be very descriptive regarding your chosen company’s ethical strategy and the stakeholders involved in the decision making, providing a range of evidence and examples. Additionally explain why ethics has become important and needed in the company’s business model, include a costs benefits analysis and its impact on the corporate image and perception of the MNE.

Elaborate on how you would recommend to your chosen company to improve its ethical strategy and policies, and the impact this would have on the company’s reputation, image and credibility.

Choose any multinational corporations for your case study:

1- McDonalds 2- Citigroup 3- Apple

4- Daimler 5- HP 6- Facebook

7- Adidas 8- Nestle 9- Mattel

10- Sony 11- HSBC 12- Google

13- Total 14- JP Morgan chase 15- Volkswagen

16- Phillip Morris 17- Microsoft 18- Halliburton

19- Monsanto 20- Starbucks 21- Samsung

22- Exxon Mobile 23- Chevron 24- Colgate-Palmolive

25- Nike 26- BMW 27- Pfizer

28- IKEA 29- Lehman Brothers 30- Siemens

31-Intel 32- Wal-Mart 33- BHP Billiton

34- Shell 35- Toyota 36- Allianz

37- Costco 38- Johnson & Johnson

Some regional MNEs:

Rasgas, Bavarian Auto Group, SABIC, Arab Bank, Equate, Holcim Lebanon, Dolphin Energy, Maroc Telecom, ZainBahrain, Sonatrach, Attijariwafa Bank, and PDO.

The recommended layout of your case study is suggested to be as follows:

Cover page

Abstract

Introduction

Analysis

Recommendations

Conclusion

References

General case study guidelines

1- Reserve the first page (cover page) to your name, student ID, course name, and date & number of words, and university

2- You should write in times new roman font, size 14, with 1.5 spaces, no bold or italic except for the section heads if you want

3- Pages should not have frames, shades or colors or other fancy decorations, just plain pages with no folders or covers, stapled from the top left corner side

4- You need to submit a hard copy next lecture day. Failure to submit the soft copy online by due date is subject to mark deduction

5- Write your work in form of an essay, do not insert questions and give answers.

6- Maximum plagiarism allowed is 15%

7- A minimum of 7 references is required

8. Important arguments should be clearly referenced

10. Avoid lengthy and unnecessary statements

11. You should print your case in double pages

Good Luck

1

Ethics Rubric

Performance Area / 1: Does Not Meet Expectations / 2: Needs Improvement / 3: Meets Expectations / 4: Exceeds Expectations / Score
Identifies Dilemma / Has a vague idea of what the dilemma is and is uncertain what must be decided / Identifies in general the dilemma, including pertinent facts, and ascertains what must be decided / Describes the dilemma in detail having gathered pertinent facts. Ascertains exactly what must be decided / Describes perfectly the dilemma in detail having gathered pertinent facts. Ascertains exactly what must be decided by considering the consequences / 1 2 3 4
Considers Stakeholders / Is unsure as to who should be involved in the decision-making process / Determines who should be involved in the decision making process and accurately identifies all the stakeholders / Determines who should be involved in the decision making process and thoroughly reflects on the viewpoints of the stakeholders / Determines with precision who should be involved in the decision making process and thoroughly analyzes the viewpoints of the stakeholders / 1 2 3 4
Analyzes Alternatives and Consequences / Begins to appraise the relevant facts and assumptions and was unable to identify alternatives. / Clarifies at least two alternatives and assessed broadly their associated consequences in detail. / Clarifies a number of alternatives and evaluates each according to their relative importance to all stakeholders / Prescribe a large number of alternatives and evaluates consciously each according to their relative importance to all stakeholders / 1 2 3 4
Chooses an Action / Has difficulty identifying and appropriate course of action from among alternatives / Formulates clearly a general implementation plan that describes the execution of the decision / Formulates an implementation plan that describes the execution of the decision with a clear understanding of the potential effects of the chosen action / Formulates and recommend a rational and practical implementation plan that thoroughly describes of the potential effects of the chosen action / 1 2 3 4

Scoring Key: Exceeds Expectations 14 -16 Meets Expectations 11 - 13

Needs Improvement 9 - 10 Does Not Meet Expectations ≤ 8

1