Please make sure to include all the requirements of the assessment.
Please find attached the article along with the assignment guideline.
Thank you.

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.
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-EnronCFO-Andrew-Fastow-Meets-Fraud-Examiners-67263-1.html.
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
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
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.