CODE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS

January 7, 2023

CODE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS

Order Number	65363737383
Type of Project	ESSAY/DISERTATION
Writer Level	PHD/MASTERS CERTIFIED
Format	APA/MLA/HARVARD/OXFORD
Academic Sources	10 -20
Page Count	4-8 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

CODE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS

COMPETENCIES 3008.1.2 : Ethical Leadership and Code of Ethics The graduate identifies influences on ethical leadership and analyzes a code of ethics. 3008.1.3 : Policy and Program Development The graduate develops policies, practices, procedures, and programs that foster organizational ethics and socially responsible behavior. 3008.1.5 : Legal and Regulatory Requirements The graduate analyzes applicable legal and regulatory requirements to determine whether organizations meet legal responsibilities. INTRODUCTION As a leader in your organization, it is vital that you are familiar with the laws that regulate your industry. Sparked by the dramatic corporate and accounting scandals of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, and WorldCom, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was implemented in 2002 in an effort to restore confidence in the stock markets. Sarbanes-Oxley represents the most important securities legislation since the original federal securities laws of the 1930s as it increased governmental regulation and oversight of publicly traded companies and established protections for whistleblowers. The False Claims Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provide a financial incentive for those who blow the whistle to report fraudulent activity within their organization. In this task, you will select and analyze an established company’s code of ethics, analyze how an employee would raise an ethical concern within an organization, and consider current laws with respect to whistleblowers. SCENARIO You are an experienced ethics officer who has recently been hired by an established company. You have been tasked with analyzing the company’s current code of ethics and identifying areas in need of improvement. REQUIREMENTS Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. The similarity report that is provided when you submit your task can be used as a guide. You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course. Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt). Prepare a report (suggested length of 6–8 pages) in which you do the following: A. Choose a company’s code of ethics from the Web Links section below and analyze that company’s code of ethics by doing the following: Note: Links to the code of ethics for the companies can be found in the Web Links section. The code of ethics is only used for section A. You must choose a code of ethics from one of the following companies: • BP • Comcast • Deloitte • Tenet • Mayo Clinic • Oracle • PepsiCo • Synnex • Target • Walmart • Wells Fargo 1. Analyze how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR). 2. Analyze how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of compliance with legal mandates. a. Describe the ramifications for an organization when it is noncompliant with legal mandates. b. Describe two policies the chosen company has in their code of ethics to ensure employees behave legally and/or ethically. 3. Analyze how well the chosen company’s code of ethics facilitates the development of an ethical culture. 4. Identify three resources available to employees to use when raising an ethical concern and discuss which resource you would most likely use to report an ethical concern. B. Discuss three factors an employee might consider before deciding to report unethical conduct observed at work. 1. Describe three internal steps (i.e., inside the company) an employee could take if they decide to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior in the workplace. 2. Describe two possible external actions (i.e., outside the company) an employee can take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior in the workplace. C. Analyze one advantage and one disadvantage of paying whistleblowers. Base your analysis on one of the following laws: • False Claims Act • Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act D. Analyze the changes that organizations have made based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. 1. Discuss three culpability factors that are used to determine fines under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. E. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. F. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission. File Restrictions File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( ) File size limit: 200 MB File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z RUBRIC A1: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: NOT EVIDENT An analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of CSR is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of CSR is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported. COMPETENT The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of CSR is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported. A2: LEGAL MANDATE COMPLIANCE: NOT EVIDENT An analysis of how well the chosen code of ethics covers the topic of compliance with legal mandates is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of compliance with legal mandates is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported. COMPETENT The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics covers the topic of compliance with legal mandates is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported. A2A: IMPLICATIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE: NOT EVIDENT A description of the ramifications for an organization when it is noncompliant with legal mandates is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The description of the ramifications for an organization when it is noncompliant with legal mandates is illogical, or the described ramifications are inaccurate or irrelevant to the legal mandates. COMPETENT The description of the ramifications for an organization when it is noncompliant with legal mandates is logical, and the described ramifications are accurate and relevant to the legal mandates. A2B: LEGAL OR ETHICAL SAFEGUARDS: NOT EVIDENT A description of 2 policies to ensure employees behave legally and/or ethically is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The description of the 2 policies to ensure employees behave legally and/or ethically includes 1 or more policies that are illogical. Or 1 or more of the described policies is not relevant to the chosen company. COMPETENT The description of 2 policies to ensure employees behave legally and/or ethically is logical. Both policies described are relevant to the chosen company. A3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ETHICAL CULTURE: NOT EVIDENT An analysis of how well the company’s code of ethics facilitates the development of an ethical culture is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics facilitates the development of an ethical culture is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported. COMPETENT The analysis of how well the chosen company’s code of ethics facilitates the development of an ethical culture is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported. A4: RESOURCES FOR RAISING AN ETHICAL CONCERN: NOT EVIDENT An identification of 3 resources an employee could use to raise an ethical concern or a discussion of which resource the candidate would most likely use to report an ethical concern in the chosen company is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The identification of 3 resources an employee could use to raise an ethical concern or the discussion of which resource the candidate would most likely use to report an ethical concern in the chosen company is poorly supported or is illogical, or 1 or more of the resources are not likely to help an employee when raising a concern. Or the ideas presented are missing key details. COMPETENT The identification of 3 resources an employee could use to raise an ethical concern and the discussion of which resource the candidate would most likely use to report an ethical concern in the chosen company are logical and well supported, and each resource would help the employee raise a concern. The ideas presented include key details. B: FACTORS FOR REPORTING UNETHICAL CONDUCT: NOT EVIDENT A discussion of 3 factors that an employee might consider before deciding to report unethical conduct observed at work is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The discussion of 3 factors that an employee might consider before deciding to report unethical conduct observed at work is illogical, or the ideas presented are poorly supported. COMPETENT The discussion of 3 factors that an employee might consider before deciding to report unethical conduct observed at work is logical, and the ideas presented are well supported. B1: INTERNAL WHISTLEBLOWING PROCESS: NOT EVIDENT A description of 3 internal steps an employee could take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The description of 3 internal steps an employee could take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior is illogical or not plausible. COMPETENT The description of 3 internal steps an employee could take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior is logical and plausible. B2: EXTERNAL WHISTLEBLOWING PROCESS: NOT EVIDENT A description of 2 possible external actions an employee can take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior that occurred inside the workplace is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The description of 2 possible external actions an employee can take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior that occurred inside the workplace is illogical or not plausible. COMPETENT The description of 2 possible external actions an employee can take to report or blow the whistle on misconduct or unethical behavior that occurred inside the workplace is logical and plausible. C: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PAYING WHISTLEBLOWERS: NOT EVIDENT An analysis of 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage of paying whistleblowers is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The analysis of 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage of paying whistleblowers is illogical, is missing key details, or does not specifically reference 1 of the given laws. COMPETENT The analysis of 1 advantage and 1 disadvantage of paying whistleblowers is logical, contains key details, and specifically references 1 of the given laws. D: IMPACT OF U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES: NOT EVIDENT An analysis of the changes that organizations have made based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is not provided. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The analysis of the changes that organizations have made based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is missing key details or is illogical. COMPETENT The analysis of the changes that organizations have made based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines contains key details and is logical. D1: CULPABILITY FACTORS: NOT EVIDENT A discussion of 3 factors is not provided, or the discussion makes no reference to culpability factors that are used to determine fines under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The discussion of 3 culpability factors that are used to determine fines under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines contains some inaccuracies. COMPETENT The discussion is logical and accurately addresses 3 culpability factors that are used to determine fines under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. E:SOURCES NOT EVIDENT The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. APPROACHING COMPETENCE The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate. COMPETENT The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available. F:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION NOT EVIDENT Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic. APPROACHING COMPETENCE Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective. COMPETENT Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding. WEB LINKS BP – COE Comcast – COE Deloitte – COE Tenet – COE Mayo Clinic – COE Oracle – COE PepsiCo – COE  Synnex – COE Target – COE Walmart – COE Wells Fargo – COE

[Order Now]

CODE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ANALYSIS

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.