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 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.

Utilize How to Analyze a Case Study in the Week 1 Lesson to help you prepare this Assignment. It’s 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.

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.

• Explain the role of ethics in shaping business decisions.
• For the Case Study you selected, describe the company. For example, what is its business? How is it structured? Size? Stakeholders?
• Summarize the decision the company made, that is the primary issue in the Case Study, and its outcome. Identify the ethical framework applicable to the company’s decision making. (See Week 1 Lesson.) You must explain how this framework applies. For example, explain the framework. Then, what are the facts in the case—the company’s actions—that illustrate the company’s adherence to this framework? What were the factors in reaching the decision?
• Identify a different ethical framework that, if applied and followed, might have led the company to reach a different decisional outcome. Explain the framework and how following it would prompt a different approach and actions.

Paper Instructions:

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.

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.

1. Title Page
2. Body of Paper (See APA7 Style for formatting – use subheadings) – Do NOT include the brackets in your subheadings; they are instructional to indicate where to insert a name.
   1. Introduction
   2. Role of Ethics in Shaping Business Decisions
   3. The Case of [Company Name]
   4. [Company Name’s] Decision
   5. [Name of] Ethical Framework
   6. [Ethics Framework Name]: An Alternate Framework
   7. Conclusion
3. References (separate page)

All sources listed in your Reference list must be cited in-text in your paper’s narrative. It’s strongly encouraged to integrate a balance of academic research and practical examples to strengthen the credibility of your analysis and argument.

Minimum 5 credible references, including:
one (1) APA7 citation of the listed source(s) given above for the Case Study you selected; and
one (1) APA7 citation of at least one (1) of the Core References listed above at the top of the Assignment.
It’s recommended to use current literature (2018–2026) that addresses evolving perspectives on business ethics and decision-making frameworks such as deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and stakeholder theory.

Please see: How to Know if A Source is Credible? [Purdue website]

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.

Sample Answer Snippet: A well-crafted ethics paper should explain how moral reasoning shapes leadership choices and corporate accountability. For example, examining General Motors’ 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.

Suggested References (2018–2026)

• Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198810070.001.0001
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119790115
• Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2019). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2018.15
• Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2018). Ethics and HRM: The contribution of stakeholder theory. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 37(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej2018123191
• Ferrell, O. C., Thorne, D., & Ferrell, L. (2023). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322228

****ASSIGNMENT Write a Paper:

Utilize How to Analyze a Case Study in the Week 1 Lesson to help you prepare this Assignment.

Consider the actions of the business in the Case Study you selected and write an APA7 paper that covers the following:

• Explain the role of ethics in shaping business decisions.
• For the Case Study you selected, describe the company. For example, what is its business? How is it structured? Size? Stakeholders?
• Summarize the decision the company made, that is the primary issue in the Case Study, and its outcome. Identify the ethical framework applicable to the company’s decision making. (See Week 1 Lesson.)  You must explain how this framework applies. For example, explain the framework. Then, what are the facts in the case — the company’s actions — that illustrate the company’s adherence to this framework? What were the factors in reaching the decision?
• Identify a different ethical framework that, if applied and followed, might have led the company to reach a different decisional outcome.  Explain the framework and how following it would prompt a different approach and actions.

Paper Instructions:

• APA 7th Edition Style format for paper structure and citations
  • 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.
    • Title Page
    • Body of Paper (See APA7 Style for formatting – use subheadings) – Do NOT include the brackets in your subheadings; they are instructional to indicate where to insert a name.
      • Introduction
      • Role of Ethics in Shaping Business Decisions
      • The Case of [Company Name]
        • [Company Name’s] Decision
        • [Name of] Ethical Framework
      • [Ethics Framework Name]: An Alternate Framework
      • Conclusion

• • • • References (separate page)
        • All sources listed in your Reference list must be cited in-text in your paper’s narrative
        • Minimum 5 credible references, including:
          • one (1) APA7 citation of the listed source(s) given above for the Case Study you selected;  and
          • one (1) APA7 citation of at least one (1) of the Core References listed above at the top of the Assignment
        • Please see: How to Know if A Source is Credible? [Purdue website] 
      • Word length: 1400 – 1600  Title page and References list not included (See Grading Rubric)

Reference

Booth, R. A. (2003). Form and function in business organizations. The Business Lawyer, 58(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

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

What Are Business Ethics & Their Importance? | HBS Online

Hattingh, H. L., King, M. A., Hope, D. L., & George, E. (2019). Pharmacy ethical reasoning: a comparison of Australian pharmacists and interns. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 41(4), 1085-1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00815-5

References

Caughron, J., Antes, A., Stenmark, C., Thiel, C., Wang, X., & Mumford, M. (2011). Sensemaking Strategies for Ethical Decision Making. Ethics & Behavior, 21(5), 351–366. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1080/10508422.2011.604293

 

 

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Criminal Charges Against General Motors And Deferred Prosecution Agreement With $900 Million Forfeiture

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Share

For Immediate Release

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York

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 (“NHTSA”), Calvin L. Scovel, III, Inspector General of the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT-OIG”), Christy Goldsmith Romero, Special Inspector General of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”), and Diego Rodriguez, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the filing of criminal charges against General Motors Company (“GM” or the “Company”), an automotive company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that has designed, manufactured, assembled, and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn brand vehicles, among others.  GM is charged with concealing a potentially deadly safety defect from its U.S. regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), from the spring of 2012 through February 2014, and, in the process, misleading consumers concerning the safety of certain of GM’s cars.  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 “Run” position into “Accessory” or “Off” (the “Defective Switch”).  When the switch moved out of Run, it could disable the affected car’s frontal airbags – increasing the risk of death and serious injury in certain types of crashes in which airbags were otherwise designed to deploy.  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.

Mr. Bharara also announced a deferred prosecution agreement with GM (the “Agreement”) under which the Company admits that it failed to disclose a safety defect to NHTSA and misled U.S. consumers about that same defect.  The admissions are contained in a detailed Statement of Facts attached to the Agreement.  The Agreement imposes on GM an independent monitor to review and assess policies, practices, and procedures relating to GM’s safety-related public statements, sharing of engineering data, and recall processes.  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.

The criminal charges are contained in an Information (the “Information”) alleging one count of engaging in a scheme to conceal material facts from NHTSA and one count of wire fraud.  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.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said: “Every consumer has the right to expect that car manufacturers are taking their safety seriously.  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.”

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said:  “General 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.  Today’s announcement sends a message to manufacturers: Deception and delay are unacceptable, and the price for engaging in such behavior is high.”

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said:  “For nearly two years, GM failed to disclose a deadly safety defect to the public and its regulator.  By doing so, GM put its customers and the driving public at serious risk.  Justice requires the filing of criminal charges, detailed admissions, a significant financial penalty, and the appointment of a federal monitor.  These measures are designed to make sure that this never happens again.”

NHTSA Administrator Mark R. Rosekind said:  “Today’s action strengthens NHTSA’s efforts to protect the driving public.  It 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.”

DOT Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel, III, said:  “To the families and friends of those who died and to those who were injured as a result of crashes related to GM’s defective ignition switches, I offer my deepest sympathies for your loss and my highest admiration for the strength you demonstrate every day.  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.  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.”

SIGTARP Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero said:  “General Motors’ criminal conduct found by SIGTARP and our law enforcement partners defies comprehension.   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.  The worst part about this tragedy is that it was entirely avoidable.  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.  Americans 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.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Diego Rodriguez said:  “GM concealed a safety defect from consumers and regulators, which put drivers at risk.  The resolution of this case shows that safety should never take a backseat to expediency.”

According to the allegations in the Information, as well as other documents filed today in Manhattan federal court, including the Statement of Facts:

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.  GM also falsely represented to consumers that vehicles equipped with the Defective Switch posed no safety concern.

Early Knowledge of the Defective Switch

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.  Testing of a prototype showed that the torque return between the Run and Accessory positions fell below GM’s own internal specifications.  But the engineer in charge of the Defective Switch approved its production anyway.

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.  However, 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.  GM 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.

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.

GM’s Knowledge that the Defective Switch Causes Airbag Non-Deployment

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.  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.  This knowledge extended well above the ranks of investigating engineers to certain supervisors and attorneys at the Company.

GM’s Failure to Disclose the Defect and Recall Affected Cars

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.  The Company thus egregiously disregarded NHTSA’s five-day regulatory reporting requirement for safety defects.

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.  Although 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.  These sales were accompanied by certifications from GM, assuring the unwitting consumers that the vehicles’ components, including their ignition systems and keys, met all safety standards.

GM’s delay in disclosing the defect at issue was the product of actions by certain personnel responsible for shepherding safety defects through GM’s internal recall process, who delayed the recall until GM could fully package, present, explain, and handle the deadly problem.  Rather 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’s internal investigation into airbag non-deployment caused by the Defective Switch “offline” – outside of GM’s regular recall process.

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 – including airbag-related safety defects.

GM’s Acceptance of Responsibility and Cooperation in the Government Investigation

In February 2014, GM finally conducted a recall of approximately 700,000 vehicles affected by the Defective switch.  By March 2014, the recall population had grown to more than 2 million vehicles.

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.  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.

*                *                *

 

 

 

 

****Discussion Prompt{No More than 300 words}

Scenario

This Discussion is based on the following hypothetical scenario:

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 “smart” watch or built into a wrist or ankle bracelet to monitor, track, and analyze the wearer’s pulse/heart rate, body temperature, and blood pressure, and report the data to the wearer’s 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 “MvMe.” 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’s 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.

Discuss!

Consider Angel and Maris’ situation, including stakeholders and likely strategic planning for their business. Which of the following business structures are best for Angel and Maris?

• LLC
• C-Corp
• S-Corp

For your initial response:

→Recommend one of the above three business structures and explain why it is the best option for their situation; and

→Summarize at least one (1) business legal risk that Angel and Maris will minimize by organizing their business with your recommended business structure.

Reference sources to assist your work:

• Week 2 eReserve reading, “Choose a business structure,” and other Week 2 Learning Materials about pros and cons of each type of structure. 
• Lingwall & Weinstein Videos (presented in Week 2 Lesson). Here are direct links to the videos for your convenience. 
  •  Small Business Organizations [Lingwall Video – YouTube]
  •  Which Business Entity Should I Choose (Weinstein Video -YouTube).