1
STUDENT ID
Business Values &
Ethics
SBS– MBA
Assignment – 2023
UNIT TITLE:
NAME (in Full):
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
• h https:
lms.atmsstudentgateway.com/.
• Any Assignment submission extension request must come to Azra Fatima (Head: Examination |
Academic) XXXXXXXXXX 5 days before the date of submission with a valid reason and
supported documentary evidence.
• APA 7th edition referencing guidelines needs to be followed.
• Any Assignment submission extension request must come to Azra Fatima (Head: Examination |
Academic) - XXXXXXXXXX 5 days before the date of submission with a valid reason and
supported documentary evidence.
• Similarity between student’s work is strictly not accepted, any student found with similar work will
e graded Zero and fail for the course. However, Plagiarism is an academic offence and will not be
tolerated.
• Any reevaluation request should come in 5 days of grade release. Any late request will not be obliged.
(Form and other details shall be shared based on request)
• Reevaluation cannot be requested for plagiarized assignments as the assignment stands as an academic
misconduct.
• If a program participant submits the assignment late, but within 1 week after the submission date a 20%
penalty will be applied
Assignments submission date on 10 May 2023 at
https:
lms.atmsstudentgateway.com
mailto: XXXXXXXXXX
mailto: XXXXXXXXXX
2
• Re-evaluation request is NOT applicable for any failed courses provided the mark range from 59 to 69.
Any grade which is below the range is however not applicable for this request.
• Any rescheduling request can be fulfilled within one week after the actual date of the assessment. Any
late request will not be obliged.
• Assignment once submitted to exam board is final for marking.
• Second extension cannot be provided without supporting documentary evidence.
• Program participants are strongly advised to keep a copy of their work in case the submitted copy should
go astray.
• Total 90 marks. 10 Marks for Class Attendance. Final marks will be
converted to 90 marks.
PS. Kindly note to adhere to all the above instructions. Failing to read this, ATMS will not be responsible for
any actions taken.
GUIDELINES FOR ASSIGNMENT
a) If assignment is Question & Answer based then.
• Introduction is needed for each question.
• Question has to be answered based on the mark allotted for each question with references if
any idea or information is taken from other source.
) If assignment is case based then,
• Executive summary
• Table of content
• Introduction
• Body of assignment (questions related to case need to be answered)
• Conclusion / Recommendation if any
• References (in-text + citation) to be used.
Total Marks / 90
PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism is a form of cheating, by representing someone else's work as your own or using someone
else's work (another student or author) without acknowledging it with a reference. This is a serious
each of the Academic Regulations and will be dealt with accordingly. Students found to have
plagiarized can be excluded from the program.
Plagiarism occurs whenever you do any of the following things without acknowledging the original
source:
✓ Copy information from any source (including the study guide, books, newspapers, the internet)
✓ Use another person's concepts or ideas
✓ Summarize or paraphrase another person's work.
3
How do I avoid plagiarism?
To ensure you are not plagiarizing, you must acknowledge with a reference whenever you:
✓ use another person's ideas, opinions or theory
✓ include any statistics, graphs or images that have been compiled or
created by another person or organization
✓ Paraphrase another's written or spokenword.
What are the penalties?
The penalties for plagiarism are:
✓ Deduction of marks,
✓ A mark of zero for the assignment or the unit, or
✓ Exclusion from the program.
Plagiarism is dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the penalties will
eflect the seriousness of the
each. Please note claiming that you were not
aware of need to reference is no excuse
4
Business Values and Ethics Assignment
A number of vehicle manufacturers have been found guilty of falsifying their data on car
emissions in order to make the vehicle appear to meet vehicle emission standards set by their
governments. This means that the cars were emitting more pollutants that are damaging to the
environment than scientists had previously thought.
Using the VW case study below and/or the related documentary Hard NOx (Dirty Money),
discuss whether this organisational behaviour is ethically justified from the perspective of
Immanuel Kant (moral duties) and Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism).
3000 words
References
Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L XXXXXXXXXXBusiness ethics: Managing corporate
citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, USA.
Gibney, A., & Gibney, A XXXXXXXXXXHard NOx. Dirty Money.
VW Emissions Case Study
This case examines the (un)ethical decision -making of the Volkswagen Group leading up to the 2015
emissions scandal, as well as the attempted cover-up. The case focuses on the details of the scandal,
its context and eventual discovery, as well as subsequent investigation and actions taken by
Volkswagen. It draws upon a range of themes, particularly influences on ethical decision-making,
moral development, and organizational culture.
Founded in Wolfsburg, Germany in 1937 as a military vehicle manufacturer, The Volkswagen Group
or ‘VW’, grew over the course of the 20th century into a mass manufacturer of card, moto
ikes and
commercial vehicles, its fame grew with the introduction of classic models such as the beetle, Gold and
Polo. And it thrived due to the acquisition of and investment in a growing number of other well- known
ands, most notably Audi, Seat and Skoda.
By the beginning of the 21st century, the VW group had not only become a global automotive giant but
one of the biggest companies in the world. In 2014 it employed 590,000 employees, generated sales of
Euro 202.5 billion and delivered more than 10 million vehicles to its customers, Alongside its core mass
market
ands. It boasted a stable of luxury, iconic
ands from Porsche and Bentley to Bugatti and
Lamborghini. It was feted for its social and environmental credentials, emphasizing that it believed in
championing responsible business, with a long-term focus on the benefit of its customers, employees,
the environment, and society.
Yet by the end of 2015, it had become clear that VW had pro-actively engaged in cheating US legislation
concerning vehicle emissions through the manipulation of software in 11 million cars worldwide.
Beyond the environmental damage caused, in due course the scandal would come to cost the company
at least $25 billion, a drop in the company’s share of the European car market, an almost 50% drop in
share price, the resignation of Martin Winterkorn, Chief Executive of the US division, and the a
est of
Rupert Stadler, AUDI CEO.
https:
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ds7hg
5
The origins of “Emissions gate”
A swath of environmental legislation was formulated and implemented at the turn of the 21st century,
for example the Environmental Protection Act was passed in Demark in 1992, while the
Environmental Act was passed in the UK in 1995, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
was introduced in 1999. This new legislation included in many cases, heightened scrutiny and control
of the environmental impact of automobiles. This was perhaps most apparent in the US, where the
introduction of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments precipitated a tightening of light-duty vehicle
emission standards designed to reduce environmentally damaging emissions, such as ca
on and
nitrogen. When introduced in the noughties, this legislative shift led to pressure on a automotive
manufactures for a new generation of vehicles which adhered to new emissions standards. However,
commercial pressures necessitated that such alterations would not compromise on performance and
efficiency, which would heighten the running cost and [potentially impact sales.
VW, at a presentation to US regulators in September 2008, promoted their response to the legislation:
a generation of re-designed diesel automobiles, which met the country’s pollution laws, thus minimizing
the smog, soot, and harmful emissions long attributed to diesel engines, while not compromising on
performance. Regulators satisfied, this new generation of diesel cars were put on sales to the general
public by VW, who were hoping to finally crack the US car market.
However, unbeknownst to US regulators, this new generation of vehicles did not meet the newly
imposed emissions legislation as it had proved too difficult to design vehicles which would allow the
equired balance between emissions and performance. Instead, VW engineers had designed ‘defeat
devices’, which ensured that, when fitted to VW’s cars, the vehicles passed the regulatory, lab-based
emissions test. These defeat devices could detect when such a test was being performed through the
measurement of factors such as steering patterns, atmospheric pressures and engine use, and would
accordingly alter emissions controls to switch on fume cleaning technology. However, when used on
public roads, some models would pump out nitrogen at up to 409 times the legal limit.
Uncovering the problem
In early 2014, transport campaigners Peter Mock and John German set out to prove to Europe that clean
diesels cars could exist; the US had appeared to achieve a fantastic result: diesel cars that could pass its
strict emissions test without compromising performance. A 1,300-mile test journey was undertaken
from San Diego to Seattle using a number of car models to prove their point. Despite all the models
having lab-based emissions test, the VW’s tested gave some unusual result, appearing to emit dangerous
levels of toxins, some at 35 times the legal limit. As a result of this the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) launched an investigation in May 2014. Volkswagen, after repeating the test themselves,
asserted that the results we caused by a minor software e
or, which was easily fixable through the issue
of a product recall. This denial continued for over a year after the EPA had first launched its
investigations until August 2015 when VW finally came clean to senior officials, the EPA, and the
California Air Resources Board, admitting that the automotive manufacturer had deliberately misled
US regulators through the alteration of vehicle software to cheat emissions test VW’s confession was
allegedly only precipitated by both bodies threatening not to certify the company’s 2016 diesels models.
Over the following month, the company revealed further details regarding exactly how the software
worked to the US regulators and the regulators devised its response to the news before, finally, in late
September, news of VW’s wrongdoings
oke to the public.
Initially, when news of the unethical decision-making relating to emissions fixing of XXXXXXXXXXVW diesel
cars in the United States
oke, public dismay was evident. However, Michael Horn, head of US
operations, assured a congressional committee that the wrong doings were the result of ‘a couple of
software engineers’ and Dr Winterkorn, VW CEO, publicly stated that he was aware of no wrongdoing
6
on his part. However, the case spiralled, with VW being forces to admit the cars in Europe were also
affected later in 2015, increasing the total number affected to 11 million diesel cars across a number of
the firm’s
ands: VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, as well as 800,000 petrol cars being affected. Eventually,
after investigation by US regulators, it became apparent that the fault did not lie with a small number
of rouge software engineers but was in fact a far larger conspiracy involving senior figures within the
company and extensive attempts to cover up the wrongdoing.
The roll call of unethical decision-makers
As part of a plea bargain with the US Government, an agreed statement of facts between the US
Department of Justice and VW in 2017, and investigations by German authorities, it became clear that
the conspiracy had most likely started as early as 2006, when company executives met in Wolfsburg to
discuss the intentional inclusion of software that would defeat emissions testing in its vehicles.
Accordingly, on top of mangers sanctioning the use of these defeat devices in millions of cars that were
delivered to customers over a six-year period, from 2009 to 2015, engineers at the company were
encouraged to hide their usage, despite objections.
The scandal appears to have become even murkier when a cover-up operation began in