Group Stakeholder's Analysis: Private Prison Corporation of America
Group Stakeholder’s Analysis
Private Prison Corporation of America, a contemporary corporation in the business of privatized prisons, must regard its stakeholders’ concerns when deciding among its possible courses of action considering its future endeavors with its private prisons. The following will present a stakeholder’s analysis for the actions recommended for the Private Prison Corporation of America, and how this course of action best affects its stakeholders, and how these actions relate to the reasoning of utilitarianism, deontology and social justice, three of the five traditional theories of moral reasoning. Our analysis will determine that it is in the corporation’s best interests to support the Intensive Probation Act. This support will aid in the company’s growth, best support the stakeholder’s interests, and abide to positive moral reasoning.
It’s nearly always the case that a company and its establishment, wherever that might be, has a local or nearby community that it impacts. For us as managers of Private Prison Corporation of America, we take this into strong consideration when determining what side of legislation to take. In this case, it is the issue of deciding whether to support or be uninvolved in the passing of two laws: Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (law 1), and The Intensive Probation Act (law 2). Now, the passing of law 1 would undoubtedly mean a continuous major increase in revenues, the number of inmates, and the overall demand for suppliers. Choosing to not get involved in the Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act would most likely not support the interests of either the shareholders or suppliers. However, they wouldn’t be too hurt by the decision either, receiving over 5 billion dollars in funding from the Federal Bureau of Private Prisons, holding over 23,000 criminals, and making over 160 million dollars in net income just last year. Another thing to mention is the extreme measure of interrogating random people
Private Prison Corporation of America, a contemporary corporation in the business of privatized prisons, must regard its stakeholders’ concerns when deciding among its possible courses of action considering its future endeavors with its private prisons. The following will present a stakeholder’s analysis for the actions recommended for the Private Prison Corporation of America, and how this course of action best affects its stakeholders, and how these actions relate to the reasoning of utilitarianism, deontology and social justice, three of the five traditional theories of moral reasoning. Our analysis will determine that it is in the corporation’s best interests to support the Intensive Probation Act. This support will aid in the company’s growth, best support the stakeholder’s interests, and abide to positive moral reasoning.
It’s nearly always the case that a company and its establishment, wherever that might be, has a local or nearby community that it impacts. For us as managers of Private Prison Corporation of America, we take this into strong consideration when determining what side of legislation to take. In this case, it is the issue of deciding whether to support or be uninvolved in the passing of two laws: Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (law 1), and The Intensive Probation Act (law 2). Now, the passing of law 1 would undoubtedly mean a continuous major increase in revenues, the number of inmates, and the overall demand for suppliers. Choosing to not get involved in the Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act would most likely not support the interests of either the shareholders or suppliers. However, they wouldn’t be too hurt by the decision either, receiving over 5 billion dollars in funding from the Federal Bureau of Private Prisons, holding over 23,000 criminals, and making over 160 million dollars in net income just last year. Another thing to mention is the extreme measure of interrogating random people