Kardell Paper

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 360
  • Published : December 4, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
[pic]

BUSS ETHICS & CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

CRG 520

CASE STUDY

( KARDELL PAPER CO. )

( GROUP 2 )

PREPARED BY :

FAIZUL HISHAM BIN MOHD ALIAS : 2011672616

AHMAD FAISAL BIN KAMARUZAMAN: 2011837032

NURUL NADIA BINTI MOHD NOOR AZMI: 2011870322

RAJA FARADYNA RAJA ISKANDAR :2011284874

NORASHIKIN BINTI MD AMIN :2011405672

PREPARED FOR:

MOHD DANIAL AFIQ BIN KHAMAR TAZILAH

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

11-NOV-2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to thank to our lecture of this subject CRG520, Sir Mohd Danial Afiq Bin Khamar Tazilah for the valuable guidance and advice. He inspired us greatly to complete this assignment. Him willingness to motivate us contributed tremendously to our assignment. We also would like to thank him for showing us some example that related to the topic of our assignment.

Besides, we would like to thank the authority of University Technology Mara (UITM) for providing us with a good environment and facilities to get idea for completed this assignment. Also, we would like to take this opportunity to thank to the Faculty of accountancy of University Technology Mara (UITM) for offering this subject, It gave us an opportunity to participate and learn about the Buss Ethics & Corporate Governance

Finally, an honourable mention goes to our families and friends for their understandings and supports on us in completing this assignment. Without helps of the particular that mentioned above, we would face many difficulties while doing this

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ……………………………………………… P4

Ethical Decision Making …..…………………………… P5

Fundamental Interests of Stakeholders …………….. P6

Questions and Answers ……………………………. P7 - P12

Conclusion……………………………………………… P13

References………………………………………………... P14

INTRODUCTION

What do we mean by ethical decision making? Are there decisions that are not ethical in that there is not ethical component to a choice? In their review of ethical decision making, Tenbruensel and Smith-Crowe (2008) present a distinction between moral decision making and amoral decision making. Within each class of decisions, one can make ethical decision or unethical decisions. They further argue that social scientist should not be in the business of telling people what they should do, that is define what is ethical and what is not, but they do acknowledge the necessity to define the criteria by which decisions are placed into their typology for analytical purposed. It is very difficult to define ethical behavior. Many definitions exist, but most depend on using some standard of ethical behavior from which to judge the individual’s behavior. Any standard used is subjective and cultural in nature and subject to intensive debate. There is an inherent problem in attempting to define ethical decision-making or moral behavior.  What we are doing in trying to define these concepts is starting with the answer rather than the question.  While the concept of ethics provides a nice category of inquiry, it isolates the concepts associated with what we call ethics from other models of decision-making and motivation.  Why do we need special models of ethical decision-making and moral motivation when we have spent been years developing models of motivation and decision-making.  If our "mainstream" behavioral models are not robust enough to include ethical issues within them, then they need to be expanded.  Rather than start with the answer, let's start with defining the behavioral phenomena that the concepts of ethics and morals are attempting to explain. 

Fundamental Interests of Stakeholders

Based on Kardell...
tracking img