Conflict Analysis Paper

Philosophy 484: Global Business Ethics, Spring 2015

Description: This paper will explain and apply the framework for analyzing conflicts between multinational companies and local communities described in Lisa Calvano’s article, “Multinational Companies and Local Communities: A Critical Analysis of Conflict,” to one of the following case studies: “The Bhopal Gas Leak’s Continuing Saga” or “Community Contracts in Papua New Guinea.”

There is no length requirement for this paper. It should be as long as it needs to be for you to provide a detailed explanation and analysis of one of the case studies. The completed paper should be submitted to the dropbox on D2L

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to develop the ability to critical analyze ethical conflicts between businesses and communities.

Guidelines: Calvano’s framework is broken down into three categories: stakeholder power inequality, stakeholder perception gap, and cultural context. The first two categories are further divided into three distinct ideas. One way to organize your paper is to explain each element of the framework as you apply it to the case study. The explanation and application should be detailed and well-supported. Quote the texts where relevant to help support the connections you make between the case study and the framework. Note that while you will need to refer to the case study as you apply the framework to it, you do not need to provide a detailed explanation of the case study.

Rubric:
A    B    C    D                    F
Explanation of Framework    Explanation is accurate, well-supported, and addresses the theory in depth.

Connection to the text is clear and supports the explanation.    Explanation is mostly accurate and well-supported. Minor aspects of the theory are missing or inaccurate.     Explanation is somewhat inaccurate and somewhat poorly supported. Some aspects of the theory are not addressed in depth.

Connection to the text is insufficient, sometimes unclear, or irrelevant.

Explanation is sometimes unclear or irrelevant.    Explanation is inaccurate and poorly supported. Important aspects of the theory are not addressed in depth.

Connection to the text is unclear, missing or irrelevant.

Explanation is often unclear or irrelevant.
Application to Case    Application of framework is complete, accurate, well-supported, and addresses the case in depth.    Application is mostly accurate and mostly well-supported. Minor aspects of the case or framework are ignored or inaccurate.    Application is somewhat inaccurate and poorly supported. Some aspects of the case or framework are not addressed in depth.

Application is somewhat unclear or irrelevant.     Application is inaccurate and poorly supported. Important aspects of the case or framework are not addressed in depth.

Application is unclear or irrelevant.
Citation            Some citation is missing or inaccurate. Significant grammatical or mechanical problems.    Significant citation is missing or inaccurate.