| Course | BUS 454 Ethical Decision Making for Business |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Ethical framework analysis |
| Length | About 1,012 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 454 Module 2
Loading the Channel Before the Covenant Test: Ethical Frameworks Applied to a Quarter-End Push
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 454: Ethical Decision Making for Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Loading the Channel Before the Covenant Test: Ethical Frameworks Applied to a Quarter-End Push
Two weeks before the end of the third quarter, Harbor Point Foods' regional sales manager told her team that the company was about $600,000 short of the revenue its lender expected. Missing the target could trip a covenant in the company's loan agreement. Her plan was to ask six large grocery customers to accept extra shipments of snack bars before quarter end, with an informal promise that anything unsold after sixty days could be returned for full credit. A sales representative, Jordan, was uneasy but was told "everyone does it" and that no one would be hurt. This paper applies ethical frameworks to the plan and to Jordan's choice.
How Ethical Decisions Happen
Rest (1986) described four components of moral behavior: recognizing that a situation has an ethical dimension, judging what is right, forming the intention to do it, and acting on that intention. Failure can occur at any step. Jones (1991) added that people are more likely to recognize and act on ethical issues when the issue's moral intensity is high, meaning its consequences are large, likely, near in time, concentrated and affect people close to the decision maker, and when social consensus that the act is wrong is strong. The sales plan scores low on several of these features: the harm is diffuse, delayed and falls on distant people, which helps explain why it can feel harmless.
What the Plan Would Do
Shipping goods that customers have not really bought, with a side promise to take them back, would record revenue that is not truly earned. Under accounting standards, revenue depends on a genuine transfer of control and an assessment of expected returns; an undisclosed right of return undermines both. The lender would receive financial statements showing revenue the company expects to reverse. The customers' buyers would be drawn into an arrangement their own companies had not approved. And next quarter would start $600,000 behind, making the same pressure, and the same temptation, even stronger three months later.
The Consequences Lens
A consequences or utilitarian analysis asks which option produces the most good and least harm for everyone affected. The plan offers a short-term benefit, avoiding a covenant problem this quarter, but at the cost of misleading the lender, eroding trust with major customers if the side promises surface, likely returns and discounts next quarter and a serious risk of discovery by auditors. The more honest alternative, telling the lender early and negotiating a waiver, carries some cost but avoids compounding harm. On balance, the consequences favor honesty.
The Rights and Duties Lens
A rights or duty-based analysis asks whether an action respects the rights of those affected and whether it could be accepted as a general rule. The lender has a right to accurate information because it lends on the strength of that information; deceiving it treats it merely as a means to the company's end. The Markkula Center's framework asks which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, n.d.). A rule that allowed companies to create revenue with hidden return promises whenever they faced a target could not be accepted by the lenders and investors who rely on reported figures.
The Fairness, Common Good and Virtue Lenses
A fairness lens asks whether the action treats people equally or proportionately. The plan favors Harbor Point's short-term position over the lender's legitimate expectations and gives the six retail buyers an arrangement hidden from their own employers. A common good lens asks what serves the community as a whole; financial reporting works only if participants can trust it. A virtue lens asks what a person of good character would do; honesty and courage point away from the plan, and toward speaking up.
The Lenses Compared
The table summarizes the analysis.
| Lens | Key question | Judgment of the plan |
|---|---|---|
| Consequences | Most good, least harm? | Short-term gain outweighed by likely harm |
| Rights and duties | Respects everyone's rights? | Violates the lender's right to accurate information |
| Fairness | Treats people equally or proportionately? | Favors the company over parties who rely on it |
| Common good | Serves the shared system? | Undermines trust in financial reporting |
| Virtue | What would a person of integrity do? | Speak up and refuse |
The Decision
All five lenses point the same way: the plan is wrong. The right course for Harbor Point is for the chief financial officer to contact the lender now, explain the shortfall and its causes, and seek a waiver or amendment. Lenders generally prefer early notice to surprises, and a company with a long record of repayment has room to negotiate.
Jordan's Choice
Knowing what is right is only the second of Rest's four steps; Jordan must also form the intention and act. Jordan can raise the concern with the sales manager, framing it around shared goals: "I want to hit the number too, but if the returns come back next quarter and the lender learns about side promises, we'll be in a worse spot. Can we take this to the CFO?" If the manager refuses, Jordan can use the company's ethics line or speak to the controller. Preparing the words in advance makes it far more likely that a person will actually speak. Jordan can also document the instruction and the date, which protects both Jordan and the company if questions arise later.
What the Company Should Change
The situation arose because sales targets were set without regard to real demand and because the manager believed the team would comply. Harbor Point should prohibit side agreements in writing, require that any right of return be documented and approved by finance, train sales staff on revenue rules and include integrity in sales managers' evaluations.
Conclusion
The quarter-end plan felt harmless because its harms were distant and diffuse, which is exactly why ethical frameworks are useful. Consequences, rights, fairness, the common good and virtue all judge it wrong. The better path is early honesty with the lender, a voice for Jordan and controls that keep the pressure from recurring.
References
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278958
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (n.d.). A framework for ethical decision making. Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
What the BUS 454 Module 2 instructions ask for
Ethical frameworks sit at the heart of Aspen's BUS 454, and working several lenses against one hard case is the skill this stage builds. The Module 2 wording reaches you through the course; this example takes one sales practice apart instead. Describe the situation and the pressure behind it precisely. Explain why decent people might go along with a wrong plan, using research on how ethical decisions happen. Apply several named frameworks, each with its key question, rather than one. Compare the results side by side. Reach a clear decision for the organization. Address the individual who must act, including what they might say. Finish with changes that would reduce the pressure next time.
How this BUS 454 Module 2 example is built
The paper opens with a $600,000 shortfall, a covenant test and a plan to ship with side promises. It explains Rest's four steps from recognition to action and Jones's features of moral intensity, showing why diffuse, delayed harm feels minor. A section describes what the plan would do to reported revenue, the lender and customers' buyers. Five lenses follow: consequences, rights and duties with the Markkula Center's questions, fairness, the common good and virtue. A five-row table compares them. The decision calls for early disclosure to the lender. A section gives the representative words for raising the concern and a path if refused. Controls on side agreements, returns and sales incentives close it.
Reading the BUS 454 Module 2 grading rubric
Framework papers earn marks for accurate description of each lens, careful application to the facts, a clear conclusion and practical follow-through. This example applies five lenses to the same facts and shows that they converge, which makes the conclusion persuasive. Its APA sources are Rest's Moral Development, Jones's Academy of Management Review article on moral intensity and the Markkula Center's framework for ethical decision making. Explaining why the plan feels harmless shows insight into behavior, not only principles. Giving the representative actual words turns analysis into action, and the controls address the conditions that created the dilemma in the first place. The paper also avoids moralizing about the sales manager, focusing instead on the pressures and choices involved, which keeps the analysis fair.
BUS 454 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often name frameworks without applying them to specific facts. For each lens, state its question and answer it for your case. Another weakness is applying only one framework; use several and compare. Explain why the wrong choice is tempting, since that shows understanding. Reach a decision rather than listing views. Address the individual who must act, not only the company. Propose changes that remove the pressure behind the dilemma. Avoid treating accounting or legal rules as the whole answer; they are part of the analysis, not a substitute for it. If the lenses disagree in your case, say so and explain which you weigh more heavily and why. Be careful not to caricature the person who proposed the plan; the analysis is stronger when it treats them as a reasonable person under pressure.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 454 and Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 454 Module 1: Ethics and the Stakeholder View
- BUS 454 Module 3: Stakeholder Mapping
- BUS 454 Module 4: Workplace Ethics and Rights
- BUS 454 Module 5: Corporate Social Responsibility
- BUS 454 Module 6: Marketing and Product Ethics
- BUS 454 Module 7: Crisis and Stakeholder Communication
- BUS 454 Module 8: Personal Code of Ethics
- BUS 484 Module 2: Opportunity Assessment
- BUS 225 Module 8: Consumer Protection and Securities
- BUS 305 Module 6: Formal Business Report
- BUS 210 Module 6: Business Finance Discussion
BUS 454 Module 2 questions, answered
What does BUS 454 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 454 focuses on resolving ethical dilemmas, so applying named ethical frameworks to a business dilemma is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What are the main ethical frameworks used in business?
Common lenses include consequences, rights and duties, fairness or justice, the common good and virtue.
What is moral intensity?
Jones's term for how strongly an issue's features, such as the size, likelihood and nearness of harm, prompt people to recognize and act on it.
Where can I find a free BUS 454 Module 2 sample paper?
Everything is above: a quarter-end channel-loading plan tested against five ethical lenses, with a comparison table, a decision and words for raising the concern.
Why do people go along with unethical plans at work?
Often because the harm seems distant, diffuse or unlikely, the pressure is immediate, and colleagues say the practice is normal.