| Course | BUS 454 Ethical Decision Making for Business |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | CSR assessment |
| Length | About 1,015 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 454 Module 5
Oats, Farmers and Food Banks: Assessing Two Social Responsibility Proposals at Harbor Point Foods
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 454: Ethical Decision Making for Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Oats, Farmers and Food Banks: Assessing Two Social Responsibility Proposals at Harbor Point Foods
Harbor Point Foods' leadership team is considering two corporate social responsibility proposals. The first, from the purchasing director, would buy 30% of the company's oats from farms in Wisconsin and Minnesota using regenerative practices, such as cover crops and reduced tillage, paying a premium of about 8%, or $410,000 a year. The second, from the plant manager, would formalize the donation of short-dated bars, which are safe but too close to their best-by date for retailers, to food banks rather than selling them at deep discounts to salvage buyers, at a cost of about $95,000 a year in lost salvage revenue. This paper assesses both.
What Social Responsibility Includes
Carroll (1991) described corporate social responsibility as four kinds of responsibility arranged as a pyramid. Economic responsibility, being profitable, is the foundation. Legal responsibility means obeying the law. Ethical responsibility means doing what is right and fair beyond what the law requires. Philanthropic responsibility means contributing to the community as a good corporate citizen. Carroll argued that a socially responsible company should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical and be a good corporate citizen at once, not treat the layers as alternatives.
The Skeptical View
Friedman (1970) argued that when executives spend company money on social causes beyond what serves the business, they are in effect taxing shareholders, customers or employees without their consent and taking on a governmental role they were not chosen for. His view does not forbid actions that also benefit the company, such as community spending that builds goodwill, but it insists they be justified by the business's interests. Any CSR proposal at Harbor Point should be able to answer his challenge.
Shared Value
Porter and Kramer (2011) proposed a different frame, creating shared value, in which companies pursue policies that improve their competitiveness while advancing social and economic conditions in the communities where they operate. Examples include redesigning supply chains to improve supplier productivity and reduce waste. Shared value treats social progress as a source of business opportunity rather than a cost or a charitable add-on.
The Regenerative Oats Proposal
Regenerative sourcing fits the shared value frame. Buying from nearby farms shortens supply lines and reduces exposure to disruptions in distant regions. Several of Harbor Point's retail customers have set targets for reducing emissions in their suppliers' supply chains and have asked for data. Contracts with regional farms, at a stable premium, would give the company more predictable supply and a story consumers value. The ethical responsibility is also real: soil health affects farm communities and water quality in the region. The weakness is cost: $410,000 is about 13% of the savings from last year's plant move.
The Food Bank Proposal
Donating short-dated bars is philanthropic in Carroll's terms but has economic dimensions too. Federal law protects food donors acting in good faith from civil and criminal liability, and enhanced tax deductions are available for qualifying food donations, which offsets part of the lost salvage revenue. Salvage buyers sometimes resell bars in outlets where Harbor Point cannot control freshness, so donation also protects the brand. Employees have volunteered at the regional food bank for years, and formalizing the program would build pride.
Scoring the Proposals
The table assesses both proposals.
| Criterion | Regenerative oats | Food bank donations |
|---|---|---|
| Economic | Higher cost; more stable supply; retailer demand | Small net cost after tax treatment; brand protection |
| Legal | No legal requirement | Donor liability protection applies |
| Ethical | Supports soil, water and farm communities | Reduces waste; food reaches people in need |
| Philanthropic | Indirect | Direct community benefit |
| Shared value | Strong | Moderate |
| Answer to Friedman | Justified by supply and customer demand | Justified by cost, brand and employee engagement |
Recommendation
Harbor Point should adopt both proposals, with conditions. The food bank program should start immediately; its net cost is small and its benefits clear. The oats program should begin at 15% of volume in the first year, with three-year contracts and measures of soil health and emissions agreed with the farms, then expand to 30% if results and retailer interest hold. Starting smaller addresses the cost concern without abandoning the goal.
Measures and Reporting
The company should report annually on pounds of food donated, the share of oats from regenerative farms, soil and emissions measures from participating farms and the cost of both programs. Reporting honestly, including setbacks, avoids the charge of claiming credit for more than it has done, a common failing in corporate social responsibility communication. A short annual report reviewed by the owners would keep both programs visible and accountable.
Engaging Stakeholders
Farmers should help design the contracts, since they bear the risk of changing practices. Employees should be invited to shape the food bank program. Retail customers should see the data they requested. These conversations are part of acting responsibly, not an afterthought.
Risks of Getting It Wrong
Social responsibility programs can fail in two ways. They can be abandoned when budgets tighten, which disappoints partners who changed their practices on the company's word; multi-year contracts with farmers guard against that. Or they can be overstated in marketing, which invites charges of greenwashing and erodes trust. Harbor Point should describe its oat program in precise terms, such as the share of oats sourced and the practices required, and avoid broad claims such as "sustainable" or "climate friendly" unless it can support them with evidence.
Who Decides
Because both proposals spend the owners' money, the family owners should decide, with the leadership team's recommendation. Friedman's concern about executives spending others' money is met when owners approve social spending knowingly. The decision and its rationale should then be shared with employees, who will carry out both programs.
Conclusion
Both proposals meet Carroll's standard of responsibility across more than one layer, and both can answer Friedman's challenge by showing how they serve the business. The oats program is the stronger example of shared value, and the food bank program the clearer community benefit. Adopting both, with a phased start for the costlier one and honest reporting, is a responsible and sustainable course.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32-33, 122-126.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Reading the BUS 454 Module 5 assignment instructions
Corporate social responsibility is one of the issues Aspen's BUS 454 examines from a stakeholder perspective, and weighing specific proposals, with their price tags, keeps the topic from becoming abstract. The Module 5 assignment is available in the course, so this example evaluates two proposals. Define social responsibility with a recognized model. Include a serious critique, such as the view that business should focus on profit. Consider whether a proposal creates value for both the company and society. Assess each proposal on the same criteria. Weigh costs honestly. Recommend with conditions where appropriate. Plan measures and reporting, and guard against overstating results. Say who should decide and which stakeholders should be involved in design.
How the BUS 454 Module 5 example is put together
The paper introduces the oat premium and the food bank plan with their costs. Carroll's four layers are explained, followed by Friedman's argument that social spending taxes owners without consent, and Porter and Kramer's idea of shared value. The oats section cites shorter supply lines, retailer supply-chain targets and soil and water benefits. The donation section notes federal protections for good-faith donors, tax treatment and brand protection. A six-row table scores both. The recommendation starts donations now and oats at 15% with three-year contracts. Sections cover measures and honest reporting, stakeholder involvement, risks of abandonment and greenwashing, and a decision by the owners.
Reading the BUS 454 Module 5 grading rubric
CSR assessments are judged on a clear framework, a fair hearing for critics, consistent evaluation and realistic recommendations. This example applies Carroll's layers to both proposals and answers Friedman directly for each. The APA references are Carroll's Business Horizons article on the pyramid of CSR, Friedman's 1970 essay and Porter and Kramer's Harvard Business Review article on shared value. The scoring table makes the comparison transparent. Phasing the costlier program and asking the owners to decide respond to the cost concern without abandoning the goal. Warnings against overclaiming show awareness of a common failing in CSR communication that instructors often raise. Attention to the farmers who bear the risk of changing practices shows the stakeholder thinking the course is built on.
BUS 454 Module 5 help from the desk
A common weakness is treating CSR as automatically good. Include critics and answer them. Another is assessing proposals on different criteria; use the same framework for each. Put numbers on costs and, where possible, benefits. Recommend conditions or phases when costs are high. Plan how results will be measured and reported honestly. Avoid vague claims like sustainable without evidence. Consider who bears risk, such as suppliers asked to change practices. State who should make the final decision. If you evaluate a real company's program, compare its public claims with the evidence it provides and note gaps rather than assuming the claims are accurate. Look for ways the proposal could fail after launch, such as budget cuts, and suggest safeguards.
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 2: Ethical Frameworks
- BUS 454 Module 3: Stakeholder Mapping
- BUS 454 Module 4: Workplace Ethics and Rights
- 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 4: Business Model Canvas
- BUS 225 Module 8: Consumer Protection and Securities
- BUS 210 Module 3: Management and Structure Paper
- BUS 320 Module 7: Integrated and Digital Marketing
BUS 454 Module 5 questions, answered
What does BUS 454 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 454 includes corporate social responsibility, so an assessment of a company's CSR activities or proposals is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is Carroll's pyramid of CSR?
A model of four responsibilities, economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic, that a socially responsible company should meet together.
What is creating shared value?
Porter and Kramer's idea that companies can pursue policies that improve their competitiveness while advancing social conditions in their communities.
Where can I find a free BUS 454 Module 5 sample paper?
See the full assessment above, scoring a regenerative oat program and a food donation program in a table with a phased recommendation.
What is the difference between CSR and philanthropy?
Philanthropy is giving to the community; CSR is broader, covering a company's economic, legal and ethical responsibilities as well as its philanthropy.