"How to Write a Case Study Analysis" Developed for Business Ethics (Philosophy 352) at Widener University

PHIL 352 Business Ethics Prof. Rutter

Widener University Fall 2001

Handout: How to do a Case Study Analysis

The case study analysis will appear differently than most other papers you have previously written. This assignment requires a very methodical format, and adherence to the layout will constitute a significant part of your grade. Let me state that in clearer terms: If you do not follow the exact format presented here, the highest grade you will receive is a B. Where style is concerned, consider a case study as part story, part moral consideration, part science/technical writing (especially the latter in the strict analysis of the issues involved), and all argument. The syllabus calls for 3-5 pages in order to do a decent job. I don’t think that anything less than 3 pages will suffice; in the past, students have submitted case studies that took up 10 pages double-spaced—the complexity of the issues involved will in part determine the length of the paper. Having said that, realize that the complexity of the issues involved will also make up a part of your grade as well. A straightforward, simple, and obvious “moral dilemma” will receive a lower grade than a more complex case that includes a greater analysis of the issues (even if the latter is not as well constructed).

Case Study Format:

1. Briefly state the case you plan to discuss (in story form if you like, see the last pages of each chapter of the textbook for examples in their “decision scenarios”). Take care to specify the principal moral agents involved, and the moral dilemma presented.
   For example, the case “Is it right for the CEO of Company X to bribe foreign officials in order to secure contracts for a failing company?”
   Please also understand that this is a very good example because it presents a very straightforward, yet complex moral problem, thereby offering varying levels for analysis. It does this by first involving the practices of a foreign country, thereby engaging ethical conflict between the legal duty to follow U.S. law versus the duty to adhere to the customs of the host country. Second, the case centers around the decision of a CEO, whose responsibilities to the company and shareholders place duties upon her that differ from the duties of other workers. Third, the case includes the notion of “drastic measures” that companies sometimes use to justify decisions.
   If you use an actual historical case (you cannot use one that the book discusses), then you must include all of the relevant names, dates, and in certain occasions, the laws that provide the framework for the analysis. At the same time, you should recognize that the legal issues here are not what you are to discuss in the paper. This paper is solely about solving the moral dilemma at stake.
   By the end of this section, one thing must appear clearly—the exact action that you will judge as either moral or immoral.
2. State and briefly discuss what would count as possible alternatives to the moral dilemma or ethical issue that you plan to resolve in your paper. Use your imagination here to consider and explain various alternatives. (In many cases, qualifying conditions present more alternatives to what at first appears a simple “yes or no” type problem.)
3. Determine all those affected by the action in question, and argue for their inclusion in the consideration of the moral problem at hand. That means, justify why you think they should be included (if not moral agents directly involved in the decision). However, don’t detail this for more than a paragraph or two, as it is possible to use the same justification for the inclusion of many or all affected by the action, and you don’t need to discuss each one separately. Additionally, if there is some group or party that you do not think deserves consideration in your argument, but which commonly would receive inclusion (for example, think of the discussion about whether or not children are affected by the marketing of the “Death Row Marv” toy) then please also explain why you exclude this group or groups (meaning, justify your exclusion of them on philosophical grounds).
4. Determine whether the issue at hand more clearly requires a utilitarian justification or a justification based on rights, duties, and/or conceptions of justice. If a rights-based analysis applies, state which rights and duties you believe apply to this case and why. If you plan to use utilitarian calculations, explain briefly why that type of consideration outweighs a consideration of what rights, if any, seem to pertain to those in the case you examine.
5. Using your answers to steps three and four, decide and rank the status of all those affected—if an obviously dominant moral consideration of one or more of the affected parties exists, please state it and briefly explain the reasons why that counts as the dominant moral consideration.
6. Using your answer to numbers three, four, and five, outline, detail, and justify your moral decision in the case involved. This should take up the largest part of the paper--at least several paragraphs. In this section, you should attempt to justify the consequences of your decision in terms of utility or rights (based on your answer to step four) for all the parties affected. Clearly state and explain (argue) your moral reasoning process—including relevant aspects of business, the law, and social considerations that apply. Additionally, any practical solution you can envisage for the problem (such as the mediation in the Napster case, or Napster’s proposed one billion dollar payoff), should appear in this section.
7. Consider how someone who disagreed with your analysis might argue for either a different ranking of the parties involved, or argue that others are more adversely affected than you had determined, or how someone who disagreed might argue for a different decision in the matter, or even how someone might come up with a different practical solution. But use discretion here, and avoid setting up your opponent's position as a straw man. Then explain why your solution works better to solve the problem at hand. This should cover two paragraphs or so.
8. Finally, state whether or not you would personally handle the matter in this way, if faced with the same or relatively similar situation your business affairs. If you would act accordingly, briefly state why your specific considerations (role responsibilities, duties, or rights, or your specific moral perspective) would contribute to that decision. If you would not act as you had decided in steps one through seven, determine why and how you could reconcile that reluctance with the analysis you have just provided. (Here, the answer “I wouldn’t act accordingly because “morality doesn’t carry over terribly well to practical matters and is mostly academic” is a claim I sympathize with, but cannot accept, due to my own role-based professional responsibilities.)