• Review Module 4-Handout 2 (spreadsheet) and watch its video. Module 4-Handout #2 (spreadsheet) is not the homework spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is for practice only and it will show you how to perform NPV, IRR, Profitability Index, and Payback Period calculations.
• Download the homework spreadsheet here:
• Complete this homework spreadsheet based on what you learned from the video for Week 4: Module 3-Handout #3. Notice that the homework spreadsheet has different numbers.
• Note: In the lecture video for Week 4: Module 3-Handout #3, the first entry should be G27, not G22 in the Rank function when we calculate the Number of Years Prior to Full Recovery.

Module 4: CL Discussion 4 — How Do CFOs Make Capital Budgeting Decisions?

Class and Life Discussion – How Do CFOs Make Capital Budgeting Decisions?

---

Assigned Reading/Video:

Assigned Reading: Graham & Harvey (2002). “How Do CFOs Make Capital Budgeting and Capital Structure Decisions?” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance

(Note: This module uses a journal article rather than a YouTube video.)

________________________________________

Here are a few prompts to help you come up with some topics to talk about:

Prompt 1 Theory vs. Practice: A Lingerin

Graham and Harvey discover that while the majority of CFOs use NPV and IRR as their primary capital budgeting tools quite consistent with academic theory the decisions around capital structure are dominated by rules of thumb and a desire to maintain financial flexibilities rather than minimize WACC. Why do you think this gap between theory and practice exists, especially regarding capital structure, even with highly educated CFOs in large firms?

Prompt 2 NPV v/s IRR: Why Both?

74.9% of CFOs always or almost always calculate NPV, and 75.7% do so for IRR but these two measures can signal contradictory recommendations, especially under conditions such as having non-conventional cash flows or when comparing mutually exclusive projects. Why do you think CFOs tend to use both rather than pick one? Under what circumstances would you encourage a CFO to favor NPV over IRR, and why?

Prompt 3 The Stubborn Persistence of the Payback Period

56.7 percent of CFOs still use the payback period a technique that disregards the time value of money and has been denounced in textbooks for decades. For capital-constrained firms, payback may indeed be rational, the authors suggest. Do you agree? Build the best possible case as to why it might make economic sense for a financially stressed small company to choose payback over NPV.

Prompt 4 Big Firms Are Bigger vs. Small Firms Are Smaller

A noticeable pattern in the survey shows that, while small firms utilize payback more as well as informal techniques, NPV, CAPM and sensitivity analysis are used significantly more by larger firms. What structural and resource limitations account for this disparity? Does this imply that small companies are making systematic errors in capital budgeting decisions, or simply adapting rational tools to their information environment?

Prompt 5 CFOs and EPS Obsession

One very interesting finding is that CFOs are averse to issuing equity even when it might be theoretically optimal this reluctance stems largely from fear of EPS dilution. This is contrary to agency theory and information asymmetry models, according to the authors. Why do you think CFOs attribute such an inordinate amount of weight to EPS, and what does that tell us about the real objective function managers are optimizing?

Prompt 6 Financial Flexibility as the Ultimate Capital Structure Objective

Instead of aiming for a debt ratio that minimizes WACC, most CFOs surveyed reported that their foremost priority was to preserve financial flexibility the capacity to seize opportunities and survive downturns. What role does this kind of behavioral motivation have in reconciling the Modigliani-Miller theorem with the trade-off theory of capital structure? Is financial flexibility a true academic goal or a behavioral bias against being aggressive?

Prompt 7 The CAPM Dominance Puzzle

73.5% of CFOs apply CAPM to estimate the cost of equity making it the dominant approach yet CAPM has well-documented empirical failures (e.g., size effect, value premium). Why do you think the practitioners continue to assign such a large importance to CAPM despite its limitations? Yet this raises the question of what we should believe about theoretical elegance and practical usability in corporate finance?

Prompt 8 Real Options: Awareness Not Implementation

Over 25% of firms reported using real options analysis, which was a surprise to the researchers since it is a complex method. But other evidence points to most real options users applying the concept qualitatively, not quantitatively. Is qualitative real options reasoning acknowledging the worth of flexibility without actually modeling it in a formal way still useful? How could a CFO apply real options reasoning to an investment decision, without using Black-Scholes?

Prompt 9 The Characteristics of CEOs and Corporate Finance Decisions

Graham and Harvey discover that MBA-holding CEOs are more inclined to use NPV and CAPM while older, long-tenured CEOs (and not MBAs) opt for payback. What are the corporate governance implications of this? How does managerial entrenchment affect capital budgeting methodology, and should boards care about the analytical toolkit their CEO brings to capital allocation decisions?

10 Prompt Sophistication and Leverage Chicken-Egg

Firms with high leverage are more likely to use sophisticated capital budgeting tools (such as NPV, IRR, sensitivity analysis). The authors credit this to Jensens discipline argument debt pressure pushes managers to be strict. It can also be the other way around: Does leverage create rigor? Or do rigorous firms elect to use leverage when they feel confident in their cash flow projections? How would you plan a study that could untangle causation from correlation in this case?

________________________________________

Assignment Overview

This discussion board assignment requires you to engage critically with assigned course material and participate meaningfully in scholarly dialogue with your peers. You will submit two posts: one original post analyzing the assigned material, and one response post engaging with a classmate’s analysis.

Part 1: Original Post (12 points)

Objective

Provide a substantive analysis of the assigned material that demonstrates critical thinking, application of course concepts, and professional communication skills.

Requirements

Content Expectations:

• Present your key takeaway or perspective on the assigned material
• Explicitly connect your analysis to relevant course concepts, theories, or frameworks
• Support your position with specific evidence from the source material
• Write as if presenting your professional opinion to a supervisor in a business meeting

Technical Specifications:

• Recommended length: 150-500 words
• Minimum course concepts: Reference at least 2 specific finance theories, models, or principles
• Minimum source references: Include at least 2 specific citations from the assigned material (e.g., data points, timestamps, examples)

Quality Standards:

• Demonstrate original thinking and personal analysis
• Maintain professional tone and academic writing standards
• Ensure clarity, organization, and grammatical accuracy

Part 2: Response Post (8 points)

Objective

Engage substantively with a classmate’s original post to advance the intellectual discourse and demonstrate collaborative learning.

Requirements

Formatting:

• Title format (required): “Response Post to the Original Post by [Classmate First Name Last Name]”
  • Example: “Response Post to the Original Post by Serkan Karadas”

Content Expectations: Your response must go beyond simple agreement or disagreement. Substantive engagement includes:

• Explaining the reasoning behind your agreement or disagreement with specific points
• Introducing additional examples, data, or perspectives that extend the discussion
• Connecting your classmate’s analysis to other course concepts or real-world applications
• Asking thoughtful follow-up questions that deepen the conversation

What Does NOT Constitute a Valid Response:

• “I agree with you.”
• “Good post.”
• “I feel the same way.”

What DOES Constitute a Valid Response:

• “I agree with your application of Modern Portfolio Theory here, and I would like to add that…”
• “While I appreciate your perspective on diversification, I interpret the data differently because…”
• “Building on your point about risk-return tradeoffs, have you considered how this applies to…”

Technical Specifications:

• Minimum length: 100 words
• Tone: Professional, respectful, and collegialeven when expressing disagreement

Submission Requirements and Policies

Posting Sequence

• You must submit your original post before viewing other students’ posts (enforced by Canvas settings)
• This ensures independent thinking and prevents echo-chamber effects

Deadlines

• Strongly encouraged: Submit your original post by 11:59 PM CST on Day 4
  • Early posting allows adequate time for peer engagement and thoughtful responses
• Official deadline: Both original post and response post are due by 11:59 PM CST on Day 7
• Late submissions: 10% penalty per day late

Response Post Protocol

• You must respond to a different classmate’s original post (not your own)
• Exception: If you are the only student with an original post close to the deadline, you may respond to your own post as a last resort
  • However, you should check Canvas periodically before the deadline to respond to a classmate if possible
  • Example: If you post on Day 6 and no other posts are visible, check again on Day 7 before responding to yourself

Grading Philosophy

Academic Rigor

This assignment values thoughtful, well-supported, and relevant contributions over “right” or “wrong” answers. Your grade will reflect:

• Depth of critical analysis
• Quality of evidence and reasoning
• Effective application of course concepts
• Professional communication skills
• Meaningful peer engagement

Collaborative Learning

Responses that help clarify, synthesize, or extend your classmates’ ideas demonstrate that you have carefully read and thoughtfully considered their contributions. Such responses fulfill the highest standards of the grading rubric.

Professional Discourse

• Expressing disagreement: State your position clearly and politely, supporting it with evidence and reasoning
• Maintaining respect: Avoid language that could be perceived as dismissive, condescending, or offensive
• Conflict resolution: Should disagreement escalate to conflict, initiate immediate resolution and offer apologies for any personal contribution to the situation

Example Scenario

Class composition: Five students (A, B, C, D, E)

Required submissions:

• Each student submits one original post (5 total original posts)
• Each student submits one response post to a different student’s original post

Example:

• Student A submits an original post
• Student A reads all available original posts
• Student A submits a response post to Student E’s original post
• Student A has now fulfilled both requirements

Grading Criteria

Original Post (12 points total)

1. Word Count Requirement (2 points)

• 2 points: Original post is between 150-500 words
• 0 points: Original post is less than 150 words or more than 500 words

Rationale: Ensures substantive content without excessive length. Too short = insufficient depth; too long = lack of conciseness.

2. Course Concept Integration (3 points)

• 3 points: Explicitly mentions and applies at least 2 specific finance concepts, theories, or models from the course (e.g., Modern Portfolio Theory, efficient frontier, diversification, risk-return tradeoff, correlation, duration, etc.)
• 2 points: Mentions and applies 1 specific finance concept from the course
• 0 points: Does not explicitly mention or apply any course concepts

Must name the concept explicitly (e.g., “According to Modern Portfolio Theory…” or “The efficient frontier suggests…”)

3. Source Material Reference (2 points)

• 2 points: Includes at least 2 specific references to content from the assigned material (e.g., specific data points, arguments, examples, or timestamps from video)
• 1 point: Includes 1 specific reference to the assigned material
• 0 points: No specific references to the assigned material (only vague/general statements)

Example of specific reference: “Berger showed that the 60/40 portfolio returned X% over Y years using Portfolio Visualizer data” vs. vague: “The video talked about portfolios”

4. Personal Analysis/Opinion (3 points)

• 3 points: Clearly states a personal position/opinion AND provides at least 2 supporting reasons or pieces of evidence for that position
• 2 points: States a personal position but provides only 1 supporting reason
• 0 points: No clear personal position, or position stated without any supporting reasoning

The “supervisor test”: Would your response be adequate if your boss asked your professional opinion?

5. Professional Writing Quality (2 points)

• 2 points: Post has fewer than 3 grammatical/spelling errors AND is well-organized with clear paragraphs
• 1 point: Post has 3-5 grammatical/spelling errors OR lacks clear organization
• 0 points: Post has more than 5 grammatical/spelling errors OR is poorly organized/difficult to follow

Use spell-check and proofread before posting!

Response Post (8 points total)

6. Word Count Requirement (1 point)

• 1 point: Response post is at least 100 words
• 0 points: Response post is less than 100 words

7. Proper Formatting (1 point)

• 1 point: Response post is clearly titled: “Response Post to the Original Post by [Classmate First Name Last Name]”
• 0 points: Response post does not follow the required title format

8. Substantive Engagement (3 points)

• 3 points: Response includes at least 2 of the following:
  • Identifies a specific point from the classmate’s post and explains agreement/disagreement with reasoning
  • Asks a thoughtful follow-up question that extends the discussion
  • Provides a new example, data point, or perspective that builds on the classmate’s ideas
  • Connects the classmate’s post to a different course concept or real-world application
• 2 points: Response includes 1 of the above elements
• 0 points: Response is merely agreement/disagreement without explanation (e.g., “I agree with you” or “Good post”)

Simple agreement without explanation does NOT count as substantive engagement.

9. Professional Tone (1 point)

• 1 point: Response maintains a respectful, professional tone throughout (even if disagreeing)
• 0 points: Response includes unprofessional, disrespectful, or dismissive language

10. Writing Quality (2 points)

• 2 points: Response has fewer than 3 grammatical/spelling errors AND is clearly written
• 1 point: Response has 3-5 grammatical/spelling errors
• 0 points: Response has more than 5 grammatical/spelling errors

Total: 20 Points

ORIGINAL POST: 12 Points Total

• Word count (150-500 words): 2 points
• Course concepts (minimum 2 concepts): 3 points
• Source references (minimum 2 references): 2 points
• Personal analysis with support: 3 points
• Writing quality: 2 points

RESPONSE POST: 8 Points Total

• Word count (minimum 100 words): 1 point
• Proper formatting: 1 point
• Substantive engagement: 3 points
• Professional tone: 1 point
• Writing quality: 2 points

Examples of Meeting Criteria

Example 1: Course Concept Integration (3 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “The video talks about how portfolios should be balanced. I think this makes sense for investors.”

Meets requirement (3 points): “Berger’s analysis applies Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), which suggests that combining assets with low correlation can reduce overall portfolio risk. The 60/40 allocation specifically leverages the historically negative correlation between stocks and bonds to optimize the risk-return tradeoff along the efficient frontier.”

Example 2: Source Material Reference (2 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “The video mentioned that the 60/40 portfolio has performed well historically.”

Meets requirement (2 points): “According to Berger’s Portfolio Visualizer data, the 60/40 portfolio has delivered an average annual return of approximately 9.5% since 1970 (timestamp 4:32). He also specifically addresses the 2022 criticism, noting that this was only the third time in history both stocks and bonds declined simultaneously (timestamp 7:15).”

Example 3: Substantive Engagement (3 points)

Insufficient (0 points): “I agree with your post. You made good points about the portfolio.”

Meets requirement (3 points): “I appreciate your point about the 60/40 portfolio’s resilience, but I’d like to offer a different perspective on the duration risk you mentioned. While you’re correct that rising rates hurt bond prices, the current yield environment in 2026 actually provides a cushion that wasn’t present in the 2010s. With 10-year Treasury yields around 4-5%, bonds now offer meaningful income that can offset price declines. This connects to our Week 2 discussion on yield-to-maturity calculations.

I’m curious: do you think investors should adjust the 40% bond allocation based on their age and time horizon? For example, should a 30-year-old investor reduce bond exposure given their longer investment timeline?”

(This response: 1) explains disagreement with reasoning, 2) provides new perspective with course concept, and 3) asks a thoughtful follow-up question = 3 elements = 3 points)

Self-Assessment Tool

Before submitting your discussion board posts, complete this self-assessment:

ORIGINAL POST SELF-ASSESSMENT

Criterion 1: Word Count (150-500 words) – 2 points possible

• My word count: _____ words
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

Criterion 2: Course Concepts (minimum 2) – 3 points possible

• Course concept 1: _______________________
• Course concept 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points

Criterion 3: Source References (minimum 2) – 2 points possible

• Source reference 1: _______________________
• Source reference 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

Criterion 4: Personal Analysis with Support – 3 points possible

• My position/opinion: _______________________
• Supporting reason 1: _______________________
• Supporting reason 2: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points__

Criterion 5: Writing Quality – 2 points possible

• Number of grammatical/spelling errors: _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

ORIGINAL POST SUBTOTAL: _____ out of 12 points

RESPONSE POST SELF-ASSESSMENT

Criterion 6: Word Count (minimum 100 words) – 1 point possible

• My word count: _____ words
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 7: Proper Formatting – 1 point possible

• Is my title correct? (Yes/No): _____
• Required format: “Response Post to the Original Post by [First Name Last Name]”
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 8: Substantive Engagement (minimum 2 elements) – 3 points possible

• Element 1 included: _______________________
• Element 2 included: _______________________
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 3 points

Criterion 9: Professional Tone – 1 point possible

• Is my tone professional and respectful? (Yes/No): _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 1 point

Criterion 10: Writing Quality – 2 points possible

• Number of grammatical/spelling errors: _____
• My self-assessment score: _____ out of 2 points

RESPONSE POST SUBTOTAL: _____ out of 8 points

TOTAL SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE: _____ out of 20 points

Graham, John and Campbell Harvey (2002). How Do CFOs Make Capital Budgeting and Capital Structure Decisions? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 15 (1), 8-23.

Touchstone 4: Write a Personal Code of Ethics

OVERVIEW: In this assignment, you will write a personal code of ethics. In the code of ethics, you will state your professional goals and the ethics that guide you. This should be about 1-2 pages and at least 300-400 words..

ASSIGNMENT: Perhaps youve heard the quote, “If you dont know what you stand for, youll fall for anything.” Your personal code of ethics is your own statement of what you stand for, establishing a set of principles that guide your decision making and behavior. It serves as a moral compass, helping you navigate challenging situations with integrity and purpose. Including a personal code of ethics in a job application package can demonstrate to potential employers a candidate’s commitment to ethical conduct and values alignment.

This assignment can help you during interviews and throughout your professional career, as you are more likely to make ethical decisions that align with your personal values, and it can help prepare you for interview responses.

It stands as a written document of what you believe in, what you are willing to devote your time and energy to, and what you value. In times of conflict and confusion, it can serve as a Touchstone for you to review, grounding you in your own personal code of ethics.

Your personal code of ethics will include:

• A personal ethical statement naming three values.
• At least 3-4 sentences of support for each value statement.
• At least 3-4 sentences aligning each value with your professional goals.
• At least three references to academically appropriate articles with appropriate and correct APA citations and references.

Helpful Links:

---

A. Directions

Step 1: Prep Your Paper

1. Identify three personal values, reflecting on your beliefs about what is most important in life to you. You want to answer this question to yourself: “What kind of world do I want to live in?” Describing how you want the world to be can lead you to what actions are required to attain it, and what values motivate those actions. Consider what principles guide your decision making and what you prioritize above all else. These will be the main ideas of your paper.

2. Once you have a clear understanding of your values, compose a personal ethical statement. This will become the thesis statement for your paper. For example, if you believe in honesty, integrity, and compassion, you might write, “I value honesty and always strive to speak the truth, act with integrity, and show compassion to others.”

Step 2: Draft Your Paper

1. Write an introduction to your paper that includes the ethical statement you prepared in Step 1. The introduction should engage readers with a compelling hook and communicate the purpose of the statement. For example, if you are seeking a job in finance, you might engage readers with a vision of yourself in five years, working for an investment company that specializes in impact investing.

2. Write 3-4 sentences for each value you described in your ethical statement. Explain why the value is important to you. Be specific and use examples to support your position. You may also use academically appropriate articles to support your positions. (Academically appropriate usually means appearing in a peer-reviewed journal; you may also use non-peer-reviewed articles written by authorities and published in industry standard publications like The Wall Street Journal or The Economist.) For example, if you value honesty, you could cite a study that shows that trust in interpersonal relationships improves worker satisfaction and increases productivity. Use these sources to provide evidence and examples of how your value is important and beneficial. Make sure to properly cite your sources according to the APA citation style, usually with the last name(s) of the author(s) and the year of publication in parentheses.

EXAMPLE

Studies show that organizations with lack of trust are less efficient and less profitable (Columbo & Fletcher, 2020).

3. After describing a value, write an additional 3-4 sentences about how your goals align with that value. As above, you may want to use sources for additional information or support. For example, if you value environmental sustainability, you may have a goal to work for a company with eco-friendly practices. You might cite a study that lists the financial companies with the best environmental ratings and name the top three as the ones where you most want to obtain a position.

4. Write a conclusion to your paper that summarizes your main ideas and ends the paper. In this paragraph, you might describe how your goals and values will help build the world you want to live in.

5. Finally, add the references to the articles you cited in the paper. Be sure to use APA format, usually in the format shown below. Make sure any URLs are correct and do not contain any unnecessary code.

EXAMPLE

Carucci, R. (2019, February 15). 4 Ways Lying Becomes the Norm at a Company. Harvard Business Review. .

Step 3: Review and Revise Your Paper

Review your personal code of ethics to make sure it reflects your values and your professional goals, and that each point receives complete support and resources correctly referenced. The way these points are introduced and organized is up to you, but your paper should be at least 300-400 words, including:

1. An introduction that includes your ethical statement, which names three values that are important to you.
2. 3-4 sentences describing why the first value is important to you.
3. 3-4 sentences describing how your professional goals align with this value.
4. 3-4 sentences describing why the second value is important to you.
5. 3-4 sentences describing how your professional goals align with this value.
6. 3-4 sentences describing why the third value is important to you.
7. 3-4 sentences describing how your professional goals align with this value.
8. A conclusion recapping your main points.

Refer to the checklist below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.

Did you identify at least three values, each supported by 3-4 sentences of evidence and/or examples?
Did you include an additional 3-4 sentences aligning the value with your professional goals?
Did you include a compelling introduction and a conclusion?
Did you provide at least three correct APA citations to support your work, and references at the end?
Is your Touchstone at least 300-400 words long, and 12 pages?
Did you review the rubric to make sure you are meeting all of the goals of the assignment?
Did you review your Touchstone to ensure no grammar errors exist? You may also want to use any grammar check tools you have available.

---

B. Rubric

	Advanced (100%)	Proficient (85%)	Acceptable (75%)	Needs Improvement (50%)	Nonperformance (0%)
Values There are three values clearly identified with at least 3-4 sentences about each. (25%)	At least three values are clearly identified and described with at least 3-4 sentences about each.	At least three values are identified and described with at least 3-4 sentences about each.	At least three values are identified with at least 2-4 sentences about each; some descriptions may be short and lack detail.	Two or three values are identified with at least 1-4 sentences about each; one value is missing or hard to find, or some descriptions have fewer than 3 sentences, or both.	At least two values are not identified or so little work is done that no credit can be given.
Professional Goals Each value described is followed by 3-4 sentences aligning the value with professional goals. (25%)	Each value is followed by 3-4 sentences that identifies one or more professional goals and has a meaningful alignment with the value named.	Each value is followed by 3-4 sentences that identifies one or more professional goals and has alignment with the value named.	Each value is followed by 3-4 sentences that identifies one or more professional goals, but one or more may lack an alignment with the value identified.	Two or three values are followed by 1-4 sentences that identify professional goals, but one value is not followed by the related goals, or some explanations are fewer than 3 sentences, or both.	No sentences describing professional goals are present or so little work is done that no credit can be given.
Support, Examples, and Evidence Main ideas are supported with evidence and examples, including external sources and concepts and terms from the tutorials. (30%)	The touchstone clearly and eloquently explains the main ideas with evidence and examples. Support integrates concepts and terms from the tutorials.	The touchstone explains the main ideas with evidence and examples.	The touchstone provides some explanation of the main ideas with evidence and/or examples. One or two ideas may be unclear or not well supported.	The touchstone provides limited explanation of the main ideas with minimal or no evidence and/or examples.	So little support is provided that no credit can be given.
APA References References are given to appropriate sources in APA format. (10%)	There are at least 3 sources used to support the statement. All materials are academically appropriate and properly cited. The references are listed at the end in appropriate format.	2 sources are used to support the statement. Materials are mostly academically appropriate. There may be a few errors in citation; at least one source is not academically appropriate. The references are listed at the end in appropriate format but may have a few errors.	1 source is used to support the statement. Materials are not academically appropriate. References are provided but are not in APA format or have many errors and inconsistencies.	No sources are used to support the statement, or materials are not academically appropriate and are not properly cited. References are not provided or are insufficient.	No references are present or so little work is done that no credit can be given.
Conventions Submission follows conventions for standard written English and meets requirements. (10%)	There are almost no errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization; all length and formatting requirements are met.	There are minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that do not impede readability; length and formatting requirements are nearly met.	There are frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that somewhat impede readability; length and formatting requirements are nearly met.	There are consistent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that significantly impede readability; length and formatting requirements are not met.	Submission does not meet the minimum threshold for points to be awarded.

---

C. Requirements

The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:

• Use a readable 11- or 12-point font and 1-inch margins.
• Composition is double-spaced and uses indented paragraphs with no additional lines of space between paragraphs.
• References are single-spaced with a hanging indent and listed alphabetically by the first letter of the entry.
• Composition must be original and written for this assignment, and all writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
• Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
• Submission must include your name and the date.
• Include all of the assignment components in a single .doc or .docx file.

Touchstone 2: Review a Code of Ethics

OVERVIEW: In this assignment, you will review a code of ethics of a well-known company or organization and answer questions about the strengths and potential weaknesses of the code.

ASSIGNMENT: Download the submission template below, which further breaks down the steps involved in this assignment. You will return the completed template as your Touchstone submission.

download

Helpful Links:

---

A. Directions

STEP 1: Choose Code of Ethics

Select ONE code of ethics from the list provided. You may not use a code of ethics not on this list. Note: Some of these require following additional links within the page to read the complete document. You should follow all links and read the complete contents of the code of ethics you select.

• 3M
• Berkshire Hathaway
• Starbucks
• Society for Human Resource Management
• American Society of Association Executives
• NVIDIA

Step 2: Evaluate Code of Ethics

Answer the following questions, applying the vocabulary and concepts from the tutorials.

1. Name the company or organization whose code of ethics you have chosen.

2. Review the code of ethics youve chosen and find the part of the code that addresses each topic below. Write 12 sentences paraphrasing the company policy on each topic. (See .)

• Basic conduct
• Confidentiality
• Competition
• Giving and receiving gifts
• Insider trading
• Social media usage
• Disparagement

For example, in the American Red Cross code of ethics, they state, Any single gift or entertainment accepted must have a nominal value no greater than $75 and meet all of the guidelines in our Business Gifts and Entertainment Policy. This would relate most closely to giving and receiving gifts. In the space provided in the template, you could write, Employees may not receive gifts that are worth more than $75.

If you cannot find a particular policy after carefully searching through the entire document or website, you may instead write a sentence or two about why this particular business has chosen not to include a policy in their code of ethics. For example, the lack of a social media policy may be intentional or may be an oversight. Which do you think it is, in this case? What potential problems might occur because the company has not included this concern in their code of ethics?

3. After reviewing the code of ethics (especially the sections listed in question #2), write a paragraph (57 sentences) describing whether the code describes an ethical minimum (legal compliance) or a higher ethical standard. Support your answers with specific examples from the code. (See .) For example, the American Red Cross code of ethics states nondiscrimination. In this case, it would be a legal duty of the organization not to discriminate because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so this is an ethical minimum.

4. After reviewing the code of ethics (especially the sections listed in question #2), write a paragraph (57 sentences) describing what kind of culture the company seems to have based on the competing values framework (adhocracy, clan, market, hierarchy). Support your answers with specific examples from the code of ethics. (See .) For example, the American Red Cross code of ethics asks employees to …embrace the rich diversity around us and strive to be inclusive. This relates most closely with clan culture in the CVF.

5. After reviewing the code of ethics (especially the sections listed in question #2), write a paragraph (57 sentences) describing what ethical theory they seem to follow. (See and .) Support your answer with specific examples from the code of ethics. For example, in the American Red Cross code of ethics, the element of harassment-free workplace relates most closely with virtue ethics because the reasoning behind the policy is to help people flourish.

6. Based on this organizations code of ethics, write 23 sentences in response to each question.

1. Do you feel they are reasonable and employee-centered?
2. Do any of the policies give you concern?
3. Would you want to work here?
4. What additional information would you find useful before making a decision to work here or not?

Refer to the checklist below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
Did you select a code of ethics from the ones listed above and read it carefully in its entirety?
Did you locate each topic in the code of ethics and describe it in your own words?
If any policy is missing, did you explain in your own words why they may not have included a policy and what problems may occur because of this?
Did you answer all of the subsequent questions using both language from the code of ethics and the concepts and terms covered in the tutorials?
Did you meet the length requirements for each question?
Did you review the rubric to make sure you are meeting all of the goals of the assignment?
Did you review your Touchstone to ensure no grammar errors exist?

---

B. Rubric

	Advanced (100%)	Proficient (85%)	Acceptable (75%)	Needs Improvement (50%)	Nonperformance (0%)
Basic Analysis of Code of Ethics (COE) Touchstone provides the name of a company from the list provided and locates and describes each topic on the list. (10%)	Touchstone identifies a company or organization from the list and accurately describes each item on the list. Summaries indicate a thorough review and understanding of the code, using language from the tutorials as appropriate.	Touchstone identifies a company or organization from the list and accurately describes each item on the list. Summaries are accurate and consistent with the tutorials.	Touchstone identifies a company or organization from the list and accurately describes each item on the list. Summaries may indicate an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of concepts from the tutorials.	Touchstone identifies a company or organization from the list and describes each item on the list based on their COE. Some descriptions may be simply copied and pasted, inaccurate, or incomplete.	Company identified is not on the list, descriptions are not provided, or so little effort is evident that no credit can be given.
Legal Compliance and Ethical Standards Touchstone describes the COE in terms of legal compliance vs. a higher ethical standard with supporting evidence from the COE. (20%)	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is clear, supported by evidence from the COE, and shows depth of understanding.	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is given with examples from the COE.	Response is accurate but does not use the language from the tutorials. Rationale is given but examples from COE are limited or missing.	Response is given but does not use the language from the tutorials and may not be accurate. Rationale is not given.	Response does not address the question or so little effort is evident that no credit can be given.
Competing Values Framework Touchstone describes the organizational culture in the terms of the competing values framework as evident in the COE. (20%)	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is clear, supported by evidence from the COE, and shows depth of understanding.	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is given with examples from the COE.	Response is accurate but does not use the language from the tutorials. Rationale is given but examples from the COE are limited or missing.	Response is given but does not use the language from the tutorials and may not be accurate. Rationale is not given.	Response does not address the question or so little effort is evident that no credit can be given.
Ethical Frameworks Touchstone addresses how the chosen sentences from the code of ethics tie to an ethical theory. (20%)	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is clear, supported by evidence from the COE, and shows depth of understanding.	Response is accurate and uses the appropriate language from the tutorials. Rationale is given with examples from the COE.	Response is accurate but does not use the language from the tutorials. Rationale is given but examples from COE are limited or missing.	Response is given but does not use the language from the tutorials and may not be accurate. Rationale is not given.	Response does not address the question or so little effort is evident that no credit can be given.
Reflection Touchstone provides thoughtful personal responses to the questions, evaluating the COE as employee-centered, describing any concerns they have, and deciding if they would want to work for the company. (20%)	Reflection provides thoughtful responses to all questions, supporting answers with evidence from the COE and using the concepts and language from the tutorials.	Reflection provides responses to all questions, supporting answers with evidence from the COE.	Reflection provides responses to all questions but may not provide supporting evidence for all responses.	Reflection provides minimal responses to all questions without supporting evidence.	Response does not address the question or so little effort is evident that no credit can be given.
Conventions Submission follows conventions for standard written English and meets requirements. (10%)	There are almost no errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization; all length and formatting requirements are met.	There are minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that do not impede readability; length and formatting requirements are nearly met.	There are frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that somewhat impede readability; length and formatting requirements are nearly met.	There are consistent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that significantly impede readability; length and formatting requirements are not nearly met.	Submission does not meet the minimum threshold for points to be awarded.

---

C. Check Your Work

The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:

• Use a readable 11- or 12-point font.
• Composition must be original and written for this assignment, and all writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
• Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
• Submission must include your name and the date.
• Include all of the assignment components in a single .doc or .docx file, using the template provided.