| Course | CSR 610 Business Ethics and Culture |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | graduate assignment applying an ethical decision-making framework to a sourcing choice |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MS Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for CSR 610 Module 5
Ethical Decision Analysis: Switching Magnesium Suppliers
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
CSR 610: Business Ethics and Culture
Module Five Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Ethical Decision Analysis: Switching Magnesium Suppliers
Introduction
The company's procurement team has found a magnesium oxide supplier whose price is 22 percent below the current supplier's. Magnesium is in eleven of the company's products, and the switch would save about $410,000 a year, a large share of the procurement team's annual savings target. The quality lab tested the first trial lot and found lead at 2.1 parts per million, above the company's internal specification of 1.5 and above the 0.8 stated on the supplier's own certificate of analysis. Procurement argues that the result is within federal limits and that a second test might come out lower. This paper works the decision through an ethical decision-making framework.
Step One: The Facts
Some facts are verified and others are claims. Verified: the price difference, the internal specification and the company's own test result of 2.1 parts per million on one lot. Also verified: the main magnesium product's daily serving of two capsules contains about 500 milligrams of magnesium oxide, so at 2.1 parts per million it would deliver about 1.05 micrograms of lead a day. California's consumer warning law requires a warning on products that deliver more than 0.5 micrograms of lead a day, and the retail customer prohibits such warnings on its store brands. Claimed but not verified: the supplier's certificate showing 0.8 parts per million and procurement's belief that later lots will test lower. Velasquez (2012) emphasizes that sound ethical judgment starts with accurate facts, and here the most important fact contradicts the supplier's paperwork.
Step Two: The Ethical Issues
Three ethical questions arise. Would accepting the material expose consumers to more lead than the company has decided is acceptable, without their knowledge? Would selling the product in California without a warning, or reformulating to avoid the warning, mislead consumers or the retailer? And what does it say about the company's integrity if a supplier's certificate differs from the company's own test and the difference is set aside? Jones (1991) notes that the moral intensity of an issue rises with the probability and concentration of harm; here the harm to any person is small but certain to reach everyone who takes the product daily.
Step Three: Stakeholders
Consumers, especially pregnant women and children who might take the product, are affected most directly. The retailer bears legal and reputational risk for products sold under its name. Procurement staff are measured on savings and would lose most of this year's target. Owners benefit from lower costs but bear the risk of a recall or retailer loss. Quality staff, whose result is being questioned, will watch how their work is treated.
Step Four: Options
Four realistic options exist. First, accept the new material, add the California warning and ask the retailer to accept it. Second, accept it without a warning, relying on further tests to show lower lead. Third, stay with the current supplier but invite the new supplier to qualify by delivering three consecutive lots that pass the company's own testing at 1.5 parts per million or below. Fourth, reject the new supplier entirely and keep looking for savings elsewhere.
Step Five: Evaluation
Options evaluated
| Option | Harm | Duty and honesty | Fairness | Integrity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept with a warning | Higher lead to consumers, disclosed | Honest, but retailer forbids | Shifts risk to consumers | Weakens own specification |
| Accept without a warning | Higher lead, undisclosed | Fails; relies on unverified hope | Unfair to consumers and retailer | Fails |
| Stay, let new supplier qualify | No added harm | Honest | Fair to all, delays savings | Upholds specification |
| Reject new supplier | No added harm | Honest | Loses savings unnecessarily | Upholds specification |
Accepting without a warning fails on every test: it knowingly sells a product above the company's own limit and would likely violate California law. Accepting with a warning is honest but abandons the company's specification and conflicts with the retailer's rules. Rejecting the supplier outright protects consumers but forgoes savings that may be achievable if the supplier can meet the specification. The third option protects consumers, respects the company's specification and leaves the savings available.
A further consideration supports it. If the supplier cannot explain why its certificate showed less than half the lead the company measured, that gap is itself a warning about its testing, and every other ingredient it sells would deserve scrutiny. Requiring three compliant lots tests not only this ingredient but the supplier's honesty, which matters for a company whose own records were questioned in March. The company cannot credibly ask its retail customers to trust its paperwork while trusting a supplier's paperwork that its own lab has contradicted.
Step Six: Decision and Implementation
The company should stay with its current supplier and offer the new supplier a path to qualification: three consecutive lots tested by the company's own lab at or below 1.5 parts per million, plus an explanation of why its certificate showed 0.8. The quality manager should send the test result to the supplier in writing.
Implementation matters because procurement is measured on savings. Treviño and Nelson argue that people follow what they are rewarded for (Treviño & Nelson, 2021), so the chief operating officer should adjust procurement's target this year to reflect a qualification delay, and should publicly credit the lab for catching the discrepancy. Otherwise, the lesson procurement learns is that quality tests cost them their bonus.
The Publicity Test
If a news story reported that the company declined a cheaper ingredient because its own test found more lead than its limit allowed, and gave the supplier a fair chance to qualify, the company would be comfortable. If the story reported that it accepted the ingredient on the strength of a certificate its own lab had contradicted, it would not.
Conclusion
The framework shows that the cheaper material should not be accepted on current evidence, and that the best option is to let the supplier prove it can meet the company's specification. The decision protects consumers, upholds the company's own standard and keeps the savings within reach, provided procurement is not penalized for honoring the result. It also tells the lab that its findings will be acted on.
References
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395. https://doi.org/10.2307/258867
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.
Velasquez, M. G. (2012). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th ed.). Pearson.
What the CSR 610 Module 5 instructions ask for
The Module Five assignment in CSR 610 asks you to apply a structured ethical decision-making framework to a business decision. Frameworks typically move from gathering facts and identifying the ethical issues, through identifying stakeholders and their interests, to developing options, evaluating them against ethical principles and consequences, choosing and planning how to act. Strong submissions show each step with the case's details, separate facts from assumptions, develop more than two options and consider how the decision will be communicated and carried out. They also reflect on whether the decision would hold up if made public. Many versions also ask you to apply a publicity or newspaper test to the decision.
How this CSR 610 Module 5 decision framework assignment example is built
The paper starts with the facts: the new supplier's magnesium oxide is 22 percent cheaper, saving about $410,000 a year, but the company's incoming test of the first lot found lead at 2.1 parts per million, above its internal limit of 1.5 and above the supplier's own certificate. At that level a two-capsule serving delivers about one microgram of lead a day, which would require a cancer and reproductive harm warning for sale in California, something the retail customer forbids on its brand. It identifies consumers, the retailer, procurement staff and owners as stakeholders, develops four options and evaluates each. It recommends staying with the current supplier while the new one qualifies with three compliant lots under the company's own testing.
Where the CSR 610 Module 5 rubric puts the points
The rubric for the framework assignment commonly scores the completeness and accuracy of each step, stakeholder analysis, the range and realism of options, the quality of evaluation, the justification of the decision and attention to implementation. High-scoring papers show the framework working on the case rather than describing it, distinguish verified facts from claims, weigh options against several principles and anticipate how the decision will be received by those it affects. Papers lose credit for skipping steps, for options that are not real alternatives, for forgetting the staff who will live with the choice and for recommendations that would not survive public scrutiny.
CSR 610 Module 5 help: the mistakes that cost points
Decision framework papers sometimes list the steps of the framework and then announce a decision. Make each step do work on the case: what exactly are the facts, which are verified, who is affected and how, what are the real options and how does each fare. Look for creative options beyond yes and no, such as conditional approval. Think about the people who must live with the decision, here a procurement team rewarded for savings. Apply a publicity test: would the company be comfortable if its decision and reasons were reported in the news? Note any figures you verified yourself and any you took on trust, since that difference often drives the decision.
Get CSR 610 Module 5 written to your instructions
Send the CSR 610 Module 5 assignment and your decision. The paper will take it through every step of a framework, from facts and stakeholders to options, evaluation, recommendation and follow-through. About two days; your first paper is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More CSR 610 papers and related MS Management samples
- CSR 610 Module 1 Discussion: Why Ethics Became a Business Problem in Ogden
- CSR 610 Module 2 Ethical Theories Assignment: A Borderline Batch Through Four Lenses
- CSR 610 Module 3 Milestone One: Assessing the Company's Ethical Culture
- CSR 610 Module 4 Discussion: When Making the Ship Date Becomes the Value
- ACC 693 Module 10 Final Project: The Investigation Report and Authentication
- ACC 640 Module 7 Discussion: Testing Every Order With Data Analytics
- BMB 630 Module 7 Discussion: Dynamic Pricing and the Fans' Sense of Fairness
- BMB 515 Module 2 Industry Structure Assignment: Three Income Streams and Where the Label Sits
CSR 610 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free CSR 610 Module 5 Decision Framework sample?
This page includes a complete CSR 610 Module 5 framework analysis of a supplement maker's supplier decision.
What are the steps in an ethical decision-making framework?
Gather the facts, define the ethical issues, identify stakeholders and their interests, develop options, evaluate them against principles and consequences, decide, and plan how to act and communicate.
Why separate verified facts from claims in an ethical decision?
Because decisions based on unverified claims, such as a supplier's certificate, can rest on false assumptions; testing what can be tested reduces that risk.
What is the publicity test?
A check that asks whether you would be comfortable if your decision and your reasons were made public, which helps reveal choices that rely on concealment.
How should an ethical decision be communicated to people measured on different goals?
By explaining the reasons, acknowledging the cost to their goals and adjusting measures where possible so that doing the right thing is not penalized.