Reading Time: 30 minutes
WGU C717 Task 2: How to Actually Pass Business Ethics (FZP1 & EKP1)
Understanding the Two Task 2 Variants
| FZP1 (Current — 2024/25+) | EKP1 (Older variant) | |
| Scenario given | Procurement manager conflict of interest; a vendor bidding process where the manager’s close friend owns one of the companies | Ethics officer at a marketing firm; employees and workplace ethical issues |
| A section focus | A: Analyze the conflict-of-interest dilemma through multiple sub-questions | A1–A6: Six distinct sections on rights, responsibilities, dilemma, theories, decisions, justification |
| Key theories required | Utilitarian + relativistic analysis | Utilitarian + relativistic (plus Kantian in strong submissions) |
| What you bring | Analysis of the given scenario — no need to invent dilemma | You develop the ethical dilemma (A3) from scratch based on the scenario |
| Length | ~800–1,200 words | ~1,200–2,000 words |
| WHICH version do you have?
Check the code at the top of your task document in the WGU portal. FZP1 = procurement conflict-of-interest scenario. EKP1 = marketing firm ethics officer scenario. The sample paper in Part 2 of this guide covers the EKP1 structure (A1–A6) as it is the more comprehensive variant. The FZP1-specific notes are in the variant box above. Both variants: submit in APA 7 format, heading structure matching rubric labels (A1, A2 etc.), minimum 3–5 in-text citations, reference list at end. |
C717 Task 2 Assignment (EKP1 / Ethics Officer Scenario)
The following is the task prompt as confirmed across student submissions and course materials. Always verify against your personal portal document — WGU occasionally revises wording.
| SCENARIO
You are the ethics officer of a marketing firm. The company prides itself on only engaging in ethical business practices. You are preparing a training session for new employees. REQUIREMENTS — Take on the role of the ethics officer and address the following: A1. Describe three rights and responsibilities of employees based on the scenario. A2. Evaluate two ethical responsibilities of the employer within the context of the employer/employee relationship described in the scenario. A3. Develop one ethical business dilemma that can be used to demonstrate employee understanding of the company’s ethical standards. A4. Evaluate the dilemma from part A3 from a utilitarian and relativistic perspective. A5. Describe two common ethical decisions that reflect corporate ethics and responsibilities that employees can face while working in a corporate setting. (These should be different from the ethical business dilemma in part A3.) A6. Explain why each ethical decision in part A5 presents an ethical dilemma and how an individual might justify unethical behavior (e.g., common excuses). |
| FZP1 prompt (conflict of interest scenario)
FZP1 prompt: A procurement manager must choose between several vendors, one of whom is a close friend. Accepting their bid might appear biased, even if it is legitimate. Requirements: (A.1) One workplace consequence of accepting the bid. (A.2) One workplace consequence of rejecting the bid. (A.3a) Explain utilitarian ethics. (A.3b) Describe how a utilitarian would resolve the dilemma. (A.4a) Explain relativistic ethics. (A.4b) Describe how a relativist would resolve the dilemma. |
What Evaluators Actually Check — Section by Section
| Section | What passes | What fails |
| A1 | Three distinct rights paired with their corresponding employee responsibilities; each pair cites the relevant law (OSHA, FLSA, ADA, etc.) | Rights listed alone without matching responsibilities; no legal citations; fewer than three pairs; responsibilities added as a vague afterthought at end |
| A2 | Two employer ethical responsibilities that go beyond legal minimums; explanation shows the gap between legal compliance and ethical obligation | Simply listing legal requirements (OSHA, EEOC) without showing what goes beyond the law; fewer than two responsibilities; no employer/employee relationship context |
| A3 | One clear dilemma with genuinely competing moral obligations; specific enough to analyze; tied to the company’s ethical standards | An illegal act framed as a dilemma; a situation with an obvious single answer; vague scenario without real ethical tension; copying a TechFite dilemma from Task 1 |
| A4 | Both theories correctly defined AND specifically applied to the A3 dilemma; clear explanation of what each perspective would recommend | Theories defined but not applied to the scenario; only one theory addressed; generic application that could fit any scenario |
| A5 | Two additional ethical decisions (different from A3); specific and realistic workplace situations; clearly tied to corporate ethics | Repeating the A3 dilemma; situations that are personal rather than corporate; too vague to analyze |
| A6 | Explanation of why each A5 situation is a dilemma; plausible rationalization an employee might actually use to justify unethical behavior | Simply restating A5; no rationalization provided; rationalization that is obviously wrong rather than plausibly tempting |
Before Anything Else: Task 2 Is Not Task 1
A lot of students come into Task 2 with the same energy they brought to Task 1 looking for the “right” case study, the “correct” dilemma, the scenario that WGU wants. That’s the wrong frame entirely.
Task 1 handed you the scenario. TechFite was given to you. Task 2 is the opposite; you bring the scenario. WGU wants to see if you can identify a genuine ethical situation in the real world, frame it properly, and apply what the course taught you.
That means there is no “right” dilemma hiding somewhere online. The right dilemma is one you frame and analyze well. Students downloading sample papers are, in a very real sense, solving the wrong problem; because the evaluator isn’t grading the scenario, they’re grading your analysis of it.
Section A1: Employee Rights and Responsibilities; The Pairing Everyone Gets Wrong
Section A1 looks like the easy part. List a few employee rights, write a sentence or two about each, move on. That’s exactly the problem — because listing rights is not what the rubric is asking for.
The evaluator is checking whether you understand that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same relationship. For every right an employee holds, there’s a corresponding duty they carry. The rubric wants to see those pairs — not just one side of the equation.
The Three Pairs that Work Best
| The Right
Safe workplace. Every employee is entitled to work in an environment free of recognized hazards to their health and safety. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 1970 |
✦ The Responsibility
Follow all workplace safety protocols, report observed hazards immediately, and refrain from conduct that creates risk for colleagues. |
| The Right
Fair compensation. Employees have the right to minimum wage, applicable overtime, and accurate time records. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 1938 |
✦ The Responsibility
Work all contracted hours honestly, perform the duties the role requires, and refrain from falsifying time records. |
| The Right
Freedom from discrimination. No employee may be treated differently based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Title VII (1964), ADA (1990), ADEA (1967) |
✦ The Responsibility
Treat all colleagues with respect, refuse to participate in discriminatory language or conduct, and report harassment witnessed — not just experienced. |
| The mistake that triggers revision
Don’t write three paragraphs about rights and then add one vague paragraph at the end about responsibilities. Write them as pairs — right, its legal backing, and the matching employee duty — so the connection is unmissable. Evaluators flag the “separate lists” structure immediately. |
Section A2: Employer Ethical Responsibilities; Beyond the Law
There’s a concept at the heart of Section A2 that, once you grasp it, makes the whole section click: ethical responsibility is not the same thing as legal obligation.
An employer can follow every regulation on the books and still treat people terribly. Creating a culture where employees are afraid to speak up. Tolerating a manager who subtly undermines women without ever crossing a legal line. None of that is illegal. All of it is ethically wrong.
| “Following the law is the floor of ethical behavior, not the ceiling.” |
Two Responsibilities That Demonstrate This Distinction
- Psychological safety, not just physical safety. OSHA covers physical hazards. But an employer’s ethical responsibility extends to ensuring employees feel safe raising concerns, disagreeing with decisions, and reporting wrongdoing — without fear of subtle retaliation or career damage.
- Building a genuine ethical culture. A company can distribute a code of conduct and technically satisfy a compliance requirement. The ethical responsibility is for leadership to actually model that code — for accountability to apply equally at every level of the hierarchy.
| ✦ Optional but impressive
A brief reference to stakeholder theory (R. Edward Freeman, 1984) anchors this section theoretically. The idea: businesses have ethical obligations to all parties affected by their actions; not just shareholders. It explains why employers have ethical responsibilities beyond legal compliance. |
Section A3: Your Ethical Dilemma; The Section That Makes or Breaks the Paper
A dilemma exists when two or more legitimate moral obligations conflict. Not a situation where one option is obviously right and the other is just tempting for selfish reasons; genuine ethical tension where a reasonable, well-intentioned person could defend either choice.
Four Scenario Types That Hold Up Best
- Conflict of interest. A personal relationship or financial stake creates bias in a professional decision; procurement, hiring, promotions.
- Whistleblowing. You discover wrongdoing. Reporting protects others but has real consequences for you and the person involved.
- Confidentiality vs. transparency. You have information that affects a colleague’s wellbeing; but sharing it violates a confidentiality obligation.
- Systemic fairness. You observe treatment that feels unfair along gender or age lines; evidence is ambiguous, the person has power, and staying silent makes you complicit.
| What disqualifies a dilemma
Illegal actions framed as dilemmas. “Should I commit expense fraud to help my team?” is not a dilemma; it’s a question about whether to break the law. Your scenario must involve genuinely ambiguous ethical territory, not criminal behavior dressed up as moral complexity. |
Section A4: Applying Ethical Theories; Utilitarian and Relativistic
The error that kills most A4 sections: treating “apply” as “define.” Writing “Utilitarianism holds that the greatest good for the greatest number should guide decisions” is a definition; it earns you nothing in A4. What earns you marks is connecting that theory to the specific people, choices, and consequences in your dilemma.
The Two Required Theories
| Utilitarianism
Associated with Mill, Bentham — “the greatest good for the greatest number” Core question: Which action produces the best overall outcome across all affected parties? How to apply: Name every stakeholder in your dilemma. For each possible choice, estimate who benefits and who is harmed. The utilitarian answer is whichever option produces the better net outcome. Applied example: “From a utilitarian perspective, reporting the misconduct, though it harms one individual, protects the organization’s reputation, client trust, and the welfare of the majority of employees. The aggregate benefit outweighs the individual cost.” |
| Relativism
Ethical values and judgments depend on one’s culture, society, or personal values; there is no single universal standard Core question: Given this individual’s cultural background, personal values, and the norms of their professional community, what would they consider the right course of action? How to apply: Consider how the actor’s upbringing, cultural context, or professional norms might lead them to a different conclusion than an outside observer. Relativism doesn’t endorse wrong behavior; it explains why the actor might believe they are acting correctly. Applied example: “From a relativistic perspective, an employee raised in a culture that prizes loyalty above institutional obligation might view silence as the ethical choice; reasoning that protecting a colleague is more important than adherence to a corporate policy created by people who don’t understand the relationship.” |
| ✦ Lean into the disagreement
If utilitarianism and relativism reach different conclusions about your dilemma, don’t paper over the disagreement. Acknowledge it. Real ethical dilemmas are hard precisely because different frameworks recommend different things. Engaging with that tension shows the evaluator you understand how ethical reasoning works. |
Section A5 & A6: Common Ethical Decisions and Justifications
A5 asks for two additional, realistic workplace ethical decisions; situations that employees in corporate settings commonly face. These must be different from your A3 dilemma. They should be specific enough to analyze (“a manager deciding whether to take credit for a subordinate’s work” is far better than “an employee doing something unethical”).
A6 asks you to explain (a) why each A5 situation is genuinely an ethical dilemma, and (b) what rationalization an employee might use to justify unethical behavior. The rationalization is critical — evaluators want to see you engage with why temptation is actually tempting, not just describe what the wrong choice is.
Strong A5 Examples
- Biased promotion decision. A manager must choose between two candidates; one is a personal friend, the other is objectively more qualified. The dilemma: professional obligation to the company vs. personal loyalty.
- Taking credit for a colleague’s work. An employee who contributed minimally presents a team project as largely their own to gain recognition. The dilemma: advancing one’s career vs. fair attribution of work.
Strong A6 Rationalizations
- “My friend is a good person and would do a good job; the outcome will be the same either way.” (Ignores the systemic harm of favoritism even when the individual case works out.)
- “I did more work than the others acknowledge. I’m correcting an unfair perception.” (Rationalizes dishonesty as justice rather than as self-interest.)
The 5 Reasons C717 Task 2 Gets Sent Back
| 1 |
Rights without matching responsibilitiesSection A1 lists three employee rights with citations; and then treats responsibilities as a brief afterthought or skips them entirely.
|
| 2 |
A dilemma with only one defensible answerThe scenario describes something clearly illegal, or has one obviously right choice. The evaluator sees no genuine ethical tension.
|
| 3 |
Theories defined but never appliedSection A4 reads like a philosophy textbook, accurate definitions, but the actual scenario from A3 never appears in the analysis.
|
| 4 |
A5 too similar to or repeating A3Students use essentially the same scenario in A5 that they used in A3, or present situations too abstract to meaningfully analyze.
|
| 5 |
Missing or informal citations and referencesLaws and theorists referenced by name without APA citations. No reference list at the end. Evaluators expect scholarly formatting.
|
Before You Submit: The Honest Checklist
Work through this before you hit submit. Not as a formality — actually check each item.
| Pre-Submission Checklist — C717 Task 2 |
| ☐ A1: Three rights, each paired immediately with its corresponding employee responsibility and a legal citation |
| ☐ A2: Two employer ethical responsibilities that explicitly go beyond what the law requires |
| ☐ A3: One dilemma where a reasonable person could genuinely defend either choice — not an illegal act framed as a dilemma |
| ☐ A4: Both utilitarianism and relativism defined AND specifically applied to your A3 scenario |
| ☐ A5: Two additional ethical decisions that are clearly different from A3 and corporate in nature |
| ☐ A6: Clear explanation of why each A5 situation is a dilemma, plus a plausible rationalization for unethical behavior |
| ☐ APA format: Title page, proper headings, in-text citations for all laws and theorists, reference list |
| ☐ No more than 30% combined quotation/paraphrase; no more than 10% from any one source (WGU originality policy) |
C717 Task 2 Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the difference between the FZP1 and EKP1 versions of C717 Task 2?
They are two different task variants issued by WGU for the same course. FZP1 is the current version used by most students enrolled from 2024 onward. It gives you a pre-built scenario — a procurement manager choosing between vendors when one of them is a close friend — and asks you to analyze that specific conflict-of-interest dilemma through a series of sub-questions covering consequences, utilitarian ethics, and relativistic ethics. The total response is typically 800–1,200 words.
EKP1 is an older variant still active for some students. It places you in the role of an ethics officer at a marketing firm and requires you to complete six distinct sections (A1–A6): describing employee rights and responsibilities, evaluating employer ethical responsibilities, developing your own original ethical dilemma, analyzing it through two ethical theories, identifying two additional corporate ethical decisions, and explaining the rationalizations behind unethical behavior. The EKP1 submission typically runs 1,200–2,000 words.
The easiest way to confirm which version you have is to check the task code at the top of your assignment document in the WGU student portal.
2. How long does C717 Task 2 need to be? Is there a word count requirement?
WGU does not publish a minimum word count for C717 Task 2; the rubric evaluates whether each section is adequately addressed, not whether you hit a specific number. That said, the length required to actually pass the rubric tends to be fairly predictable in practice.
For FZP1, complete responses that pass consistently run 800–1,200 words. For EKP1, covering all six sections with the depth the rubric requires typically puts you in the 1,200–2,000 word range. Submissions significantly shorter than these ranges almost always show at least one under-addressed section.
The more useful rule than word count is this: every rubric requirement listed under each section must be visibly answered. If you read back through your response and a requirement is present only by implication rather than by direct statement, add a sentence.
3. Can I use the TechFite scenario from Task 1 in my Task 2 ethical dilemma?
No; and this is one of the most common reasons Task 2 gets sent back for revision. Task 1 and Task 2 are separate assessments. Task 1 uses the TechFite scenario provided by WGU. Task 2 (EKP1 variant) asks you to develop your own original dilemma based on the marketing firm scenario given in that task, not to recycle material from Task 1.
Evaluators are familiar with TechFite-based dilemmas — they appear frequently in recycled submissions — and using Task 1 material in Task 2 signals that the student did not engage with the actual Task 2 scenario. Beyond the plagiarism risk, a TechFite dilemma does not satisfy the requirement to demonstrate ethical reasoning within the marketing firm context the task establishes.
For FZP1, the dilemma is already given to you (the procurement manager scenario), so this issue does not apply.
4. What is the difference between “defining” utilitarian ethics and “applying” it; and why does my Task 2 keep getting sent back for this?
This is the single most common reason C717 Task 2 submissions come back for revision. Defining an ethical theory means explaining what it is. Applying it means using it to analyze your specific scenario. The rubric requires both, and many students only do the first.
A definition sounds like this: “Utilitarianism holds that an action is ethical if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” That sentence, on its own, earns you nothing in the analysis section.
An application sounds like this: “From a utilitarian perspective, the account manager should disclose the inflated metrics because the harm to the client, a healthcare nonprofit making resource decisions based on false data, outweighs the short-term benefit of retaining the contract. Protecting the wellbeing of the nonprofit’s beneficiaries represents a greater aggregate good than preserving one business relationship.”
The test is simple: if you removed the name of your specific scenario from the paragraph and the analysis would still make sense for any other scenario, you have defined the theory but not applied it. Every analytical paragraph in A4 should name specific people, specific choices, or specific consequences from your own dilemma.
5. How many sources and APA citations does C717 Task 2 require?
WGU’s originality policy requires that no more than 30% of your submission be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from outside sources, and no more than 10% from any single source. The task does not specify a minimum citation count, but in practice, passing submissions almost always include at least 3–5 in-text citations.
The most natural citation targets are: the laws you reference in A1 (OSHA, FLSA, Title VII, ADA, EEOC), the ethical theories you define in A4 (citing Mill for utilitarianism, and a source on relativism), and any employer responsibility frameworks you use in A2. Citing these is not just good APA practice — it signals to the evaluator that your claims are grounded in recognized sources rather than personal opinion.
APA 7th edition format is required: double-spaced, Times New Roman 12pt, title page, section headings matching the rubric labels (A1, A2, etc.), in-text citations in (Author, Year) format, and a full reference list at the end. Students who submit without a reference list almost always receive a revision request.
6. Why does my C717 Task 2 ethical dilemma keep getting rejected; and how do I know if my scenario actually qualifies as a dilemma?
An ethical dilemma requires two genuinely competing moral obligations. The test is whether a reasonable, well-intentioned person could make a defensible argument for either course of action. If only one option has any real moral weight; or if one of the options involves doing something illegal; the scenario does not qualify as a dilemma.
The most common reasons a dilemma gets flagged by evaluators:
It’s actually a legal issue, not an ethical one. If your scenario involves an employee deciding whether to commit fraud, steal, or break a law, there is only one defensible answer. That’s not a dilemma; it’s a question of whether to commit a crime.
The “wrong” choice is obviously wrong. If any reasonable person would immediately recognize one option as clearly unethical with no legitimate counter-argument, the scenario lacks genuine tension.
It’s too vague to analyze. “An employee faces a conflict at work” is not a dilemma. The scenario needs enough specific detail that you can name the stakeholders, describe what each party stands to gain or lose, and explain why someone might reasonably choose either path.
A strong dilemma format: Character X discovers [specific situation]. Reporting/disclosing would [consequence A for stakeholders]. Staying silent would [consequence B for stakeholders]. Both [loyalty/honesty/fairness/duty] are legitimate values in conflict here. If you can fill in that structure with your scenario and the tension feels real, your dilemma will pass.
Part 2: Complete Sample Task 2 Paper in APA 7 Format
EKP1 / Ethics Officer Variant
| How To Use This Sample
This is an annotated model. Read the [EVALUATOR NOTES] in brackets to understand why each paragraph passes the rubric. Do not copy this paper. WGU uses plagiarism detection and evaluators flag structural copying. Use this to understand the standard, then write your own original response. |
Business Ethics Task 2: Employees’ Rights and Responsibilities and Employer’s Ethical Responsibilities
Jordan T. Rivera
Western Governors University
C717: Business Ethics
October 14, 2025
A1 Employees’ Rights and Responsibilities |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: Each of the three subsections below presents a right immediately followed by its corresponding responsibility. The right is backed by a specific cited statute. This paired structure is the single most common differentiator between passing and failing A1 submissions.] |
A1. Employees’ Rights and Responsibilities
Right to a Safe and Hazard-Free Workplace
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, every employee has the legal right to work in an environment free of recognized hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm (U.S. Department of Labor [DOL], 2023a). This protection encompasses both physical conditions — such as exposure to toxic substances, unsafe equipment, and ergonomic risks — and the right to receive adequate safety training and appropriate protective equipment at no personal cost to the employee.
The corresponding employee responsibility is to comply actively with all workplace safety procedures established by the employer and mandated by OSHA. Employees are expected to report known hazards to management or, if the organization fails to respond, directly to OSHA through its whistleblower protection channels. Employees also bear the responsibility to refrain from conduct that intentionally or negligently creates danger for colleagues. A safe workplace is only functionally achievable when both parties uphold their respective obligations; employer provision of safe conditions requires employee adherence to safety protocols in order to be effective.
Right to Fair and Accurate Compensation
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 guarantees employees the right to a federal minimum wage, overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 per workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, and accurate employer record-keeping of hours worked (DOL, 2023b). These protections exist to prevent exploitation and ensure that employees receive the economic benefits their labor has earned.
In return, employees carry the responsibility to work their contracted hours honestly and to perform the duties their role requires. This includes refraining from falsifying time records, claiming pay for hours not worked, or deliberately reducing productivity to manipulate overtime calculations. The employment relationship is fundamentally contractual; just as the employer is ethically and legally obligated to pay what is owed, the employee is equally obligated to deliver the work for which they are compensated.
Right to a Discrimination-Free Workplace
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 collectively prohibit employers from making employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline, and termination, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2023). These protections reflect the ethical principle that individuals should be evaluated on the merits of their work and character, not on characteristics unrelated to job performance.
Employees share the responsibility of maintaining a discrimination-free environment. This means treating all colleagues, subordinates, and supervisors with respect regardless of their protected characteristics, refusing to participate in or encourage discriminatory language or conduct, and reporting incidents of harassment or discrimination through appropriate channels rather than remaining silent. The law protects victims of discrimination, but an organizational culture that actively discourages discrimination depends on every member of the workforce taking that responsibility seriously.
A2 Employer’s Ethical Responsibilities |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: Notice how both responsibilities begin with what the law requires and then explicitly explain what goes beyond it. This legal-vs.-ethical framing is precisely what the rubric tests. The reference to Freeman’s stakeholder theory is not required but demonstrates theoretical grounding.] |
A2. Employer’s Ethical Responsibilities
While legal compliance establishes a minimum threshold for acceptable employer conduct, ethical responsibility extends considerably beyond what statutes mandate. An organization may satisfy every applicable regulation, paying minimum wage, maintaining OSHA compliance, posting required notices, while still failing its workforce in meaningful and consequential ways. The following two responsibilities represent ethical obligations that emerge from the employer/employee relationship itself, independent of legal coercion.
Fostering Psychological Safety and Open Communication
Employers are legally required to maintain physically safe workplaces under OSHA (DOL, 2023a). Ethical responsibility, however, extends to ensuring psychological safety; an environment in which employees feel genuinely free to raise concerns, challenge decisions, disagree with leadership, and report potential misconduct without fear of retaliation, exclusion, or career damage. This goes well beyond whistleblower protections afforded under federal law, which protect employees only after formal complaints are filed and only from specified forms of retaliation.
An ethically responsible employer does not merely avoid punishing those who speak up; it actively cultivates conditions in which speaking up is normalized, modeled by leadership, and met with genuine engagement. When employees perceive that voicing concerns is professionally dangerous, the organization loses access to critical information, about compliance risks, cultural problems, and strategic failures, that it needs to function well. Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory holds that businesses have ethical obligations to all parties whose interests are affected by their actions. Employees are among the most directly affected stakeholders, and their capacity to contribute meaningfully depends on the psychological safety the employer provides.
Applying Accountability Standards Equitably Across All Levels
Many organizations distribute codes of ethics, require ethics training, and establish formal reporting mechanisms. These activities satisfy compliance requirements and, in some cases, legal standards. The ethical obligation, however, is for the behavioral standards embedded in those codes to be enforced consistently across all levels of the organizational hierarchy; including executive leadership.
When senior leaders are shielded from consequences that would be imposed on entry-level employees for equivalent conduct, the ethical culture of the organization is undermined regardless of how sophisticated its formal ethics program may be. Employees observe whether stated values match actual behavior; selective accountability communicates that ethics is performative rather than substantive. An ethically responsible employer ensures that the relationship between conduct and consequence is the same for all employees, reinforcing the message that the organization’s values are genuine commitments rather than public relations instruments.
A3 Ethical Business Dilemma |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: This dilemma is grounded in the marketing firm scenario. It clearly names two competing legitimate obligations (duty to disclose vs. duty of loyalty/confidentiality) and explains specifically how the situation relates to the company’s ethical standards. This is what the rubric requires from A3; a concrete, original dilemma tied to the scenario context.] |
A3. Ethical Business Dilemma
A senior account manager at the marketing firm has been managing a long-standing client relationship for three years. During a routine review of campaign analytics, she discovers that a colleague in the data team has been inflating engagement metrics, the click-through rates and audience reach figures delivered to the client, in order to make campaigns appear more successful than they actually were. The data team member has implied that the practice was condoned by a previous account director who has since left the firm.
The inflated metrics have been incorporated into client-facing reports for at least six months. The client, a mid-sized healthcare nonprofit, makes budget allocation decisions based in part on these reports; funds directed toward this marketing partner may be coming at the expense of other uses the client would have prioritized had it received accurate data. The account manager values her relationship with the client and is aware that disclosing the error will likely result in the client terminating the contract, causing significant financial harm to the firm and potentially resulting in layoffs on her team.
This situation presents a genuine ethical dilemma because two legitimate professional obligations are in direct conflict. The first obligation is the account manager’s duty of honesty to the client; a foundational principle of the marketing profession and a standard explicitly articulated in the firm’s code of ethics. The second obligation is her duty of loyalty to the firm and to her colleagues, whose livelihoods are affected by the decision. Both obligations carry genuine moral weight; a reasonable professional could defend either course of action. The dilemma directly implicates the company’s stated commitment to ethical business practices: the firm cannot claim to pride itself on ethical conduct if it withholds material information from clients when transparency is inconvenient.
A4 Ethical Dilemma Evaluation — Utilitarian and Relativistic Perspectives |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: Each theory is first defined, then immediately applied to the specific facts of the A3 dilemma. The stakeholders named are from this particular scenario. The analysis ends by addressing the tension between the two frameworks — this advanced move demonstrates genuine ethical reasoning, not just theory recitation.] |
A4. Ethical Dilemma Evaluation
Utilitarian Perspective
Utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and refined by John Stuart Mill, is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of actions based on their consequences; specifically, which available action produces the greatest overall good for the greatest number of affected parties (Mill, 1863/2001). Rather than focusing on the inherent character of an act or the intentions behind it, utilitarianism directs decision-makers to conduct a consequence-based analysis that weighs benefits against harms across all stakeholders.
Applied to the present dilemma, the relevant stakeholders include: the account manager, her colleagues on the marketing team, the firm as an institution, the client organization, and, given the client is a healthcare nonprofit, the communities and populations the nonprofit serves. A utilitarian analysis would proceed as follows. If the account manager remains silent, the immediate beneficiaries are the firm (which retains the contract) and her colleagues (who avoid potential layoffs).
The client, however, continues to make budgetary decisions based on false data; over time, this erodes the quality of its marketing strategy, harms its mission effectiveness, and eliminates the client’s ability to choose a vendor relationship based on accurate information. If the deception is eventually discovered through other means, audits, competing agency assessments, or the client’s own analysis, the harm to the firm is likely to be far greater: loss of the client, reputational damage, and possible legal liability for fraudulent misrepresentation.
If the account manager discloses the error, the firm loses the client and her team faces financial consequences. However, the client can make informed decisions about its resources, the healthcare communities it serves benefit from a more effective allocation of nonprofit funds, and the firm, though damaged in the short term, can rebuild its reputation for integrity rather than compound the deception. Aggregating benefits and harms across all stakeholders and across an appropriate time horizon, utilitarian ethics recommends disclosure. The short-term protection of a single client contract does not outweigh the long-term harm to the client’s beneficiaries, the systemic damage to client trust if the deception is discovered, or the moral cost of institutionalizing dishonest reporting practices.
Relativistic Perspective
Ethical relativism holds that moral judgments are not universal but are instead dependent on the cultural context, social norms, and personal values of the individual making the judgment (Pojman & Fieser, 2017). There is no single objective ethical standard that applies across all contexts; what is considered right or wrong varies according to the framework in which a person has been shaped. Relativism does not hold that all actions are equally ethical; it holds that ethical standards are always located within particular frameworks rather than derived from universal principles.
From a relativistic perspective, the account manager’s choice would be evaluated through the lens of her professional community’s norms and her own internalized values. In many corporate cultures, particularly those shaped by high-pressure sales environments and short-term performance metrics, the norm of protecting client relationships and delivering good news to management has historically taken precedence over strict transparency.
An account manager shaped by such an environment might reason that the practice of optimizing reported metrics, while technically inaccurate, falls within an acceptable professional convention. Alternatively, she might rely on a personal ethical framework that prioritizes loyalty to her immediate colleagues and team over obligations to external stakeholders. From this perspective, disclosing the error and causing layoffs could itself be viewed as an ethical failure; a betrayal of the people who depend on her most directly.
Relativism does not necessarily endorse this reasoning; rather, it explains how a person operating within a particular professional culture could arrive at a decision to remain silent while believing they are acting ethically. Understanding this perspective is important for the firm’s ethics training: if the organizational culture has implicitly normalized metric inflation, individual employees cannot be held fully responsible for ethical failures that the culture itself created. This insight points toward the importance of explicit, consistent ethical standards enforced from the top of the organization; the same accountability structure discussed in A2.
Synthesis
The two frameworks reach different conclusions. Utilitarianism, weighing aggregate consequences, recommends disclosure. Relativism acknowledges that a person shaped by certain professional norms might construct a defensible rationale for silence. This divergence illustrates why the A3 scenario qualifies as a genuine ethical dilemma: it is not obvious, and reasonable, well-intentioned professionals can disagree. For the purposes of this ethics training, however, the utilitarian analysis, combined with the firm’s stated commitment to ethical business practices, provides the stronger basis for organizational policy. The firm’s code of ethics is itself a normative framework that relativism cannot simply override; employees are trained within that framework, and it governs what counts as acceptable conduct in this professional community.
A5 Two Common Ethical Decisions in Corporate Settings |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: Both scenarios here are genuinely different from A3. They are specific enough to analyze, each involves an identifiable person in an identifiable situation facing a recognizable tension, but general enough to be widely applicable to corporate employees. A6 will explain why each is a dilemma and what rationalization is available.] |
A5. Common Ethical Decisions in Corporate Settings
Biased Promotion Decision
A team manager must recommend one of two employees for promotion to a senior role. The first employee has consistently exceeded performance targets, completed advanced certifications relevant to the role, and received strong peer feedback. The second employee performs adequately but has a personal friendship with the manager that developed outside of work. The manager knows that both candidates are aware of the opportunity and are expecting a fair process. Choosing the less qualified personal friend would constitute favoritism; however, the manager may also feel a genuine sense of loyalty and obligation toward someone who has been a trusted personal ally.
Using Company Resources for Personal Benefit
An employee who regularly travels for work discovers that the firm’s expense policy has a gap that allows for reimbursement of meals for personal guests when described generically in expense reports. The employee has been taking advantage of this gap intermittently for several months, submitting expenses that include meals with personal friends or family members as if they were business-related. The amounts involved are modest, between $30 and $80 per occurrence, and the employee reasons that their strong performance more than compensates for the cost to the company. The practice has not been flagged or questioned by the finance team.
A6 Explanation of Dilemmas and Rationalizations |
| [EVALUATOR NOTE: For each A5 scenario, this section explains (1) the genuine ethical tension that makes it a dilemma and (2) the specific rationalization an employee might use. The rationalizations are plausible and specific, not just ‘they made the wrong choice.’ This is exactly what the rubric is testing in A6.] |
A6. Explanation of Ethical Dilemmas and Potential Rationalizations
Biased Promotion Decision
The promotion scenario constitutes a genuine ethical dilemma because two legitimate obligations are in conflict. The manager has a professional obligation to the organization to make promotion decisions that serve the firm’s interests by placing the most capable person in the role; this is what a fair, merit-based process demands. The manager simultaneously has a personal obligation rooted in loyalty and relational trust; a friend has invested in the relationship, and recommending against them feels like a betrayal of that investment. Neither obligation is trivial; both represent values that most people would recognize as legitimate in their appropriate contexts.
An individual might justify the ethically problematic choice, recommending the friend, through several common rationalizations. One approach is minimization: “The difference in qualifications isn’t that significant; either candidate could succeed in this role.” Another is relationship framing: “My friend has supported me through difficult periods at this company; recommending someone else now would be disloyal to a person who deserves my support.”
A third rationalization appeals to projected outcomes: “My friend would be motivated by this opportunity and would grow into the role quickly; the more qualified candidate will find another opportunity.” Each of these rationalizations contains a kernel of legitimate reasoning, which is precisely what makes them effective as justifications for ethically problematic behavior (Treviño & Nelson, 2021).
Using Company Resources for Personal Benefit
The expense reimbursement scenario is an ethical dilemma because it involves a tension between the employee’s self-interest and their fiduciary obligation to the employer — an obligation that includes honest representation of expenses. The dilemma is real rather than trivial because the amounts are small, the policy gap is genuine rather than imagined, and the behavior has not triggered any organizational response. The employee is not committing an obvious act of theft; they are exploiting an ambiguity in a way that has, in practice, gone undetected and unchallenged.
Common rationalizations for this behavior include compensation-based justification: “I contribute far more value to this company than they compensate me for; using this benefit is simply correcting the imbalance.” A second rationalization appeals to the policy gap itself: “If the company didn’t want employees to do this, they would have a clearer policy. The ambiguity is their problem, not mine.”
A third rationalization relies on comparative harm: “The amounts involved are trivial compared to what executives spend on unnecessary business expenses; what I’m doing is insignificant by comparison.” These rationalizations are effective because they position the behavior as reasonable or even justified rather than recognizing it as a violation of the trust that employment relationships depend on (Treviño & Nelson, 2021). The ethics training developed from this task should address precisely these thought patterns — not just the behavior, but the reasoning that enables it.
References
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism. Batoche Books. (Original work published 1863)
Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2023a). OSHA at a glance. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3439.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (2023b). Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wage and Hour Division. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination questions and answers. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers
| Using This Sample
The scenario, names, and specific facts in this sample are entirely fictional. The ethical structure — the paired rights/responsibilities in A1, the legal-vs.-ethical framing in A2, the two-obligation tension in A3, the theory application pattern in A4, the specific rationalizations in A6 — represents what passing submissions demonstrate. Do not copy the wording. Do use this as a mirror: read each paragraph, then ask whether your own draft does the same thing with your own scenario, your own examples, your own analysis. |
About Bio
Dan Palmer is an academic writing consultant who specializes in helping WGU students pass performance assessments on their first submission. He has worked with hundreds of Western Governors University students across business, ethics, and management programs, developing a deep familiarity with WGU rubric standards, evaluator expectations, and the specific structural patterns that draw revision requests.
His work covers C717 Task 2 in particular depth — including both the FZP1 conflict-of-interest variant and the EKP1 ethics officer variant — but his passing guides extend across a broad range of WGU courses:
- C717 Business Ethics — Tasks 1 & 2 (FZP1 and EKP1)
- C200 Managing Organizations and Leading People
- C484 Organizational Behavior and Leadership
- C715 Organizational Behavior and Management
- C716 Business Communication
- C720 Operations and Supply Chain Management
- C723 Quantitative Analysis for Business
- C724 Accelerated Business Communication
- C955 Applied Probability and Statistics
- D080 Global Business
Each guide Dan produces is written from the rubric out — grounded in the actual criteria WGU evaluators use, not in circulated sample papers that may no longer reflect current task requirements. His approach prioritizes understanding over copying: students who work with Dan learn what the evaluator is actually testing, which is why first-attempt pass rates remain high even as WGU updates its task prompts.
Dan is available for direct consultation via WhatsApp at +1 564-544-6924 or Connect with him on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-palmer-a49378108