| Course | GB590 Ethics in Business and Society |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Ethical dilemma post |
| Length | About 500 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB590 Unit 1
Pausing the Donation Match in December: A Unit 1 Ethical Dilemma Post Under Four Frameworks
GB590 · Unit 1 Ethical Dilemma Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The company, its people and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Initial Post
The dilemma comes from a composite payroll-software company of about 1,400 employees. For years it has matched each employee's charitable gifts dollar for dollar, up to $1,000 a year, and it pays the matches in a lump each January. In mid-December the finance chief proposed pausing the program through year end. About $2.1 million of matches are owed for gifts employees made since June, and not paying them would help the company meet the quarterly earnings guidance it gave investors. The same saving, she argued, would let the company keep thirty contract developers it would otherwise release.
The four frameworks from this unit's reading point in different directions. A utilitarian tally favors pausing: thirty people keep their income, investors see guidance met, and charities lose money they never had. A duty view treats the match as a promise, because the company announced it and employees gave larger gifts relying on it. A virtue view asks what a trustworthy employer does when keeping its word becomes expensive. A justice view notices that the cost of the pause falls on the employees who gave most generously and on the charities they chose, neither of whom had any say.
I land on the duty view, because reliance turns a policy into a promise. An employee who gave $1,000 to a food bank in August, knowing the company would add $1,000, made that choice on the company's word. Changing the terms afterward takes something from her and from the food bank that the company had already offered. Rawls (1971) argued that fair institutions keep the expectations they create, and that seems to apply here even to a small corporate program.
A match announced in advance is a promise to anyone who gave because of it, and a promise cannot be paused retroactively.
The duty view does not require the company to keep matching forever. Gifts not yet made carry no such reliance. So my answer is split: pay every match owed for gifts already made, about $2.1 million, and announce now that the match will be suspended for gifts made after January 31, giving employees six weeks' notice. That protects the people who relied on the promise while letting the company change course. The thirty contract roles then become a separate question about the budget, not something employees' generosity has to pay for.
Reply to Morgan
Morgan, you argued that a manager's first duty is to shareholders, citing Friedman (1970). I think even Friedman's view supports paying the owed matches. He said managers should follow the rules of the game, which include honoring commitments. A company known for withdrawing promises after employees act on them will find its next promise worth less, and that cost lands on shareholders too.
References
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32-33.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Reading the GB 590 Unit 1 instructions
The first GB590 discussion asks you to present a business dilemma and work it through the frameworks introduced in the unit reading. State the facts plainly enough that a classmate could reach a different answer. Apply each framework briefly, in a sentence or two, showing where it points. Then commit to one framework for your verdict and explain why it fits these facts better than the others. Give a specific recommendation rather than a general principle, including how and when it would take effect. Cite the course reading and any source you use for a framework. Reply to at least one classmate by engaging their reasoning or source on its own terms. Most sections expect an initial post near 400 words and replies of about 120.
Inside the GB590 Unit 1 example
The post opens with the facts in one paragraph: a dollar-for-dollar match up to $1,000, payment each January and a finance chief worried about guidance. A second paragraph runs the four frameworks in four sentences, noting who bears the cost under the justice view. The third commits to the duty view, using an August gift to a food bank as the example and Rawls on institutions keeping expectations. The highlighted sentence states why a match cannot be paused after the fact. The close splits the answer by reliance, paying the $2.1 million and ending the match with six weeks' notice, then separates the thirty contract roles as a budget question. One reply answers Friedman with his own rules-of-the-game condition.
Where the points sit in the GB590 Unit 1 rubric
Points on this first GB590 board start with the facts: a dilemma stated fairly, with the competing interests visible, shows the writer is not arguing toward a fixed answer. Each framework applied correctly, even briefly, demonstrates command of the unit reading. A clear commitment to one framework, with a reason grounded in the facts, earns more than a survey that never decides. A specific recommendation, with timing, shows practical judgment. Instructors also reward a post that addresses the strongest argument against its view. The reply is graded on engagement: answering a classmate's source on its own terms counts for more than agreement. Citing the course text and listing sources in APA 7 finish the rubric.
GB590 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Many Unit 1 posts in GB590 describe all four frameworks at equal length and never reach a verdict, which reads as a summary of the textbook. Others state a verdict without applying any framework, so the reasoning cannot be graded. A common slip is choosing facts that make the dilemma one-sided, which leaves nothing to weigh. Writers also give recommendations so general, such as act with integrity, that no one could carry them out. Replies often restate the classmate's view with approval and add nothing. Present a real conflict, apply each framework in a sentence, commit to one for stated reasons, make the recommendation specific and use the reply to test a classmate's argument. Ask through the form for a free custom post on your own dilemma.
Get a GB590 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Paste the Unit 1 dilemma your board posted, the framework list from the readings and the discussion rubric. Inside 24-48h, the returned post applies each framework in a line, commits to one, prices that choice and answers one classmate's argument, which you summarize. A first sample costs nothing, and the software company in it is invented. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB590 papers and MBA samples
- GB590 Unit 2: Ethical Framework Application
- GB590 Unit 3: Stakeholder Map
- GB590 Unit 4: Governance Failure Case
- GB590 Unit 5: Workplace Ethics Analysis
- GB590 Unit 6: Consumer Protection Case
- GB590 Unit 7: Sustainability Trade-off Paper
- GB590 Unit 8: Global Labor Standards Analysis
- GB590 Unit 9: Ethics Program Recommendation
- GB590 Unit 10: Stakeholder Case Analysis
- GB580 Unit 1: Company Selection Memo
- GB570 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB560 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB550 Unit 1: Ratio Groundwork Exercise
GB590 Unit 1 questions, answered
Does the post have to cover every framework from the Unit 1 reading?
Usually it names each one briefly and commits to a single framework for the verdict, since a post that applies four equally never decides anything. The GB590 example gives the others one sentence apiece so the reader can watch them split. Your prompt may ask for two frameworks or only one; the sample follows whatever count it sets.
Why is the answer split instead of all or nothing?
Because the facts split. Gifts already made were made in reliance on the announced match, and charities counted on it; gifts not yet made carry no such reliance, so a company can change the terms with notice. The example shows that the reliance test, not a compromise instinct, draws the line, and it admits the split still costs contract jobs.
Can the dilemma be a case from the news instead?
Yes, and GB590 boards often invite one. A news case needs its facts stated carefully, with the company's own explanation included, because a post that exaggerates what happened loses the fairness the frameworks depend on. Send the article or summary with your prompt, and the sample treats the named company's conduct as reported rather than as proven.
Where can I find a free GB590 Unit 1 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB590 Unit 1 ethical dilemma post on pausing a composite company's donation match, with four frameworks applied, a duty-based verdict, a split recommendation and a reply.
Should I pick the framework that gives the answer I prefer?
Pick the one that best fits the facts and say why. Explaining why the other frameworks are less suited to this case shows reasoning; choosing the framework after the conclusion shows only preference.