| Course | GB590 Ethics in Business and Society |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder map |
| Length | About 1,200 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB590 Unit 3
Who Has a Claim on the Aquifer? A Unit 3 Stakeholder Map for a Data Center in an Arizona Town
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB590: Ethics in Business and Society
Unit 3 Stakeholder Map
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The town, the developer, every group and every figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks, agencies and sources cited are real.
The Facts
The developer, a composite firm building for a large cloud company, has proposed a campus of four buildings on farmland outside the town, with about 150 megawatts of computing load at full build. Its design uses evaporative cooling, which consumes about 1.1 million gallons of groundwater a day at summer peak, roughly 1,230 acre-feet a year. The town's entire municipal system delivers about 2,400 acre-feet a year. Mytton (2021) reports that cooling water use varies widely by design and climate, and that evaporative systems in hot, dry regions are among the heaviest users.
The town sits outside the state's Active Management Areas, where groundwater pumping is regulated most strictly, so the developer can pump from its own wells with few limits. Several hundred rural households depend on private domestic wells, and county records show water levels in that part of the basin falling by about two feet a year. The town council must approve a development agreement covering roads, power lines and tax terms, and it votes in ninety days. A hybrid cooling design, which uses dry coolers for most of the year and water only on the hottest days, would cut water use by about 85 percent but raise electricity use by roughly 4 percent, about $3.6 million a year at current rates.
The Power-Interest Grid
The first visual places ten groups by their power over the decision and their interest in its outcome.
High power, high interest: the town council, which votes on the agreement; the developer; and the cloud company that will lease the campus and has published water goals of its own.
High power, lower interest: the electric utility, which must build a substation and can delay service, and the state water agency, which has limited authority outside management areas but can shape any future rules.
Lower power, high interest: rural well owners, farmers holding irrigation rights to the same basin, and the school district, which would receive about $4.2 million a year in new property tax revenue.
Lower power, lower interest: construction trades, who would gain about 1,200 construction jobs over three years, and an environmental group based in the state capital, which has filed comments but has no members in the town.
The Claims Table
The second visual states what the evaporative design and the hybrid design would mean for each group, in units the group itself uses.
Rural well owners. Evaporative design: the developer's pumping could add about half a foot a year to the decline in nearby wells, by the county hydrologist's estimate, raising the cost of deepening a well, often $20,000 to $40,000. Hybrid design: an added decline of under a tenth of a foot.
Municipal ratepayers. Neither design draws on the town's system directly, but both share the basin. These households are a separate group from rural well owners because their water comes from deeper municipal wells and their bills, not their wells, would change first.
Farmers. Some would sell land to the project at high prices; those who keep farming share the basin and would face the same declining water table.
School district. About $4.2 million a year under either design.
The developer and cloud company. The hybrid design costs about $3.6 million a year in electricity but reduces the risk of a council rejection, a lawsuit or a future pumping rule.
The electric utility. Higher demand under the hybrid design, requiring a larger substation.
Construction trades. About 1,200 jobs over three years under either design, and about 60 permanent jobs at the campus.
The town council. Its claim is political: it answers to residents on both sides.
The households with the most to lose from the pumping are the ones least able to stop it.
Why Well Owners and Ratepayers Are Two Groups
Treating residents as one group would hide the main conflict. Rural well owners bear the physical effect of falling water levels directly, while town ratepayers are protected by deeper municipal wells for now and gain from the tax revenue. Mitchell et al. (1997) rank stakeholders by three attributes, the ability to influence a decision, the rightfulness of the claim and the time pressure behind it. On that scale the two resident groups come apart: a family whose well is dropping has a rightful and pressing claim with almost no influence, while ratepayers inside town limits vote for the council and carry more weight.
What the Map Leaves Out
Two groups are missing from the grid for the simple reason that they have no way to speak yet. Future residents of the town, including the children of current well owners, will inherit whatever water the basin holds in thirty years, and the developer's pumping would continue for the life of the campus, likely several decades. The second missing group is downstream: other communities that draw on the same basin beyond the county line, which the county hydrologist's estimate does not cover. Neither group changes the grid's placements, but both strengthen the case for counting the long-term effect on the aquifer rather than only the effect during the campus's first years. A map limited to groups that can attend a council meeting would understate the claims on water that is shared across time and distance.
Why Not Simply Rely on the Council?
The developer could argue that the council vote settles the matter: if elected officials approve the agreement, the community has spoken. The map shows why that argument is incomplete. Rural well owners outside town limits cannot vote for the council, and the tax revenue the council would gain flows to the town and the school district, not to them. A process can be lawful and still leave the most affected group without a voice.
A Response the Developer Can Price
Freeman (1984) widened the set of people a firm must consider to include those its choices touch, and the map shows the developer's decision touches several groups that cannot block it. The developer has three options. It can proceed with evaporative cooling and offer a payment to a community fund. It can switch to the hybrid design. Or it can switch and also fund a well-deepening program for affected rural households, budgeted at about $2 million over ten years.
Porter and Kramer (2011) distinguish philanthropy from creating shared value, which changes how a company earns its money in ways that also address a community problem. A payment to a community fund is philanthropy: it leaves the pumping in place. The hybrid design is closer to shared value, since it changes how the campus operates and lowers the developer's own long-term risk of conflict over water. At about $3.6 million a year, roughly 2 percent of the campus's expected operating budget, it is the response the map supports, with the well program as a smaller addition for households already affected by the basin's decline.
References
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Mytton, D. (2021). Data centre water consumption. npj Clean Water, 4, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-021-00101-w
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
The Purdue Global GB590 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 in GB590 asks you to map the stakeholders around a business decision and use the map to choose a response. Start with the facts of the decision, including deadlines and the parties who will make it. Identify the stakeholder groups, splitting any group whose members are affected differently. Place them on a power-interest grid or another model your readings assign, with a reason for each placement. Build a claims table showing what the decision means for each group in concrete units such as dollars, jobs or resources. Consider groups that cannot speak for themselves. Then apply a corporate social responsibility model to compare possible responses, and price the one you recommend. About four pages with two visuals and APA 7 sources is typical.
Inside the GB590 Unit 3 example
The facts open with a 150-megawatt campus, 1,230 acre-feet a year against the town's 2,400, and Mytton's research on cooling water. The power-interest grid places ten groups in four quadrants, each with a reason. The claims table states effects in feet of well decline, dollars and jobs under both designs, and the highlighted line notes that those with most to lose can least stop it. A section uses Mitchell, Agle and Wood's salience attributes to separate well owners from ratepayers. Sections on missing groups and the limits of a council vote follow. Freeman's stakeholder definition and Porter and Kramer's shared value close the map by pricing three responses.
GB590 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
GB590 instructors give the most points in this unit for a map that changes the decision. Groups identified carefully, with those affected differently kept separate, show analytical care. A grid or salience model with a stated reason for each placement earns credit over a diagram alone. A claims table with concrete effects shows the writer can state each group's stake in its own units. Attention to groups without a voice, such as future residents, shows ethical depth. Use of a CSR model to distinguish philanthropy from a change in how the firm operates links the map to strategy. A priced recommendation, clear visuals and APA 7 citations complete the rubric.
GB590 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB590 stakeholder maps list groups without saying what the decision does to each, which leaves the grid decorative. Others lump together residents, owners or employees whose interests differ, hiding the main conflict. Placements on the grid often have no stated reason, so a reader cannot challenge them. A common gap is ignoring groups who cannot attend a meeting, including future users of a shared resource. Writers also recommend a donation or community fund without asking whether it changes the harm. Split groups where interests differ, give each placement a reason, quantify each claim, name the missing voices, compare responses with a CSR model and attach a cost to the one you choose. Send your assignment through the form for a free custom map.
Get a GB590 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Tell us the company, the decision and the community your Unit 3 materials describe, plus the rubric and any CSR model the readings favor. Expect a grid with every placement explained, a table of gains and losses stated in units, and a section testing the firm's options against that model, all inside 24-48h. The first map carries no charge. 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 1: Ethical Dilemma Post
- GB590 Unit 2: Ethical Framework Application
- 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 3: Five Forces Industry Analysis
- GB570 Unit 3: Margin Analysis
- GB560 Unit 3: Current State Map
- GB550 Unit 3: Bond Valuation
GB590 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is a power-interest grid the only acceptable map?
No. Some GB590 sections prefer a salience model, a stakeholder wheel or a claims matrix, and the sample follows whichever your readings assign. The grid suits this case because the council vote turns on who can act, and the example still adds a claims table, since placement alone never says what each group would lose.
Where can I find a free GB590 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB590 Unit 3 stakeholder map for a composite Arizona data center, with a power-interest grid, a claims table, missing stakeholders and three priced responses.
Why are rural well owners and town ratepayers mapped separately?
Because the pumping affects them differently and they have different power. Well owners feel falling water levels directly but cannot vote for the council; ratepayers are protected by deeper wells for now and do vote.
What is the difference between philanthropy and shared value here?
A payment to a community fund is philanthropy: it leaves the pumping unchanged. Switching to a cooling design that uses far less water changes how the campus operates, which is closer to what Porter and Kramer call shared value.
Who decides whether the data center gets built?
The town council votes on the development agreement, but the developer decides its cooling design before the vote. The map is written for the developer, because its choice changes what every other group stands to lose.