A lawful permit, a failing aquifer: LS312's fifth-unit memo weighs Friedman against stakeholder thinking for a composite bottler and recommends a voluntary, priced cut in withdrawals. Searches like "ls 312 unit 5 assignment example", "ls312 unit 5 sample" and "ls312 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished LS312 Unit 5 corporate responsibility memo looks like
A memo of three or four pages, recommendation in the first paragraph. The header names a composite chief executive as recipient and a sustainability director as sender. The summary recommends cutting withdrawals by [twenty] percent for the drought's duration and funding a monitoring program shared with neighboring wells. Background follows with bracketed figures: the plant's permitted draw, its actual draw, the fall in local water tables and the complaints from farms. The legal position takes one paragraph: the permit is valid, current and fully complied with. The responsibility section then sets two views against each other. Friedman's argument that a firm's social responsibility is to increase profits within the rules of the game is stated at full strength; Carroll's pyramid of economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities answers it. Options are costed before the memo closes.
How a LS312 Unit 5 example is structured
Ordered for an executive who will read the first page and skim the rest, the memo puts the decision ahead of the reasoning. After the summary and background, the legal paragraph deliberately closes the compliance question: nothing in the memo suggests the permit is at risk, which keeps the argument honest about what is voluntary. The responsibility section is its center. Friedman is given his strongest form, including the point that managers spending shareholders' money on social goals are imposing a tax nobody voted for. Carroll's ethical layer answers by asking what neighbors can reasonably expect of a firm drawing from water they share. Three options follow, each with its cost in bracketed lost volume and revenue: continue at full permit, cut by a fifth, or suspend one bottling line. The middle course is recommended, with its owner inside the company named.
Recommendation first
A voluntary cut of a fifth in withdrawals for the drought's duration, plus shared well monitoring, stated before any argument.
Inside the permit
A valid, current allocation fully complied with, set down once so nothing later is mistaken for a legal claim.
Friedman at full strength
Profit within the rules of the game, including the argument that social spending by managers is a tax nobody voted for.
What neighbors can expect
Carroll's ethical layer applied to farms drawing on the same aquifer, where a lawful draw becomes a shared loss.
Three options with prices
Full permit, a fifth less or one line suspended, each with bracketed volume and revenue lost and the relationship it protects.
Owner and review date
Operations named as owner of the reduction, with a quarterly review tied to the regional drought declaration.
Where marks go in LS312 Unit 5
A memo loses the most ground by recommending responsibility that costs nothing, a statement of values or a donation that leaves withdrawals unchanged. The unit asks what the firm owes beyond the minimum, and an answer with no price has usually dodged the question. The second common weakness is Friedman presented as a villain and refuted in a sentence, which forfeits the strongest argument against the recommendation and leaves it untested. Graders mark down memos implying the permit is invalid or that the company is breaking the law, since the scenario places it inside the rules. Carroll's pyramid listed without applying its ethical layer to the neighbors reads as a diagram. A recommendation with no owner inside the company and no review date is unfinished; memo form is graded too.
Get a LS312 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Share the company and situation the Unit 5 materials describe, the rubric, and any frameworks your section requires. The memo leads with a costed recommendation, gives the opposing view its strongest form and assigns the action to someone, all in 24-48h. A first custom sample is free; the bottler and its figures are composites.
LS312 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why give Friedman so much space in a memo arguing against him?
Because a recommendation is only as strong as the objection it survives. The example states Friedman's position as he argued it, profit within the rules, and takes seriously his point about managers spending other people's money. The recommendation then answers that point directly. A memo that caricatures the opposing view leaves the chief executive unprepared for the first board member who raises it.
Does the memo need to name a real company?
No. The example uses a composite bottler because an academic memo cannot verify a real firm's permits or water data. Documented cases of bottlers in drought regions exist and can inform the scenario. If your prompt assigns a real company, the legal section must rest on public records about it, and every figure should be sourced.
Why recommend a voluntary cut rather than a donation?
Because a donation leaves the underlying draw unchanged, and the harm in the scenario comes from the draw. The example considers a grant to affected farms and rejects it as the main action, while keeping shared monitoring as a supporting step. A responsibility argument grounded in a specific harm usually points toward changing the conduct that causes it.