| Course | MT313 Corporate Sustainability and Social Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Corporate responsibility position paper |
| Length | About 1,170 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT313 Unit 2
A Promise Others Relied On: An MT313 Unit 2 Position Paper on Keeping a Breakfast Chain's Cage-Free Commitment
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT313: Corporate Sustainability and Social Responsibility
Unit 2 Position Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The chain, its commitment and all figures are composite; Friedman's essay and the sources cited are real.
Introduction
Sunrise Skillet should keep its cage-free egg promise, publicly move the deadline from 2025 to December 2028 and make the commitment binding on franchisees. The numbers behind that position: 54 percent of the eggs the system buys are cage-free, 71 percent at the 433 company-operated restaurants but 44 percent at the 707 franchised ones. Cage-free eggs cost the chain about five cents more each. The question is whether a company that missed a voluntary social commitment should finish it, abandon it or let it fade quietly.
Who Relied on the Promise
The case for keeping the promise rests on reliance, not on sentiment. The 2016 commitment was repeated in nine consecutive annual reports and changed what other people did.
Egg suppliers. Two of the chain's three main egg suppliers built cage-free barns between 2018 and 2022, financing them partly on the expectation of the chain's purchases. One supplier's chief executive cited the commitment in a public statement about its expansion.
Advocacy groups. Two animal welfare organizations ended a pressure campaign against the chain in 2016 after the commitment was announced. They did not end it because they trusted the chain in general; they ended it because of this promise.
Investors. The commitment appeared in the chain's risk disclosures as a response to animal welfare concerns. Investors who considered those risks read the promise as part of the company's plan.
Walking away quietly would breach expectations the company itself created. That is a different kind of obligation from a general duty to do good: it is closer to the obligation to keep one's word.
What Completion Costs
At five cents an egg, completing the transition costs about $4.6 million a year. About $1.1 million of that falls on company-operated restaurants. The rest falls on franchised restaurants still buying caged eggs, about $8,700 a year per location. Set against system sales of about $1.7 billion, the full cost is about 0.27 percent of sales. For an individual franchisee with sales of about $1.4 million, $8,700 is about 0.6 percent, which is meaningful but not ruinous.
The promise was cheap to make in 2016, and it is the people who believed it who will pay if the chain lets it fade.
The Strongest Objection: Friedman
Friedman (1970) held that an executive's job is to make money for the owners provided it stays inside the law and the ethical customs of its society. When a manager diverts company funds to a social cause, he argued, the cost falls on owners through lower returns, on customers through higher prices or on workers through lower pay, none of whom agreed to it, and the manager takes on a policy decision that belongs to elected officials. On this view, cage-free eggs are an animal welfare policy, and if society wants them it should legislate them, as several states have done. A chain that spends $4.6 million a year on a goal its shareholders did not choose is spending other people's money.
This is the strongest argument against my position, and it deserves an answer on its own terms.
The Reply
First, Friedman's argument concerns spending on social goals the company has not committed to. He accepted that firms must conform to "ethical custom." Keeping a public promise that suppliers and investors relied on is part of that custom. Breaking it is not neutral; it changes the company's reputation as a counterparty.
Second, keeping the promise may serve shareholders. Suppliers who built barns on the chain's word will price future contracts with that experience in mind. Advocacy groups that stood down will resume campaigns. The cost of being seen as a company that abandons commitments is hard to measure, but it is not zero. Carroll (1991) placed legal and ethical responsibilities beneath philanthropy precisely because they are expected, not optional.
Third, the law is moving in the same direction. Several states already require cage-free eggs for sales within their borders, and the chain's restaurants there are already compliant. Completing the transition now avoids a patchwork of state-by-state purchasing.
Friedman's essay still sets a useful limit: the chain should not expand into new social commitments without a business case and a clear mandate from its board. But finishing a promise already made is not new spending on a social goal; it is the completion of an obligation.
What Happens If the Chain Lets It Fade
Consider the alternative honestly. If the chain says nothing and lets franchised restaurants continue buying caged eggs, the system will probably drift toward 60 percent over the next few years as some franchisees switch on their own. Each annual report would repeat a commitment that the company no longer intends to meet. The two suppliers who built barns would be left with capacity the chain no longer buys, and at least one has said it would raise prices to recover the cost. The advocacy groups that stood down in 2016 have already noted the missed deadline in a public letter. And investors who read the commitment in the risk section would eventually learn that it had been dropped without notice, which is the kind of discovery that damages trust in every other disclosure.
None of those costs appears in the $4.6 million figure, but each is a reason to think the true cost of abandoning the promise is higher than the cost of keeping it.
Why Restate the Date Openly
The chain could keep buying more cage-free eggs while saying nothing about the missed 2025 deadline. Delmas and Burbano (2011) describe greenwashing as the combination of poor performance with positive communication about that performance. Silence about a missed target is not quite greenwashing, but it relies on the same gap between what is said and what is done. A public restatement, with the reasons for the delay and a new date, preserves credibility in a way that quiet progress cannot.
Recommendations
1. Restate the commitment publicly with a new deadline of December 2028, explaining the shortfall at franchised restaurants.
2. Amend the franchise agreement at each renewal to require cage-free egg purchasing by the 2028 deadline, with an approved supplier list.
3. Share the cost during the transition by negotiating a system-wide purchasing contract that lowers the premium for franchisees.
4. Disclose progress quarterly, separately for company-operated and franchised restaurants, so the gap is visible.
Conclusion
Sunrise Skillet's 2016 cage-free promise was relied on by suppliers, advocates and investors. Completing it costs about $4.6 million a year, most of it at franchised restaurants. Friedman's objection limits new social spending but does not justify abandoning a commitment others acted on. The chain should restate the date openly, bind franchisees to it and report progress quarterly.
References
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
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, 122-126.
MT313 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
In Unit 2 students argue one side of a question about corporate responsibility and answer the strongest opposing argument. The position should be stated early and clearly, with the figures behind it. Instructors look for a ground for the position, such as reliance, harm or law, rather than sentiment alone. Costs should be estimated so that the objection meets real numbers. The opposing argument, often Friedman's shareholder view, should be presented accurately and at its strongest before it is answered. The reply should engage the objection on its own terms. Most prompts expect recommendations that would carry the position out. Expect roughly six pages in APA style, with a cost table or comparable evidence.
How this MT313 Unit 2 example is built
The sample's introduction states the position and the split between company-operated and franchised restaurants. A section lists who relied on the 2016 promise. The cost section prices completion at $4.6 million a year, about $8,700 per franchised location, under the highlighted line that those who believed the promise will pay if it fades. Friedman's argument is set out fully, then answered in three parts: keeping a promise is ethical custom he accepted, abandonment has business costs and the law is moving the same way. A section describes what happens if the promise fades quietly. Delmas and Burbano support restating the date openly. Four recommendations close the paper.
Where the points sit in the MT313 Unit 2 rubric
In this unit a position paper is judged first on how plainly it states the position, the strength of its ground, the accuracy and fairness of the objection and the quality of the reply. Graders reward positions grounded in specific obligations or evidence. Costs should be estimated and placed before the objection. The opposing view should be stated as its proponents would state it. A reply that concedes what the objection gets right and answers the rest shows maturity. Recommendations should be specific and feasible. The opposing author and supporting research appear in APA 7. Papers that dismiss Friedman as simply selfish, without engaging his argument about who bears the cost of social spending, usually lose credit.
MT313 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Position papers often argue from feeling, such as "it is the right thing to do," without identifying why the company owes the duty. Another common weakness is presenting the opposing view as a straw man. Some papers never estimate what their position would cost. Recommendations may be vague, such as "recommit to the goal." Before drafting, list everyone who acted because of the commitment you are writing about and what they did. That list often supplies the strongest ground. Then find the figure that shows what keeping the commitment would cost. A paper that names the people who relied on a promise, and what they spent because of it, is much harder to dismiss than one that appeals to values alone.
Get an MT313 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 2 prompt with the side you were assigned, or leave the side open for the writer to choose, along with the rubric and readings. Within 24-48h the paper returns with its position stated early, a cost table, the opposing view argued honestly and then answered, and a recommendation somebody could audit. No cost attaches to a first custom sample. 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 MT313 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT313 Unit 1: Kids' Meal Default Discussion Post
- MT313 Unit 3: Corporate Conduct Case
- MT313 Unit 4: Sustainability Report Review
- MT313 Unit 5: Materiality Assessment
- MT313 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT313 Unit 7: Stakeholder Analysis
- MT313 Unit 8: Supplier Responsibility Memo
- MT313 Unit 9: Program Proposal
- MT313 Unit 10: Corporate Responsibility Plan
- MT304 Unit 2: Leadership Definition Paper
- MT302 Unit 2: Perception and Attribution Paper
- MT300 Unit 2: Systems Inventory Memo
- MT299 Unit 2: Project Proposal Memo
MT313 Unit 2 questions, answered
Does a position paper have to take the popular side?
No. Several MT313 prompts assign a side, and a paper defending shareholder primacy can score as well as one defending a pledge, provided it answers the best version of the other view. The example keeps the promise because reliance gave it a concrete argument; your assigned side gets the same treatment, with its own costs admitted openly.
Where do the cost figures come from?
In the example they are composite, marked in brackets, built from a plausible premium per egg and one restaurant's daily use. For a real company, sources include USDA egg market reports, the company's filings and trade coverage of supply contracts. Whatever the source, the paper shows its arithmetic so anyone can alter a single input and trace what happens to the total.
Is it fair to judge a 2016 pledge by today's costs?
The paper argues it is fair to judge the silence rather than the delay. Costs changed after avian influenza reduced flocks, and a company can restate a date for that reason. What reliance rules out is letting a public promise lapse without saying so. Your paper may weigh that distinction differently, as long as the reasoning shows why disclosure matters more than the date.
Where can I find a free MT313 Unit 2 sample paper?
The complete MT313 Unit 2 position paper is on this page, arguing that a breakfast chain should keep its cage-free egg promise.
How does the MT313 Unit 2 sample answer Friedman?
Keeping a public promise others relied on is ethical custom Friedman accepted, abandoning it carries business costs and the law is moving the same way.