Could you please help me answer these two questions?
1. Using Badaracco’s right vs. right framework and your legal analysis, prepare a report.
- Include APA-formatted in-text citations and an APA-formatted reference list (do not format the body of the report using APA style, just the reference list). See references and citations for details.
- Include in your report a detailed analysis of all four questions and three tests of the Badaracco framework; also include an analysis of the legal issues.
- Include a specific recommendation on what actions, if any, HR should take based on your legal and ethical analysis and conclusions.
- The report should be no more than 10 pages (double spaced, 12-point font; the reference list does not count toward page limit).
2. Write a 500 word discussion on the following information.
Now that you’ve gathered information and analyzed the legal and ethical consequences of Manning’s actions as outlined in the Global Shippers case file, you’re expected to discuss your conclusions and rationales with the board of confidential advisors convened by Vice President Dodger. Two main requirements will structure this discussion:
- First, each board member is to post an initial response fully analyzing the following questions:
- Were Manning’s actions legal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and what are the possible penalties for violating the act?
- Were Manning’s actions legal under the UK Bribery Act and what are the possible penalties for violating the act?
- Were Manning’s actions ethical, particularly in light of differing cultural norms?
When answering these questions, be sure to apply the following guidelines: Provide a full explanation for why all his actions were or were not legal and ethical in your discussion, including a full rationale for each conclusion. This post can be as long or as short as you need in order to effectively make your points.
- Second, each member of the confidential board of advisors must provide a substantive response to at least one posting from a colleague in the discussion, critiquing the initial post with rationale based on legal and ethical analysis.