Your report should cover the following items:

  • Why this particular case was chosen for your report.
  • An overview of the case study.
  • A summary of the major theories and related issues involved in this case.
  • An explanation of these issues and recommendations for processes and procedures to avoid a reoccurrence (supported by relevant concepts and theories).

Format of the Group Case Study Report

Please use the following suggested structure/format to guide your report development:

  1. Title page
  1. Table of contents
  1. Executive summary
  • A brief overview of the case study.

  1. Introduction
  • Why this particular case was chosen for your report. The purpose of the report.
  • Your methodology (including the scope of the report).
  1. Body
  • Overview of the case study.
  • Issues identified (an issues statement).
  1. Conclusion
  • Highlighting what has been learnt from the case study.
  1. Recommendations
  • The issues you have identified should be addressed here using relevant academic literature to support your decisions.
  1. References
  • All sources used should have in-text citations and should be properly referenced using APA Style.

How to structure your report

The report shall be written in font size 12 and Times New Roman. Your report shall be double spaced and each page must have a new heading. Please do not put two headings on the same page.

Assignment criteria

  1. Structure and format of the report (including referencing).
  2. Content
  3. Critical
  4. Written
  5. Team

Your work will be assessed using the following marking guide:

Research Paper BUS1125 – GB 1.1 Case Incident

: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”

Submitted to: Professor Nadine Blaides Submitted by: A Nguyen, H000xxxxx B Lee, H000xxxxx C Park, H1000xxx D Qiu, H100xxxxx

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”


In this section you will add the table of contents which is all other sections that will be part of your case study.e.g Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………..3

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”


In the executive you will provide a brief overview of the case, you will give a summary of the case that you plan to write about, in this example it is the Stella Mc Carthy case. In the executive summary tell us why you chose this case…….

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”

4 INTRODUCTION Here in the introduction you are going to tell us about the case, introduce us to the details in this case.

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”

5 BODY (Overview of the case)

In this section you are going to provide the overview of the case, tell us what the case is about, go into details by giving us as much information as you can, rephrasing the case in your own words.

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”


In the conclusion you will tell us what you learnt from the case and conclude with your own ideas about the case.

Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”


This is the one of the most important parts of the case. Here you will give us some recommendation using text examples from the chapter that on motivation, also incorporate other sources, do some research and add some recommendation from external sources regarding the topic on motivation

. Case Incident: “What Am I Going to Do about Stella McCarthy?”


In this section you add references, please ensure that you have more than one reference. Use a couple of references in your report


Canadian Red Cross: Stolen Aid

When the Asian tsunami hit in 2001, the wall of water turned areas like Banda Ache in Indonesia into an

instant disaster zone. The result was the largest-ever effort of humanitarian aid from around the world.

Despite many accounts of successes, troubling reports have emerged about stolen aid and workers who

were not paid. What did the aid agencies know and what was done or not done?

Virgil Grantfield is a former employee of the Canadian Red Cross (CRC) and a humanitarian aid worker

on a personal mission. He spent six months in Indonesia uncovering what he calls an “inconvenient truth”

about rebuilding operations that turned a blind eye to the abuse and neglect of workers hired to help in

the rebuilding. There were many basic problems. The CRC was one of the last aid agencies to get established in Banda Ache and seemed in a panic to get the job done. Hasty decisions were made with little thought about anything but building the promised houses, getting the numbers of people helped, and getting out. However, they lacked expertise in large-scale construction locally and thus tendered the work out to local contractors who in turn subcontracted the labour to local recruiters, or mandors. Mandors posed the biggest challenge to the CRC’s efforts because their only interest in the project was to make a profit. The final issue was that there is a general assumption that Indonesia is a corrupt society, so whatever unethical behavior happens is excused.

While still working for the CRC in December 2007, Grantfield was sent to do damage control when a CRC

field manager was taken hostage in a village because people were upset that the construction had been

stopped for several months. The issue at the heart of the problem was that the workers had not been

paid; they were hungry and were walking away. In another village the residents said that this incident

wouldn’t have happened if the Red Cross had helped the victims to rebuild their own homes rather than

have the contractors import workers from all over Indonesia. The community was not involved and the

contractors could abuse their power without the locals being able to stop them.

Grantfield took his findings to the head of the CRC mission for Indonesia, who reacted with doubt—

Grantfield must have made the story up. The CRC mandated one of its local engineers to investigate and

the report concluded that, yes, 150 workers had left one site because of a “misunderstanding.” The report

was based on a questionnaire given to the field supervisor and an audit at the office of the contractor. No

one asked the workers if there were any problems. According to the CRC director of international

operations, Jean Philippe Tizi, this was an isolated incident.

In January 14, 2008, the CRC sent an email to Grantfield stating that the workers are not employed by

the CRC. The email added that if the CRC were to “get too closely involved in instructing the contractors

how to run their operations, we become liable for potentially heavy claims for compensation from the

contractors.” The email continues: “The contactors have signed the CRC Code of Conduct . . . that the

contractor will meet legal requirements for wages and benefits in Indonesia or to the prevailing local

industry standards.”

Three months after Grantfield first reported the problems to the head of the CRC Indonesian mission he

learned that the worker situation had worsened and the CRC had taken no action at all. He then wrote to

the board of governors of the Canadian Red Cross on April 16, 2008. He stated that the management (of

CRC) was failing the victims, the Red Cross workers, and the donors. The CRC asked Ernst & Young to

conduct an independent audit, but again the organization viewed the allegations as largely

unsubstantiated. The CBC received the Ernst & Young report in August 2008, however, all the findings

had been removed from the report and only the recommendations were included.

It is estimated that about 200 000 workers were imported to the disaster areas from all over Indonesia to

meet the needs for reconstruction. Men who had worked at the CRC project told Grantfield “our mandor

brought us there and then left. We were abandoned; thrown away. We went 21 days without pay, then got

a portion of it and were asked to leave.” These men became employed by the CRC months after

measures had supposedly been taken to solve the problem. An Ache Social Ministry Official tried to help

some of the workers with very limited resources, while NGOs with far greater resources did nothing. At

the time the CRC was “rolling” in money with close to $1 million in interest alone from donations from

Canadians. Grantfield wants the CRC to apologize to the workers for what happened and then compensate them for the lost wages. The Swiss Red Cross faced the same problem and did not hesitate to address the issue immediately. They wrote a cheque to compensate 200 workers who had not been paid on their projects even though they had already paid the contractors. Their representative said, “The basic principle of any Red Cross is you don’t leave your workers without pay.”

The Canadian Red Cross built 6000 solid, much-needed houses, but by closing their eyes to worker

conditions they leave behind a legacy of disappointment and bitterness among the local population and

an impression of having failed a part of their humanitarian mission.

You may use these questions below to help you guide your responses for your case reporting write up.

1. Discuss how the ethical decision criteria apply to this case. Identify specific

individuals/organizations and explain which decision criterion fits each one.

2. Of the three factors that influence ethical decision making, which one is most evident in this case

and why?

3. What types of political activity emerge from this case study? Explain.

4. What is corporate social responsibility and how does it relate to decision making in this case?

please send me a full report with correct format


"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Our Experts can help. Use the coupon code SAVE30 to get your first order at 30% off!