| Course | C206 Ethical Leadership |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | Ethics audit report |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for C206 Task 2
Ethics Audit Report to the Board: Social Responsibility, Culture and a Supplier Overtime Dilemma at a Composite Outdoor Apparel Company
Student Name
School of Business, Western Governors University
C206: Ethical Leadership, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Ethics Audit Report to the Board: Social Responsibility, Culture and a Supplier Overtime Dilemma at a Composite Outdoor Apparel Company
Summary for the Board
At the board's request, I audited the ethics program of Ridgeback Outfitters, a composite outdoor apparel company with $610 million in annual sales, 2,300 employees and 38 contract factories in four countries. The company has a well-written code of conduct and a genuine reputation for environmental commitment. The audit found three weaknesses: the reporting hotline is little used and little trusted, sales and sourcing incentives reward speed and cost in ways that conflict with the code, and supplier labor standards are monitored mainly through announced audits. A current dilemma over factory overtime illustrates all three. I recommend a set of changes and a training program, described below.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Carroll's pyramid describes four levels of corporate social responsibility: economic responsibility to be profitable, legal responsibility to obey the law, ethical responsibility to do what is right beyond the law and philanthropic responsibility to contribute to the community (Carroll, 1991). Ridgeback meets its economic responsibility, with steady profits, though margins have narrowed. It meets its legal obligations in its home market, and no regulatory actions are pending. Its philanthropic record is strong: it donates 1% of sales to conservation groups and publishes an annual environmental report.
The ethical level is where the company is weakest. Its environmental commitments are measured and reported, but its commitments to the people who make its products are not. The supplier code promises reasonable working hours and fair wages, yet the company does not publish factory audit results, and its purchasing practices, such as late design changes and short delivery windows, push factories toward the excessive overtime the code prohibits. The company's public reputation rests heavily on responsibility, which makes a gap at the ethical level a serious risk.
Ethics Audit Findings
The audit reviewed the code of conduct, hotline records for three years, incentive plans for the sales and sourcing teams, supplier audit reports and a confidential culture survey completed by 1,140 employees, using questions adapted from a validated measure of ethical culture that examines clarity of expectations, management role modeling, capacity to act, openness to discussing concerns and sanctions (Kaptein, 2008). The main findings are summarized below.
| Area | Finding | Evidence | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code of conduct | Clear and current, but rarely referenced in decisions | Survey: 71% had read it; 22% had ever used it to make a decision | Medium |
| Reporting channels | Hotline underused and distrusted | 14 reports in three years; 41% of survey respondents fear retaliation for raising concerns | High |
| Incentives | Sourcing bonuses reward cost and on-time delivery only | Bonus plan has no measure tied to supplier labor compliance | High |
| Supplier monitoring | Relies on announced audits | 92% of factory audits announced in advance; overtime findings rare | High |
| Leadership modeling | Senior leaders seen as committed to environmental ethics, less to labor | Survey: 78% agree on environment, 44% on supplier workers | Medium |
Why the Findings Matter
Research on behavioral ethics shows that people's ethical conduct at work is shaped heavily by organizational context: what leaders reward, what they pay attention to and whether employees believe raising concerns is safe (Treviño et al., 2006). A strong code cannot overcome incentives that reward the opposite behavior. At Ridgeback, the sourcing team is paid to reduce cost and meet dates, not to protect factory workers, and employees doubt that raising a concern is safe. Those conditions predict the dilemma below.
The Dilemma: Overtime to Meet a Launch Date
Ridgeback's new insulated jacket, the centerpiece of its autumn season, is two weeks behind schedule after a late design change. The main factory has told the sourcing manager that it can meet the date only if its workers work 72-hour weeks for a month, well beyond the company's code limit of 60 hours and beyond local law. The sourcing manager's bonus depends on the launch, and the sales team has committed the product to major retailers. The options are to accept the overtime and meet the date; to delay the launch by two weeks and pay the retailers' penalties; or to split the order among three factories at higher cost, meeting most of the date with a smaller first shipment.
Accepting the overtime would breach the company's own code and local law, harm workers who have little power to refuse and expose the company to serious reputational risk if it became known. Delaying the launch protects workers but costs an estimated $2.4 million in lost sales and penalties. Splitting the order costs about $600,000 more in production, requires a second factory to be audited quickly and delivers 70% of units on time. I recommend splitting the order, with the remaining units delivered two weeks late, and I recommend that the company acknowledge that its own late design change caused the pressure. The option honors the code, treats factory workers as people rather than capacity, and limits the financial cost. The sourcing manager's bonus should not be reduced for making this choice; otherwise the incentive system will teach the opposite lesson.
Ethics Training Proposal
Audience. All managers, the sourcing and product development teams in full, and a shorter version for all employees.
Content. Three modules tied to the audit findings: speaking up and responding to concerns, including how managers should respond without retaliation; responsible purchasing, showing how design changes, forecasting and delivery windows create pressure on factory workers; and ethical decision-making, using a structured process and case discussions drawn from the company's own situations, including the jacket launch.
Method. Short live sessions led by senior leaders and the ethics officer, with discussion of real cases rather than slides alone, followed by quarterly team conversations on one case. Leaders go first, so employees see that the program is not a formality.
Measures. Hotline reports and the share made by named reporters, survey results on fear of retaliation and on leadership commitment to supplier workers, the number of late design changes after the design freeze and unannounced audit findings on overtime. Targets: fear of retaliation below 25% within two years, and a measurable fall in overtime violations.
Recommendations to the Board
The board should direct management to add supplier labor measures to sourcing and product development bonuses; move to unannounced factory audits and publish summary results; strengthen the hotline with an independent provider and a clear non-retaliation policy reported to the audit committee; and fund the training program above. The board's own audit committee should receive a semiannual ethics report, so that the ethical level of the company's responsibility receives the same attention as its environmental commitments.
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
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923-947. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.520
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
What the C206 Task 2 instructions ask
The second C206 task asks you to audit an organization's ethics and social responsibility. You will usually assess corporate social responsibility with a framework, report audit findings, explain why they matter, analyze an ethical dilemma, propose training and recommend actions. The organization may be supplied or chosen. Evaluators look for a framework applied to the organization, findings drawn from specific evidence such as policies and records, a dilemma analyzed with ethical reasoning, training designed for specific audiences and recommendations that address the causes found. An audit that praises the code of conduct without checking whether behavior matches it is likely to come back on the audit aspects. Writing for a board means leading with findings and keeping recommendations concrete.
How this C206 Task 2 example is built
The report opens with a summary for the board: what was audited, the main findings and the actions requested. The social responsibility section uses Carroll's four levels and rates the company on each. The findings section lists the evidence reviewed and what each source revealed, such as incentive plans that reward speed without labor standards. A section explains why these findings matter, drawing on behavioral ethics research. The dilemma is described with the launch date, the factory's capacity and the overtime required. The training proposal specifies audience, content, format and measures. Recommendations are numbered for the board. Each finding names the evidence reviewed.
Where the C206 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
C206 Task 2 aspects are scored competent, approaching competence or not evident. A social responsibility aspect asks whether a framework is applied to the organization. An audit aspect rewards findings supported by evidence. An analysis aspect looks for why the findings matter. A dilemma aspect wants ethical reasoning applied to a business situation. A training aspect asks for a plan with audience, content and measures. The final aspect checks that each recommendation answers a finding. Evaluators notice when incentives are examined, since they often explain behavior, and they expect frameworks and research to be cited. A board can use a report that leads with its findings and numbers its requests. Evidence described specifically, such as the number of hotline reports, shows the audit was real.
C206 Task 2 help: what sends it back
C206 Task 2 reports lose marks when findings come from the code of conduct alone. Look at incentives, hotline data and supplier audits. The framework may be defined without being applied, so rate the organization at each level. The dilemma can drift from the audit; choose one that connects to your findings. Training proposals are often generic, so specify who, what, how and how you will know it worked. Last, write recommendations the board can approve, with owners and timing, rather than general calls for a stronger culture. Keep the summary short enough to read in a minute. Describe the evidence you reviewed and how you reviewed it, since an audit's credibility rests on its method. Connect the dilemma and training back to the findings so the report reads as one argument.
Get a C206 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Task 2 instructions and rubric from your C206 course of study, plus the company scenario your course provides. We write a custom ethics audit report to those exact aspects and return it in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More C206 papers
Other MBA sample papers
- D251 Task 1 Revenue Cycle Audit
- D252 Task 2 Goodwill Impairment Research Memo
- D374 Task 1 Market Research Plan
- D253 Task 1 Values-Based Leadership Decision
C206 Task 2 questions, answered
Does the C206 sample use my course's company?
No. Model samples use their own composite companies so the structure can be studied without copying the course scenario. Your report should use the company and facts your course provides.
What is an ethics audit in C206?
A structured review of whether a company's ethics program works in practice: its code, training, reporting channels, investigations, incentives and culture, judged against evidence rather than intentions.
Does the C206 sample use my course's company?
No. Ridgeback Outfitters is a teaching composite, not a real case. If your course supplies a company or asks you to choose one, your report must use that organization's facts and evidence.
What is an ethics audit in C206?
A review of how well an organization's policies, incentives, reporting systems and behavior support ethical conduct. The sample reviews the code, hotline data, incentive plans, supplier audits and a staff survey.
Where can I find a free C206 Task 2 sample paper?
Read the whole Ridgeback ethics audit above, from board summary to training plan, annotated as it goes. Tell us which organization your C206 audit covers, and your first custom report costs nothing.