ACC 260 ENTIRE COURSE

ACC 260 Week 1 CheckPoint Ethics in the Accounting Profession

Answer questions 13 and 14 on p. 25 of the text

ACC 260 Week 2 Individual Assignment The Enron and WorldCom Scandals
Review the accounts of the Enron and WorldCom scandals in Ch. 2 of the text:
Enrons Questionable Transactions on pp. 96107
WorldCom: The Final Catalyst on pp. 114118
Answer the following questions using complete sentences:
Enron: 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 on pp. 106 and 107
WorldCom: 1, 3, 4, and 5 on p. 118
Post your answers as an attachment. Clearly label the case and question number for each of
your responses
ACC 260 Week 2 CheckPoint Unethical Practices of Arthur Andersen
Read the Arthur Andersens Troubles Ethics Case on pp. 107113 (Ch. 2) of the text.
Answer questions 1, 3, and 4 on p. 113 in 200 to 300 words. When responding to question 3,
focus solely on the Enron case.
ACC 260 Week 4 Individual Assignment Critiquing Philosophical Approaches to Ethical
Decision Making
Review each of the responses you wrote in Appendix B.
Write a 900- to 1,350-word paper in which you critique each of the philosophical approaches for
each of the scenarios in Appendix B.
Evaluate whether or not the course of action you chose for the Philosophical Approaches to
Ethical Decision Making CheckPoint really is ethical and whether or not the reasoning for that
course of action makes sense. Ask yourself the following questions:
Is the course of action really the most ethical choice?
If so, are these the best reasons for making this choice? Explain.

 If not, why? What is a better choice?

What reasons are there for believing this alternative is more ethical?
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines, including any references to the text or other
sources.
Post your paper as an attachment.
ACC 260 Week 4 CheckPoint Philosophical Approaches to Ethical Decision Making
Complete the matrix in Appendix B.
Post your completed matrix as an attachment
ACC 260 Week 5 CheckPoint Approaches to Stakeholder Impact Analysis
Describe, in 200 to 300 words, how you might conduct a stakeholder impact analysis of Scenario
1 of Appendix B using each of the stakeholder impact analysis approaches: moral standards,
five-question, and Pastins approach.
Note. You are not required to analyze the effect on each stakeholder.
Post your description as an attachment.
ACC 260 Week 6 CheckPoint Presentation of the Stakeholders Positions
Your instructor will divide the group into four discussion clusters, each representing one of the
Kardell stakeholder groups: Kardell employees (the union), Kardell investors, the city of Riverside
and residents, and Kardell legal counsel.
Read The Kardell Paper Co. Ethics Case on pp. 371 and 372 (Ch. 5) of the text.
Discuss within your group how best to represent your position and desires. The discussion could
provide you with ideas for how to be persuasive and how to communicate the potential impact of
Kardells actions on your stakeholder group. You are not required to discuss, but are encouraged
to take advantage of the opportunity.
Prepare, individually, a presentation that represents your assigned stakeholder groups concerns
and wishes for the company. Compose your presentation as though you were to deliver it to the
entire board of directors of the Kardell Paper Co.
Write your presentation in 200 to 300 words using Microsoft Word
ACC 260 Week 6 Individual Assignment Presentation of the CEOs Position
Review the anonymous stakeholder presentations your instructor has posted. There may be
repetition among the presentations from the same group, so mentally synthesize the
presentations into four positions, one for each group. You might find it helpful to take notes.

Complete the Stakeholder Analysis Table found in Appendix C based on your synthesis.
Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper in which you assume the role of Kardells CEO. As CEO,
critically examine each stakeholder position in light of the facts of the case.
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of each stakeholder position, especially how their
desires for action could affect the companys profitability. Then, select a course of action from the
following list:
Deny any link between the company and the sonox detected in the river and refuse to study the
issue further.
Agree to continue collecting data and investigating the issue further without admitting the mill is
the source of the sonox.
Assume there is a link between the sonox and the company and take immediate steps to
upgrade the plant to prevent future spillages.
Provide an argument that supports your decision. Support your decision with evidence and logic,
not your personal opinion. An important part of your grade on this assignment is demonstrating
your ability to think critically: to suspend judgment while gathering evidence and consulting the
various stakeholders positions, to analyze each position, to consider the effects of different
courses of action, and then to make a decision and support it with evidence and logic.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines, including any references to the textbook or
other sources.
Post your Stakeholder Analysis Table and paper as attachments.
Note. Ignore the actual outcome of the case provided in the text. The details given in the book
regarding the outcome of the case should not be referenced in your paper nor influence your
decision.

ACC 260 Week 8 CheckPoint Briefly Applying a Decision-Making Framework

Answer the three questions following the Management Choice Ethics Case on p. 288 (Ch. 4) of
the text.
Describe, in 200 to 300 words, what Sue should do and the decision-making approach that
supports such action when responding to question 3. The steps summarized in Figure 5.5 on p.
353 (Ch. 5) may help guide your answer to question 3. Justify your decision based on the impact
it would have on the stakeholders involved in the situation using terminology and concepts from
Ch. 5.
Post your response as an attachment
ACC 260 Week 8 Individual Assignment Fully Applying a Decision-Making Framework
Read the Locker Room Talk Ethics Case on p. 284 (Ch. 4) of the text.
Analyze the case using stakeholder impact analysis and the philosophical approaches to ethical

decision making.
Explain what you think Albert should do in a 700- to 1,050-word paper.
Organize your paper using the following section outlines. Review the questions for each section
to help you analyze the case and frame your paper.
Note. Do not explicitly answer these questions within the body of your paper.
Introduction
o What is the ethical dilemma in the case?
o What events led to the dilemma?
o When describing the dilemma, did you mistakenly propose a solution?
Stakeholders Involved
o Have you identified stakeholders?
o What is their stake in the case?
o Have you described every stakeholder in an objective, unbiased way?
Course of Action
o Have you clearly stated the course of action Albert should take?
o What reasons support your decision?
o What philosophical approach did you use to reach your decision?
o What are the weaknesses of your argument? Have you addressed counterarguments?
Stakeholder Impact
o How do you think each stakeholder will be impacted by your decision?
o Are there potential impacts on stakeholders that are difficult to anticipate? Have you identified
them?
Conclusion
o Do you present new evidence or analysis in the conclusion? Would it be more appropriate in
another section of the paper?
o Have you summarized the dilemma, your decision, and the potential effect on stakeholders?
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines, including any references to the textbook or
other sources.
Post your paper as an attachment.

ACC 260 Week 9 Final Project Solving Ethical Dilemmas in the Accounting Profession
Read the Dilemma of an Accountant Ethics Case on pp. 285287 (Ch. 4) of the text.
Analyze the case using stakeholder impact analysis and the philosophical approaches to ethical
decision making.
Complete a stakeholder impact analysis using the table in Appendix C as a template. Adapt the
table to suit your needs.
Compose a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper explaining the course of action Dan should take.
Organize your paper using the following section outlines. Within each section below are
questions and prompts that may help you analyze the case. You are not required to explicitly
answer these questions or address each of the prompts, but they may assist you as you organize
your thoughts.
Introduction
o What is the ethical dilemma in the case?
o What events led to the dilemma?
o When describing the dilemma, did you mistakenly propose a solution?
Stakeholders Involved
o Have you identified stakeholders?
o What is their stake in the case?
o Have you described every stakeholder in an objective, unbiased way?
Course of Action
o Have you clearly stated the course of action Dan should take?
o What reasons support your decision?
o What philosophical approach did you use to reach your decision?
o What are the weaknesses of your argument? Have you addressed counterarguments?
Stakeholder Impact
o How do you think each stakeholder will be impacted by your decision?
o Are there potential impacts on stakeholders that are difficult to anticipate? Have you identified
them?
Conclusion
o Do you present new evidence or analysis in the conclusion? Would it be more appropriate in

another section of the paper?

o Have you summarized the dilemma, your decision, and the potential impact on stakeholders?
Think critically about the case, and write persuasively. A portion of your grade will be determined
by your demonstration of critical thinking: suspending judgment while gathering evidence and
consulting the various stakeholders positions, analyzing each position, considering the impact of
different courses of action, and then making a decision and supporting it with evidence and logic.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines, including any references to the textbook or
other sources.
Post your Stakeholder Analysis Table and paper as attachments