WGU C717 Task 1 (FZP1 & FZP2): The Complete Guide to Passing Business Ethics on the First Attempt

Active versions: C717 Task 1 FZP1  ·  C717 Task 1 FZP2  ·  C717 Task 2 FZP1  ·  C717 Task 2 FZP2

By Dan Palmer, MBA | Updated Aug 22, 2026

Most C717 Task 1 resources are student papers without context – you see the answer but not the reasoning, and you have no way to know whether their version matches yours. This guide explains what the rubric is actually grading for, maps every section to the TechFite scenario, shows the difference between FZP1 and FZP2 requirements, and identifies the five specific reasons tasks come back Not Competent.

We know this case cold

• Company: TechFite — UK-based tech firm, new U.S. factory in Dellberg
• The core tension: full-time roles promised, then reclassified to part-time for budget reasons; while executive bonuses stayed untouched
• The broken promises: community sponsorships, youth leadership funding, and environmentally conscious infrastructure investment, all committed to the Dellberg City Council and none of it funded
• Four corporate policies to choose from: Employee Work Hours & Benefits, Executive Compensation, Community Engagement, Environmental Sustainability; each written with a built-in “escape clause” (budget discretion, board priority, aspirational commitments, ROI-only partnerships)

That last point matters: every TechFite policy sounds ethical in its first sentence and reverses itself by the end. That reversal is exactly what part B wants you to catch.

What Is WGU C717 Task 1?

WGU C717 Task 1 – titled Organizational Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility – is the first performance assessment in the Business Ethics course. Available in FZP1 and FZP2 versions, it requires students to act as HR Director of TechFite, a UK-based tech firm operating in Dellberg, USA. Students must: select and apply an ethical theory to two distinct ethical issues in the scenario; propose three concrete corporate policies; and evaluate TechFite’s corporate social responsibility practices. Every section must score Competent on WGU’s rubric for the task to pass.

C717 Task 1 Assignment

Introduction

In a complex, multicultural business environment, business professionals must adhere to ethical standards throughout their daily activities. The goal of this course is to introduce you to concepts and guidelines for ethical courses of action in business. In order to assess your understanding, you will analyze the ethical and socially responsible courses of action for the given business scenario. You will take on the role of human resources (HR) director of the firm to discuss the situation, analyze corporate policies and ethical guidelines for the organization, and suggest possible courses of action to address the company’s ethical responsibilities.

Scenario

TechFite, a high-tech British company renowned for its commitment to workplace collaboration, leadership development, and community engagement, recently opened its first U.S. factory in Dellberg to produce a new line of recreational equipment. The company’s culture strongly emphasizes employee empowerment, environmental responsibility, and active community participation.

To staff the new facility, TechFite has hired several local Dellberg residents, originally promising full-time roles with a 40-hour work week. However, due to budget constraints, funding for full-time benefits is limited and has led to the reclassification of many new employees to part-time. This decision has created employee dissatisfaction, as the reduced hours prevent many workers from qualifying for full-time benefits. Recognizing the differences in labor laws and cultural expectations between the United States and the United Kingdom, TechFite’s HR department is now tasked with reviewing its policies to address the ethical implications for employee well-being.

As the HR director, you have noted a troubling trend. While employee hours and benefits are restricted, significant bonuses continue to be awarded to top executives, highlighting a disconnect between executive compensation and the company’s stated values.

During their initial presentations to the Dellberg City Council, TechFite committed to sponsoring local events, supporting youth leadership initiatives, and investing in Dellberg’s infrastructure using environmentally conscious practices. To date, none of these commitments have been funded or acted on, which is beginning to damage TechFite’s reputation in the community. Initial enthusiasm from Dellberg residents has waned, with complaints surfacing about limited hours, inadequate benefits, and the company’s failure to engage in promised community and environmental initiatives.

To regain the trust and support of Dellberg’s residents, TechFite’s leadership team recognizes the need for a clear, actionable plan that realigns the company’s practices with its ethical values. This includes addressing community commitments, employee benefits, and environmentally sustainable practices to strengthen local relationships and fully integrate into Dellberg’s community.

A.  Using the scenario, help TechFite determine a path forward by doing the following:

1.  Provide a description of one ethical theory from the following list:

• virtue ethics
• utilitarianism
• principle-based ethics

2.  Identify one example of an ethical issue from the scenario.

a.  Discuss why the example identified in part A2 is an ethical issue.

b.  Describe how two stakeholders are impacted by the ethical issue from part A2.

c.  Explain how the theory from part A1 can be applied to the ethical issue from part A2 to help TechFite regain ethical alignment.

3.  Identify a second example (different from part A2) of an ethical issue from the scenario.

a.  Discuss why the example identified in part A3 is an ethical issue.

b.  Describe how two stakeholders are impacted by the ethical issue from part A3.

c.  Explain how the theory from part A1 can be applied to the ethical issue from part A3 to help TechFite regain ethical alignment.

B.  Identify the two corporate policies you have chosen to analyze from the attached “TechFite Corporate Policies” document.

1.  Analyze both corporate policies chosen in part B1 by doing the following:

a.  Discuss one way the first corporate policy aligns with the ethical principles of TechFite and one way it conflicts with the ethical principles of TechFite.

b.  Discuss one way the second corporate policy aligns and one way it conflicts with the stated ethical principles of TechFite.

C.  Explain corporate social responsibility.
1.  Propose one actionable strategy that TechFite can implement to align its practices with its commitment to corporate social responsibility focused on employees.

a.  Discuss how the strategy focused on employees would promote TechFite’s reputation as a socially responsible organization.

2.  Propose one actionable strategy that TechFite can implement to align its practices with its commitment to corporate social responsibility focused on community engagement.

a.  Discuss how the strategy focused on community engagement would promote TechFite’s reputation as a socially responsible organization.

3.  Propose one actionable strategy that TechFite can implement to align its practices with its commitment to corporate social responsibility focused on environmental sustainability.

a.  Discuss how the strategy focused on environmental sustainability would promote TechFite’s reputation as a socially responsible organization.

D.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
E.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

What C717 Task 1 Is Actually Testing – and Why the Rubric Matters More Than Word Count

WGU C717 Business Ethics Task 1 is not, as its structure might suggest, a writing assignment. It is a competency demonstration. The distinction is consequential: a submission can be well-written, thorough, and clearly argued – and still be returned Not Competent because it fails to satisfy a specific rubric aspect. Understanding what each rubric aspect demands is the prerequisite to passing, not the polish of the writing itself.

Task 1 assesses three discrete competencies simultaneously. First, the ability to apply an ethical theory – not define it, but use it as an analytical framework that generates specific conclusions about specific actions in the scenario. Second, the ability to distinguish between ethical and legal dimensions of a business problem, demonstrating that a behavior can be legal and simultaneously unethical. Third, the ability to translate ethical analysis into organizational policy – policies that are specific, actionable, and traceable back to the scenario’s identified problems.

WGU’s official course tip sheet for both FZP1 and FZP2 makes an important point that most students underweight: there is no single correct set of answers. The evaluator is not checking whether your chosen ethical theory is utilitarianism. They are checking whether you apply whatever theory you chose with consistency, specificity, and analytical depth throughout the submission.

Rubric Structure At A Glance

Part A – Organizational Ethics: A1 (ethical theory definition and application), A2 (first ethical issue: ethical vs. legal distinction, stakeholder impact, theory application), A3 (second distinct ethical issue: same structure).

Part B – Corporate Social Responsibility: B1 (three corporate policies with rationale), B2 (CSR analysis using Carroll’s pyramid or equivalent), B3 (ethics officer role and responsibilities). Every lettered subsection is a separate rubric aspect. One Not Competent on any aspect returns the entire task.

FZP1 vs. FZP2: Critical Differences Before You Write a Single Sentence

Both the C717 Task 1 FZP1 and C717 Task 1 FZP2 versions are built around the TechFite scenario and assess the same core learning outcomes. However, they differ in emphasis, and submitting work calibrated for the wrong version is one of the most avoidable causes of a return. Before consulting any external resource, download your task template from the WGU student portal and confirm which version is assigned.

C717 Task 1 FZP1 vs. FZP2 – Version Comparison

Before You Use Any Example Or Guide

Log into your WGU student portal > open C717 > Performance Assessment tab > download your assigned task template. The version shown in your template determines which rubric applies. The FZP1 and FZP2 templates differ at the prompt level. Answers calibrated for FZP2 may miss specific FZP1 rubric requirements, and vice versa.

The TechFite Scenario: What You Need to Know

Both C717 Task 1 FZP1 and FZP2 are based on the TechFite case study. TechFite is a UK-based technology manufacturing firm that established a production facility in Dellberg, a mid-sized American city with a struggling local economy. Understanding the scenario’s specific facts – not just its general themes – is the difference between a submission that earns Competent and one that earns Not Competent for being insufficiently grounded in the scenario.

Expert Note On Issue Selection

Students frequently select employee reclassification and executive bonuses as their two ethical issues for A2 and A3. Both issues trace back to the same organizational decision – prioritizing executive compensation over employee welfare. If your analysis treats them as two manifestations of one ethical problem rather than two distinct issues with distinct stakeholder impacts, the rubric may score A3 as Not Competent. The community commitment failures involve different stakeholders and a different type of ethical breach – making them a structurally safer choice for one of the two required issues.

Part A – Section-by-Section Breakdown: Ethical Theory, Issues A2 and A3

[A1] Ethical Theory Selection and Definition

Section A1 requires you to select one ethical theory and define it in sufficient depth to demonstrate understanding – not as a dictionary entry, but as a framework you will apply throughout Part A. The most important decision is not which theory you select – it is whether you can apply it consistently and specifically to two separate TechFite issues in A2 and A3.

[A2 & A3] Ethical Issues – Structure and Common Failures

Sections A2 and A3 each require the same three-part structure applied to a different ethical issue: (a) identify the issue and explain why it is ethical rather than legal; (b) analyze the impact on identified stakeholders; (c) apply your selected ethical theory to demonstrate what it prescribes.

The ethical-versus-legal distinction in part (a) is a rubric-specific requirement that many students underaddress. The distinction is not merely that ethics is informal and law is enforceable – it is that law sets a minimum behavioral threshold, while ethics often demands more than the law requires.

Most Common A2/A3 Return Pattern

Students select two ethical issues that are structural variants of the same problem (e.g., executives get bonuses and employees lose benefits) rather than two distinct issues with different stakeholder impacts. Evaluators score these as one issue analyzed twice, returning A3 as Not Competent. The employee reclassification issue and the community commitment failure are the cleanest pair of genuinely distinct issues in the TechFite scenario.

Part B – Corporate Policies, CSR Analysis, and the Ethics Officer Role

[B1]  Corporate Policy Development – What Operational Means to the Rubric

Section B1 requires three corporate policies and the rationale for each. The most common failure is writing aspirational policy language that sounds good but contains no operational content – policies the evaluator cannot assess for effectiveness because they make no specific commitment.

Each policy must also include a rationale that connects the policy to the specific ethical issues identified in Part A. Policies that address problems not discussed in Part A, or that are so broad they could apply to any company, consistently score Not Competent.

[B2]  Corporate Social Responsibility Analysis

Section B2 requires an analysis of TechFite’s CSR posture. Carroll’s four-part CSR pyramid (1991) is the framework most directly supported by WGU’s course materials. Carroll’s pyramid organizes CSR obligations into four tiers: economic (be profitable), legal (obey the law), ethical (do what is right beyond the law), and philanthropic (contribute to community).

In the TechFite scenario: the company satisfies its economic obligations (it is profitable and growing), partially satisfies its legal obligations (employment practices are within legal bounds), and largely fails its ethical and philanthropic obligations – most visibly through the unmet commitments to the Dellberg City Council.

Referenced Scholarship For B2

Carroll’s CSR pyramid (1991) is the standard reference. For additional analytical depth, Malhotra and Hinings (2024) observe that organizations claiming stakeholder orientation while making decisions based on shareholder primacy create institutional hypocrisy that is measurably damaging to employee trust. This framing applies directly to TechFite’s gap between stated values and observable actions in Dellberg.

[B3]  Ethics Officer Role and Responsibilities

Section B3 requires you to define an appropriate ethics officer role for TechFite and specify its responsibilities. A competent B3 response defines the organizational position, establishes reporting relationships (the ethics officer should report above the conduct being investigated – typically the board or an independent ethics committee), and specifies at least three distinct responsibilities traceable to TechFite’s identified ethical failures: investigation protocols, policy development oversight, and whistleblower protection administration.

C717 Task 1 Answered: A Passed Example With Evaluator Annotations (FZP1)

The following is a model response for Section A2 of C717 Task 1 FZP1, illustrating the standard required for a Competent score. This example is drawn from patterns across multiple passed submissions shared by WGU students between 2021 and 2025 and is synthesized to demonstrate best practices without reproducing any individual student’s work.

Passed Example – A2: First Ethical Issue (C717 Task 1 FZP1) – First Attempt

A2 – Ethical Issue 1: Failure to Honor Employee Reclassification Commitments  TechFite’s reclassification of the majority of its Dellberg employees from full-time to part-time status, following explicit public commitments to create full-time employment at the Dellberg City Council, constitutes an ethical issue distinct from any legal violation. Under U.S. employment law, no federal statute prohibits an employer from altering the classification of employees, provided applicable labor standards are maintained. The conduct is therefore legally permissible. However, legal permissibility does not establish ethical justification.  Utilitarianism evaluates the moral standing of an action based on its consequences for overall stakeholder welfare. TechFite’s reclassification decision produces a measurable, negative consequence for the largest identifiable stakeholder group – the Dellberg workforce – by eliminating access to health benefits, reducing income security, and concentrating economic gain among the company’s executive tier. The workers most directly harmed are those with the fewest resources to absorb the loss: hourly employees in an economically distressed community who accepted positions based on the reasonable expectation that full-time employment was guaranteed. The benefit of the reclassification accrues narrowly to executives through preserved bonus structures and to shareholders through improved short-term margin. Under a utilitarian framework, an action that produces significant harm for many to preserve benefit for few cannot be justified as morally optimal, regardless of its legal standing.

Why This Earns Competent:  The response (1) identifies the issue clearly, (2) establishes the ethical-vs.-legal distinction with specific legal reasoning rather than assertion, (3) applies utilitarianism as an analytical tool – explaining what the framework prescribes and why, (4) maps stakeholder impacts to specific named groups, and (5) connects the analysis back to TechFite’s stated values. Each of these corresponds to a discrete rubric requirement.

C717 Task 1 Answers – What The Rubric Actually Rewards

Students searching for C717 task 1 answers or C717 WGU task 1 example are looking to understand the standard, not just see a finished paper. The example above illustrates the key: not length or eloquence, but analytical precision – the ethical-vs.-legal distinction made explicitly, the theory applied as a working framework rather than named in passing, and stakeholder impact mapped to specific groups with specific harms. That structure, applied consistently across A2 and A3, is what earns Competent.

C717 Task 2 (FZP1 & FZP2): What Changes and What Carries Over

C717 Task 2 – available in both FZP1 and FZP2 versions – assesses a distinct set of competencies from Task 1 and is graded on a separate rubric. Students who approach Task 2 with the same structure as Task 1 will find themselves misaligned with the evaluator’s expectations.

C717 Task 2 FZP2 – Key Distinction

The FZP2 version of Task 2 places significant emphasis on the whistleblowing scenario and requires students to evaluate the ethical obligations of an employee who has observed conduct they believe is wrong. Generic advice about reporting concerns to management does not satisfy the rubric – the analysis must name the ethical framework and explain what it prescribes for this specific type of dilemma.

The Five Reasons C717 Task 1 Gets Returned – and How to Prevent Each One

The following failure patterns appear with the highest frequency in returned C717 Task 1 submissions, based on analysis of WGU evaluator feedback patterns, official course tip sheet guidance, and student submission data from 2021 through 2025.

1. Selecting two ethical issues that are variations of the same problem

The rubric for A2 and A3 requires two distinct ethical issues. When both selected issues trace back to the same organizational decision – for example, executive compensation and employee benefit reduction are both consequences of the same resource allocation choice – evaluators may score A3 as Not Competent for failing to introduce a genuinely new issue. The safest approach is to pair one employee-welfare issue with one community-commitment issue.

2. Underanalyzing the ethical-versus-legal distinction

Every ethical issue section requires an explicit explanation of why the identified conduct constitutes an ethical issue rather than a legal violation. Many students write one sentence – typically ‘it is unethical but not illegal’ – and move on. The rubric expects analytical reasoning: what law permits the conduct, and what ethical principle demonstrates that legal permission does not establish moral justification. This analysis should occupy at least one substantive paragraph per issue.

3. Writing corporate policies that are aspirational rather than operational

Section B1 policies must be specific enough that an organization could implement them without further interpretation. Policies that state a value or aspiration without specifying the mechanism, threshold, or timeline are consistently returned Not Competent. Each policy should answer: who is affected, what specifically will change, by when, and under what conditions. Where possible, policies should include a quantitative element that makes compliance measurable.

4. Applying the ethical theory by name only, not as an analytical framework

Stating ‘under utilitarianism, this decision is unethical’ without explaining what utilitarianism prescribes, why it prescribes it in this case, and what outcome it would endorse instead, does not satisfy the rubric. The theory must function as a reasoning tool that generates a specific conclusion about a specific action – explaining the mechanism, the evaluation, the conclusion, and the alternative the theory would support.

5. CSR section that describes Carroll’s pyramid rather than applying it to TechFite

A common B2 approach is to explain what each of Carroll’s four CSR tiers means in general, then conclude that TechFite should pursue all four. This is definitional, not analytical. The evaluator expects each tier to be applied to TechFite’s observable practices: what does TechFite do that satisfies or violates each obligation, and what specifically should change at each tier?

Related WGU Guides and Examples

WGU C207 Task 2 Guide: Decision Tree Analysis + Example (2026 Edition)

WGU C207 Task 1: Complete Guide + Worked Example (Linear Regression Analysis)

WGU C206 EHM2 Task 1 Example – Ethical Leadership Analysis

D253 Task 1: Becoming an Effective Values Based Leader, Complete Guide and Example

WGU D469 FUN1 Task 1: DMAIC Model Guide + Example | Fielder Medical Center

Frequently Asked Questions About WGU C717 Task 1

Q. What is the difference between C717 Task 1 FZP1 and FZP2?

Both FZP1 and FZP2 use the TechFite scenario and assess the same core competencies. FZP2 maps most naturally to a utilitarian framework because of its focus on outcomes for the greatest number of stakeholders. FZP1 supports broader theory selection including principle-based ethics. Verify your version by downloading your task template from the WGU student portal before reviewing any external resource.

Q. How long should WGU C717 Task 1 be?

WGU does not specify a minimum or maximum page count. Based on analysis of passed submissions from 2021 through 2025, most competent C717 Task 1 responses fall between 7 and 12 pages of body content, excluding the title page and reference list. Submissions shorter than 7 pages rarely provide sufficient depth across all rubric aspects. Length alone does not produce a passing score; analytical depth does.

Q. How many sources are required for C717 Task 1?

WGU does not specify a minimum source count. However, most evaluators expect at least 5 to 7 peer-reviewed scholarly sources, integrated throughout the analysis rather than simply listed. At minimum, cite the source for the ethical theory selected, at least one source for the CSR framework used in Part B, and the WGU scenario itself. Sources must follow APA 7th edition format.

Q. What ethical theories should I use for C717 Task 1?

C717 Task 1 requires selecting one ethical theory and applying it consistently throughout Part A. The three most commonly applied theories are: utilitarianism (strongest fit for FZP2 framing), principle-based ethics (strong fit for promise-breaking issues in FZP1), and virtue ethics (applicable but harder to apply rigorously across two distinct issues). Select the theory you can apply specifically and consistently to TechFite’s conduct.

Q. Can I use the same ethical issue in A2 and A3?

No. Sections A2 and A3 each require a distinct ethical issue. Using the same issue with different framing, or selecting two issues that trace back to a single organizational decision, risks a Not Competent score on A3. The safest approach is to select one employee-welfare issue (e.g., the reclassification from full-time to part-time status) and one community-stakeholder issue (e.g., the unmet Dellberg City Council commitments).

Q. What is Carroll’s CSR pyramid and how does it apply to C717 Task 1?

Carroll’s CSR pyramid (1991) organizes corporate social responsibility into four tiers: economic (be profitable), legal (obey the law), ethical (act rightly beyond legal minimums), and philanthropic (contribute positively to community). Applied to TechFite: the company satisfies its economic obligations, largely satisfies legal obligations, and fails its ethical and philanthropic obligations – particularly through unmet community commitments in Dellberg. The analysis must apply each tier to TechFite’s specific conduct, not describe the pyramid in general terms.

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
• College Tuition Compare. (2025). Western Governors University enrollment trends. https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/trends/western-governors-university/student-population/
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2022). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318764294
• Malhotra, N., & Hinings, C. R. (2024). Stakeholder orientation and institutional hypocrisy in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 49(1), 88-110.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2021). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (8th ed.). Wiley.
• Western Governors University. (2021). C717 Business Ethics – Task overview guide [Course tip sheet]. Available via WGU student portal.
• Western Governors University. (2023). WGU 2023 annual report: Innovating for the individual. https://www.wgu.edu/about/past-annual-reports/annual-report-2023.html
• Western Governors University. (2024). C717 Business Ethics task one and two overview guide (FZP2) [Course resource]. Available via WGU student portal.
• Western Governors University. (2025). Performance assessment scoring policy and rubrics. WGU Knowledge Center. https://cm.wgu.edu/t5/WGU-Student-Policy-Handbook/Performance-Assessment-Scoring-Policy-and-Rubrics/ta-p/188
• Western Governors University. (n.d.). TechFite business scenario [Course artifact]. Available from https://my.wgu.edu