WGU C717 Task 2 FZP1 Guide: Ethical Dilemmas in Business

Updated on: Aug 23, 2026

If you’ve just opened the C717 Task 2 FZP1 instructions after a full day of work, you already know the feeling: three scenarios, three ethical theories, a citations requirement, and a rubric that seems to want something slightly different from every section. It looks bigger than it is.

C717 Task 2 presents three separate ethical dilemmas – a conflict of interest, a whistleblowing situation, and a decision about accepting gifts in an international business setting. Each one asks you to examine the consequences of two possible actions and then apply a specific ethical theory to reach a resolution. Nothing about that is unreasonable once you see the pattern, and the pattern repeats three times.

The fastest way through this assessment is not to treat it as one long essay. It’s to work the rubric criterion by criterion – A1, A2, A3a, A3b, then the same shape again for B and C – and confirm each piece before moving to the next. This guide walks through that process so you understand what each part of the rubric is actually asking, without handing you finished paragraphs to copy. If you want the shorter foundation first, the WGU C717 Task 1 guide covers the assessment that leads into this one and is worth reviewing if Task 1 concepts still feel shaky.

C717 FZP1 Task 2 Assignment: Ethical Dilemmas in Business

Introduction

In a complex, multicultural business environment, business professionals must adhere to ethical standards throughout their daily activities. In order to assess your understanding of the material and your ability to apply the required concepts, you will be asked to evaluate three different common ethical dilemmas and analyze the consequences of the dilemmas. You will also be tasked with examining the dilemma in the context of different ethical theories and describing a resolution based on those theoretical perspectives.

Requirements

Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the WGU similarity checker. Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation. See Understanding Similarity Reports for more information.

Grammarly Note:
Professional Communication will be automatically assessed through Grammarly for Education in most performance assessments before a student submits work for evaluation. Students are strongly encouraged to review the Grammarly for Education feedback prior to submitting work for evaluation, as the overall submission will not pass without this aspect passing. See Use Grammarly for Education Effectively for more information.

Microsoft Files Note: 
Write your paper in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) unless another Microsoft product, or pdf, is specified in the task directions. Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc.  All supporting documentation, such as screenshots and proof of experience, should be collected in a pdf file and submitted separately from the main file. For more information, please see Computer System and Technology Requirements.

Ethical Dilemma: Conflict of Interest

A.  A procurement manager must choose between several vendors, one of whom is a close friend. Accepting their bid might appear biased, even if it is legitimate. Using this ethical dilemma, do the following:

1. Discuss one workplace consequence of accepting the bid from the friend’s company.
2. Discuss one workplace consequence of rejecting the bid from the friend’s company.
3. Analyze the ethical dilemma from a utilitarian perspective by doing the following:

a. Explain utilitarian ethics.

b. Describe how a person using utilitarian ethics would resolve the ethical dilemma from part A.

Ethical Dilemma: Whistleblowing

B.  An accountant finds evidence of financial fraud by their supervisor but fears retaliation or job loss if they report it. Using this ethical dilemma, do the following:

1. Discuss one workplace consequence of reporting the financial discrepancies.
2. Discuss one workplace consequence of not reporting the financial discrepancies.
3. Analyze the ethical dilemma from a virtue ethics perspective by doing the following:

a. Explain virtue ethics.

b. Describe how a person using virtue ethics would resolve the ethical dilemma from part B.

International Ethical Dilemma: Accepting Gifts or Favors

C.  A U.S.-based company has a strict policy against accepting gifts or favors. A salesperson is sent to visit an important supplier in Spain, a country that presents gifts as a sign of respect and relationship building. The salesperson is offered tickets to a World Cup match by the supplier. Using this ethical dilemma, do the following:

1. Discuss one workplace consequence of accepting the tickets.
2. Discuss one workplace consequence of declining the tickets.
3. Analyze the ethical dilemma from a principle-based perspective by doing the following:

a. Explain principle-based ethics.

b. Describe how a person using principle-based ethics would resolve the ethical dilemma from part C.

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 Is C717 Task 2?

C717 Task 2 is the performance assessment portion of the Ethical Dilemmas in Business course, and the FZP1 version specifically evaluates how you reason through workplace and international ethical situations – not whether you can define business ethics in the abstract. The task assumes you already understand the vocabulary; what it’s actually grading is whether you can apply that vocabulary to a specific set of facts.

Every section of the assessment follows the same underlying logic:

Scenario → Consequence → Ethical theory → Application → Resolution

You’re given a scenario. You identify a consequence of one possible action, then a consequence of the alternative action. You explain the ethical theory assigned to that part. You apply the theory to the facts in front of you. You arrive at, and explain, a resolution. Miss any one link in that chain and the section reads as incomplete, even if the writing itself is polished.

One caution worth stating plainly: exact submission length, evaluator turnaround time, and individual evaluator preferences aren’t something any outside guide can predict reliably – those specifics live in your own course materials and instructions, not in general commentary about the course.

C717 Task 2 FZP1 Requirements at a Glance

Read horizontally and the table tells you almost everything about how the task is structured: three scenarios, each paired with one specific ethical lens, each requiring two consequences before you ever get to theory. If you keep this table open while you draft, it’s a built-in check against the single most common failure point in this assessment – writing insightfully about the wrong theory, or about the right theory in the wrong section.

How to Approach C717 Task 2 for a Strong Submission

A useful mental model for every lettered subsection (A3b, B3b, C3b in particular) is Explain → Apply → Connect.

Step 1 – Explain

State the relevant ethical concept, or the consequence you’re describing, in clear terms. This is the foundational layer – accurate, but on its own not sufficient.

Step 2 – Apply

Connect that concept directly to the facts of the scenario in front of you. Name the people involved, the specific decision on the table, and how the concept plays out given those particular details.

Step 3 – Connect

Explain why that application supports the resolution you’re reaching. This is the step evaluators are usually looking for and the one most often skipped.

The single most common weakness in C717 submissions is stopping after Step 1 – defining utilitarian ethics accurately, for example, and then never actually walking the scenario’s stakeholders through a utilitarian calculation. A correct definition with no application reads as unfinished, not as wrong.

Part A – Ethical Dilemma: Conflict of Interest

The scenario: a procurement manager has to choose among several vendors, and one of the bids comes from a close friend’s company. The friend’s bid may be entirely legitimate on the merits – the tension isn’t about the quality of the bid, it’s about how the decision looks and what it could compromise regardless of the outcome.

A1 – Consequence of Accepting the Friend’s Bid

This section wants one workplace consequence, developed fully, not several consequences mentioned in passing. Pick a single angle – perceived favoritism, damage to procurement credibility, erosion of trust among other vendors, a fairness concern – and explain how that specific consequence follows from accepting the bid. A submission that lists four possible consequences in one sentence each usually scores worse than one that develops a single consequence with real specificity.

A2 – Consequence of Rejecting the Friend’s Bid

Same structure, opposite action: one workplace consequence of turning the friend’s company down, even if the bid was competitive. Consider angles like strained personal or professional relationships, the effect on future vendor relationships, or how rejecting a qualified bid to avoid appearances might itself raise objectivity questions. The key distinction to hold onto here: a consequence is something that happens as a result of the decision. “It would be unethical to reject a good bid” is a judgment, not a consequence – the rubric wants the effect, not the verdict.

A3 – Utilitarian Analysis

Part A specifically calls for utilitarian ethics because the dilemma centers on outcomes for multiple parties – the organization, the vendors, the procurement manager’s own standing – rather than on rules or character.

A3a – What Is Utilitarian Ethics?

Utilitarian ethics evaluates the rightness of an action by its consequences, weighing the overall benefits against the overall harms across everyone affected, and favoring the option that produces the greatest net good. Recent scholarship on utilitarianism in organizational contexts frames it this way: a utilitarian manager evaluates a decision by asking which option produces positive outcomes for the greatest number of people affected, not which option feels most personally comfortable (Jones & Felps, 2021).

A simple non-assignment example: choosing whether to keep a struggling store open for one more holiday season. A utilitarian weighs the benefit to employees who keep their jobs and customers who keep their access against the harm of continued financial losses to the company – and picks whichever produces more net good.

A3b – Applying Utilitarian Ethics

This is the section where “explain” has to become “apply.” Work through it in order:

1. Identify the stakeholders – the procurement manager, the friend, the other vendors, the organization, possibly customers downstream of the contract.
2. Lay out Option 1 (accept the friend’s bid) and its likely consequences for each stakeholder.
3. Lay out Option 2 (reject the friend’s bid) and its likely consequences for each stakeholder.
4. Weigh the overall benefits and harms of each option across the full group, not just the two people most directly involved.
5. State which decision a utilitarian approach supports, and explain why in terms of net good rather than personal preference.

That fifth step – the “why,” tied explicitly back to aggregate consequences – is what separates an applied utilitarian analysis from a well-written definition sitting next to an unrelated opinion.

Part B – Ethical Dilemma: Whistleblowing

The scenario: an accountant discovers evidence that a supervisor has been involved in financial fraud, and now has to weigh professional integrity against a real fear of retaliation or job loss.

B1 – Consequence of Reporting the Financial Discrepancies

One workplace consequence of reporting, developed fully. Possible angles include retaliation risk, disruption from a formal investigation, strain on team relationships, or the protection of organizational integrity that reporting can provide. Choose one and follow it through rather than surveying several.

B2 – Consequence of Not Reporting the Financial Discrepancies

One workplace consequence of staying silent. Consider continued or escalating financial harm to the organization, erosion of trust if the fraud eventually surfaces anyway, or exposure to legal and regulatory consequences down the line. The distinction to watch for here is the same one from Part A, restated: “fraud is unethical” is a conclusion. “Failing to report allows the financial misstatement to compound over the next two reporting cycles” is a consequence.

B3 – Virtue Ethics Analysis

Part B calls for virtue ethics because the dilemma is really about character under pressure – what kind of professional the accountant chooses to be when reporting carries personal risk – rather than a pure calculation of outcomes.

B3a – What Is Virtue Ethics?

Virtue ethics asks what a person of good character would do, centering the analysis on traits like honesty, courage, integrity, and responsibility rather than on rules or consequences alone. Editorial work in this area describes virtue ethics as evaluating action through the lens of practices, institutions, and the character traits that sustain them, in contrast to consequence-driven frameworks (Bernacchio et al., 2023). Where utilitarianism asks “which outcome produces the most good,” virtue ethics asks “what would an honest, courageous person do here” – the emphasis moves from the result to the actor.

B3b – Applying Virtue Ethics

1. Identify the relevant virtues at stake – honesty, courage, integrity, accountability are common starting points for a whistleblowing scenario.
2. Restate the ethical conflict in terms of those virtues: reporting requires courage in the face of retaliation risk; staying silent may protect the accountant personally but conflicts with honesty and integrity.
3. Consider what someone demonstrating those virtues would actually do, given the specific facts of the scenario – not what’s easiest, what character supports.
4. Explain the resulting action.
5. Connect the decision back to character, not to a cost-benefit calculation – that distinction is what keeps this section from drifting into a second utilitarian analysis.

Ethical work behavior research reinforces this framing: employees’ ethical conduct in the face of pressure is consistently linked to individual character traits and to how those traits interact with the organizational environment around them (Guo et al., 2023).

Part C – International Ethical Dilemma: Accepting Gifts or Favors

The scenario: a U.S.-based company has a clear policy against accepting gifts from vendors or suppliers. A salesperson visiting an important supplier in Spain is offered World Cup tickets – a gesture that, in the local business culture, may function as a sign of respect and relationship-building rather than an attempt at influence.

This introduces the piece students most often underweight: company policy versus cultural expectations. Getting Part C right means holding both realities at once instead of resolving the tension by ignoring one of them.

C1 – Consequence of Accepting the Tickets

One workplace consequence, fully developed. Consider company-policy violation, perceived improper influence over the supplier relationship, damage to professional credibility, or possible disciplinary exposure back home.

C2 – Consequence of Declining the Tickets

One workplace consequence of declining. Consider strain on the supplier relationship, a cross-cultural communication misstep if the refusal is perceived as a rejection of goodwill, or a missed opportunity to build the kind of trust that supports long-term supplier relationships. Recognizing that a cultural gap exists is important – but recognizing it is not the same as concluding that policy should simply be set aside, and the rubric rewards students who hold that distinction clearly.

C3 – Principle-Based Ethical Analysis

Part C calls for principle-based ethics because the dilemma is fundamentally about which duty or rule should govern the decision – the company’s policy versus a competing cultural norm – rather than about outcomes or character alone.

C3a – What Is Principle-Based Ethics?

Principle-based ethics evaluates a decision against established moral principles, duties, and rules – integrity, fairness, professional responsibility, and organizational standards – regardless of the consequences that might follow from bending them. It differs from consequence-based reasoning in a specific way: a principle-based thinker asks “what does the applicable rule or duty require,” not “what produces the best outcome this time.” Cross-cultural business ethics scholarship notes that this tension is a recurring, well-documented pattern in international business rather than an unusual edge case, and that resolving it well typically requires an explicit ethical framework rather than case-by-case improvisation (Ermasova, 2021).

C3b – Applying Principle-Based Ethics

1. State the company’s actual policy on gifts from suppliers.
2. Identify the relevant ethical principle the policy is protecting – likely integrity, fairness, or avoiding even the appearance of improper influence.
3. Describe the cultural context in Spain around the gesture and what it signals in that business relationship.
4. Name the competing considerations explicitly – policy compliance on one side, relationship and cultural respect on the other.
5. State the ethical obligation that the principle-based framework points to.
6. Explain the resulting decision.
7. Address how the salesperson can maintain respect for the supplier’s culture even while upholding company policy – this last piece is what a strong C3b does that a weaker one skips, and it’s often the difference between a section that just says “policy wins” and one that actually resolves the tension.

Research on gift-giving versus bribery in cross-cultural business settings makes a useful distinction here: the same gesture can function as relationship-building courtesy in one cultural framework and as an attempt at improper influence in another, which is exactly the ambiguity Part C is built to test(Li, Sun, & Taris, 2022).

Utilitarianism vs. Virtue Ethics vs. Principle-Based Ethics

A quick memory aid, since these three get mixed up more than any other part of the task:

Utilitarianism = consequences. Virtue ethics = character. Principle-based ethics = principles/duties.

If you find yourself writing a sentence like “the greatest good for the greatest number” in your virtue ethics section, or talking about someone’s honesty and courage in your utilitarian section, that’s the signal to stop and re-check which theory belongs where.

C717 Task 2 Sources, Citations, and References

Requirement D is smaller in scope than A through C but easy to lose points on through carelessness rather than difficulty. A few things to keep straight:

• Cite anything that isn’t common knowledge or your own reasoning – quoted material, paraphrased ideas, and summarized findings from outside sources all need attribution, not just direct quotes.
• Every in-text citation needs a matching entry in your references list, and every reference needs at least one corresponding in-text citation – mismatches between the two are an easy, avoidable deduction.
• Use credible sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, and established business publications hold up better than general web content.
• Don’t add sources you don’t need. A citation that isn’t doing real work in your argument usually signals padding rather than support.

This guide doesn’t invent specific formatting rules beyond what’s in your assignment instructions – treat your actual FZP1 task instructions as the authoritative source for exact citation format requirements.

Professional Communication for C717 Task 2

Requirement E evaluates how clearly the whole submission reads, independent of the ethical reasoning itself. Before submitting, check for:

• Logical organization that follows the rubric’s own structure
• A consistent, professional tone throughout
• Clean grammar and spelling
• Clear sentence structure without run-ons or fragments
• Smooth transitions between subsections
• Consistent terminology – don’t switch between “principle-based” and “principled” mid-document
• Correct formatting per your submission instructions
• A final proofreading pass

If your program provides access to Grammarly for Education, running your draft through it before submission is a quick way to catch mechanical issues that are easy to miss after staring at the same document for hours.

Common C717 Task 2 FZP1 Mistakes to Avoid

1. Answering the general topic instead of the specific scenario. Every claim should trace back to the facts given, not to business ethics in the abstract. Reread the scenario paragraph before drafting each subsection.
2. Listing multiple consequences without developing any of them. Pick one per A1/A2/B1/B2/C1/C2 subsection and go deep, not wide.
3. Defining a theory without applying it. If your 3a paragraph could be copy-pasted into any other student’s paper, it isn’t connected to the scenario yet.
4. Applying the wrong theory to a scenario. Use the comparison table above as a checkpoint before you submit.
5. Forgetting the cultural dimension in Part C. A resolution that never mentions Spain’s business culture hasn’t fully engaged the dilemma.
6. Confusing an ethical issue with a workplace consequence. “This is unethical” is a judgment; “this damages the vendor relationship” is a consequence.
7. Using generic examples unrelated to the scenario. Illustrative examples should clarify the concept, not replace analysis of the actual facts given.
8. Skipping the reasoning behind the resolution. State the decision and why the theory supports it – both parts matter.
9. Missing citations for outside information. Anything beyond your own reasoning and the assignment facts needs a source.
10. Poor organization. Following the rubric’s own lettering (A1, A2, A3a, A3b…) as your outline avoids this almost automatically.
11. Excessive repetition. Say something once, clearly, rather than restating it across two paragraphs.
12. Submitting content that isn’t your own original work. This one carries the highest stakes of any item on this list, and it’s worth its own note below.

A word on that last point: using outside material – a study guide, a coach’s feedback, an AI tool – to understand what a rubric is asking is different from submitting someone else’s or something else’s finished writing as your own. WGU’s academic-integrity policies and similarity checks exist specifically to distinguish between the two, and no wording trick changes that distinction. The safest approach is the one this guide is built around: understand the reasoning, then write your own response in your own words.

C717 Task 2 FZP1 Final Review Checklist

• A1 addresses one consequence of accepting the friend’s bid
• A2 addresses one consequence of rejecting the friend’s bid
• A3a explains utilitarian ethics
• A3b applies utilitarian ethics to Part A
• B1 addresses one consequence of reporting the financial discrepancies
• B2 addresses one consequence of not reporting them
• B3a explains virtue ethics
• B3b applies virtue ethics to Part B
• C1 addresses one consequence of accepting the tickets
• C2 addresses one consequence of declining the tickets
• C3a explains principle-based ethics
• C3b applies principle-based ethics to Part C
• D includes appropriate citations and references
• E demonstrates professional communication
• The submission is original
• Grammar and professional communication have been reviewed
• The similarity report has been reviewed, if applicable
• The final document follows the required submission format

C717 Task 2 FZP1 FAQs

What is C717 Task 2 FZP1? It’s the performance assessment for WGU’s Ethical Dilemmas in Business course, evaluating how well a student can analyze three workplace and international ethical scenarios using specific assigned ethical theories.

What is C717 Task 2 about? It asks students to work through a conflict of interest, a whistleblowing situation, and an international gift-acceptance dilemma, identifying consequences and applying the appropriate ethical theory to each.

What are the three ethical dilemmas in FZP1? A conflict of interest involving a vendor bid from a friend, a whistleblowing decision involving discovered financial fraud, and a decision about accepting gifts from an international supplier.

What ethical theory is used in Part A? Utilitarian ethics, which focuses on the overall consequences and net good produced by each possible decision.

What is utilitarian ethics? An ethical framework that evaluates actions by weighing their overall benefits against their overall harms for everyone affected, favoring the option that produces the greatest net good.

What ethical theory is used in Part B? Virtue ethics, which centers the analysis on the character traits – like honesty, courage, and integrity – that should guide the decision.

What is virtue ethics? An ethical framework built around what a person of good moral character would do, rather than around consequences or rules alone.

What ethical theory is used in Part C? Principle-based ethics, which evaluates the decision against established duties, rules, and organizational principles.

What is principle-based ethics? An ethical framework that asks which moral principle or duty should govern a decision, independent of the outcome that decision might produce.

How is C717 Task 2 different from C717 Task 1? Task 1 builds the foundational understanding of ethical concepts and terminology; Task 2 requires applying three specific ethical theories to detailed, multi-part scenarios with a much heavier analytical and rubric-alignment load. The C717 Task 1 guide is a useful refresher if any of the underlying theory still feels unfamiliar.

How should students use examples when working on C717 Task 2? Use examples to clarify a concept for yourself while planning, but keep the actual submission tied to the specific facts of each scenario rather than to generic or borrowed illustrations.

What should students check before submitting C717 Task 2? Every rubric letter from A1 through E, whether each theory is both explained and applied, whether citations match references, and whether the writing is original, proofread, and professionally organized – the checklist above covers all of it in one pass.

Final Takeaway

The key to WGU C717 Task 2 FZP1 isn’t memorizing three definitions. It’s working the same five-step motion three times: understand the scenario, identify the consequence, understand the required ethical theory, apply the theory to the actual facts, explain the reasoning behind your resolution – then verify every rubric requirement against the checklist before you submit.

Treat this guide as a study and planning resource, not a source of ready-to-submit text. The strongest C717 submissions come from students who understand why a resolution follows from the theory, not from students who found the right paragraph to copy. If you want a second set of eyes on your own draft before you submit, or want help thinking through how to apply a specific theory to your scenario, a Gradevia coach is available on WhatsApp at +1 564-544-6924 – evening and weekend sessions built around a working adult’s schedule, not a traditional student’s.

Working through other WGU MBA courses this term? See the D253 Task 1 guide, the C207 Task 1 linear regression walkthrough, the C207 Task 2 guide, or the C216 Task 1 guide.

References

Bernacchio, C., Moore, G., Robson, A., & Rocchi, M. (2023). Editorial: MacIntyrean virtue ethics for organizations, work and employment: What more and what else? Frontiers in Sociology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1145849

Ermasova, N. (2021). Cross-cultural issues in business ethics: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595821999075

Guo, F., Xue, Z., He, J., & Yasmin, F. (2023). Ethical leadership and workplace behavior in the education sector: The implications of employees’ ethical work behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1040000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1040000

Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2021). Cited in: Utilitarian approaches to organizational decision-making and stakeholder welfare. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review. Retrieved from https://ijcsrr.org

Li, P., Sun, J.-M., & Taris, T. W. (2022). Differentiating between gift giving and bribing in China: A guanxi perspective. Ethics & Behavior, 32(4), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1922286

This article is a study and planning guide. It does not provide submission-ready answers for WGU C717 Task 2 FZP1, and it is not affiliated with or endorsed by Western Governors University.