WGU C717 Task 2 Guide and Example: FZP1 Ethical Dilemmas in Business

Updated on: Oct 8, 2026

By Dan Palmer, MBA · Academic strategy consultant for working adult learners · LinkedIn

WGU C717 Task 2 gives you three short ethical dilemmas: a conflict of interest, a whistleblowing case, and an international gift. For each one, you write two workplace consequences and then analyze the dilemma through an assigned ethical theory: utilitarian ethics, virtue ethics, or principle-based ethics. Nine short answers, three theories, one Word document.

The task is short, which is why it trips up busy MBA students. Most returns aren’t caused by weak writing. They come from a consequence that describes how the employee feels instead of what happens at work, a theory explained correctly but never applied, or a resolution that says “it depends” instead of reaching a decision. This guide shows how to avoid each of those, with an APA 7 example built on practice dilemmas so you can see the reasoning without copying an answer.

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 C717 Task 2 (FZP1) Asks You to Do

The current FZP1 version, titled “Ethical Dilemmas in Business,” uses the same structure for all three dilemmas:

The directions add three practical rules: write in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx), don’t submit cloud links such as Google Docs, and review your Grammarly for Education feedback first, because the submission won’t pass unless professional communication passes.

Which Version Do You Have? FZP1, EKP1, or Another Code

WGU has used more than one Task 2 version. If your task page shows WGU C717 Task 2 FZP1, the dilemmas above are yours. If it shows another code, such as EKP1, or if you’re searching for WGU C717 Task 2 FZP2, compare the dilemma titles on your task page before you use any guide. Our FZP1 vs. EKP1 comparison shows how to tell them apart.

Writing the Six Consequences

Each dilemma asks for one workplace consequence of each choice. Three tests separate a passing consequence from a returned one:

1. It happens at work. A consequence for the team, the department, the company, its customers, or the employee’s job. “The manager feels guilty” is a feeling. “Other vendors stop bidding because they believe the process is rigged” is a workplace consequence.
2. It follows from this choice. Accepting and rejecting should lead to clearly different outcomes. If both consequences could be written about either choice, they’re too general.
3. It’s explained, not listed. Name the consequence, then explain in two or three sentences how it would unfold and why it matters to the organization.

Vague: “Rejecting the bid could hurt the friendship.”

Specific (from our practice example): “If Elena rejects the lowest bid because of the family connection, Westlake pays $38,000 more over two years for the same work, and the finance committee would see only that the lowest qualified bid was passed over without explanation.”

Notice that the specific version is about the organization, includes a measurable effect, and shows who will notice.

Explaining and Applying the Three Theories

Each theory section has two parts: explain the theory (a), then describe how a person using it would resolve the dilemma (b). The most common gap is a strong definition in part (a) followed by a part (b) that never uses it.

The definitions in the table follow standard philosophical accounts. Classic utilitarianism holds that “an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2023). Virtue ethics emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, rather than duties or consequences (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2026). For deontological, or principle-based, approaches, “what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm” (Alexander & Moore, 2024). Your course materials may use slightly different wording, so align your explanation with them.

Two rules make part (b) pass:

• Reach a decision. “A utilitarian would weigh the pros and cons” isn’t a resolution. Say what the person would do and why the theory leads there.
• Use the theory’s logic, not your own preference. A utilitarian resolution counts stakeholders. A virtue ethics resolution names virtues. A principle-based resolution names a rule. If your part (b) could be swapped into another theory’s section without changes, it isn’t applying the theory.

Notes on Each Dilemma

• Part A, utilitarian: list everyone affected, not just the manager and the friend: other vendors, the company’s budget, and colleagues who trust the process. Utilitarian reasoning often favors a transparent process, such as disclosing the relationship and stepping back from the decision, because that protects the greatest number of people.
• Part B, virtue ethics: the fear of retaliation is part of the dilemma, so address it. Courage is the virtue most students name, but practical wisdom matters too: a virtuous person reports in a way that is honest and prudent, such as documenting the evidence and using the proper reporting channel.
• Part C, principle-based: the tension is between the company’s rule and respect for the supplier’s culture. A strong resolution explains which principle governs and also shows how the salesperson can honor the relationship without breaking the rule. This dilemma is about company policy, not bribery law, so keep the analysis on duties and policy.

For help naming the type of conflict in each dilemma, see our guide to identifying the type of ethical dilemma in WGU C717 Task 2.

Parts D and E: Sources and Professional Communication

Cite the source of every theory definition you paraphrase, whether it’s your course materials or an outside source such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Our guide on how to cite sources for WGU C717 Task 2 covers APA formatting for this task. For Part E, use headings that match the rubric (A1, A2, A3a, A3b, and so on) and clear every Grammarly for Education correctness flag.

Why WGU C717 Task 2 Answers and PDFs Are Risky

Searches for WGU C717 Task 2 answers or a WGU C717 Task 2 PDF lead to papers written for exactly the same three dilemmas you have. Every FZP1 student analyzes the same procurement manager, the same accountant, and the same World Cup tickets, so shared answers are what the similarity checker compares against first. The theory definitions are especially risky, because copied definitions look identical across submissions. Paraphrase from a cited source in your own words, and keep the consequences tied to your own reasoning.

WGU C717 Task 2 Example: Practice Dilemmas in APA 7

Our C717 Task 2 example uses three fictitious practice dilemmas with the same structure and theories as FZP1, not the WGU dilemmas:

• Conflict of interest (utilitarian): a hospital facilities director whose brother in law’s firm submits the lowest landscaping bid
• Whistleblowing (virtue ethics): a payroll specialist who finds her manager approving overtime for shifts no one worked
• International gift (principle-based): a sales engineer from a company that bans gifts, offered final tickets by a long time distributor in Portugal

Each section includes two workplace consequences, an explanation of the theory with a citation, and a resolution that reaches a clear decision. Comments explain which requirement each part meets.

Here’s part of its principle-based resolution:

A person using principle-based ethics would decline the tickets. The governing principle is the duty to keep commitments, including the commitment every employee makes to follow company policy, and that duty applies regardless of where the employee is traveling. The engineer can still respect the distributor by declining in person, explaining the policy, and inviting the distributor’s team to a working dinner that complies with the policy.

The example is for illustration only. Your submission must analyze the FZP1 dilemmas in your own words.

Download the C717 Task 2 example (.docx)

Coming From WGU C717 Task 1?

WGU C717 Task 1 is a different kind of assignment: a longer analysis of the TechFite scenario. If you haven’t finished it, our WGU C717 Task 1 guide walks through the requirements, and our WGU C717 Task 1 example shows a full sample paper. Task 2 is shorter but asks for more precise theory work, so budget your time for parts A3, B3, and C3.

Plan It Around Your Work Week

1. Evening one: Write all six consequences, two per dilemma, checking each against the three tests above.
2. Evening two: Write the three theory explanations from a cited source, then each resolution with a clear decision.
3. Evening three (short): Add references, run Grammarly for Education, and check the similarity report before submitting.

Common Reasons C717 Task 2 Comes Back

• A consequence describes feelings or personal life instead of the workplace
• The accepting and rejecting consequences are essentially the same
• A theory is defined but never applied in part (b)
• A resolution says “it depends” instead of reaching a decision
• The virtue ethics resolution ignores the fear of retaliation
• The principle-based resolution ignores the cultural respect side of the dilemma
• Theory definitions are paraphrased without a citation
• The file is submitted as a cloud link instead of a Word document

Related WGU Guides

• See every C717 guide in one place.
• Legal versus ethical obligations come up again in our WGU D078 Task 2 guide.
• For leading with values, see our WGU D253 Task 1 guide.
• Browse all WGU assignment guides and samples.

Pre-Submission Checklist

• Your task page shows the FZP1 dilemmas (conflict of interest, whistleblowing, gifts)
• Each of the six consequences happens at work and is explained in two or three sentences
• Accepting and rejecting (or reporting and not reporting) lead to clearly different consequences
• A3a, B3a, and C3a each explain the theory with a citation
• A3b, B3b, and C3b each reach a clear decision using that theory’s logic
• Headings match the rubric (A1 through C3b)
• The paper is a Word file, Grammarly Correctness is clear, and the similarity report has been reviewed

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the three dilemmas in WGU C717 Task 2 FZP1?

A conflict of interest involving a friend’s bid, a whistleblowing case involving a supervisor’s fraud, and an international dilemma about accepting World Cup tickets from a supplier in Spain.

Which ethical theory goes with each part of C717 Task 2?

Part A uses utilitarian ethics, Part B uses virtue ethics, and Part C uses principle-based ethics.

What counts as a workplace consequence in C717 Task 2?

An effect on the team, department, company, customers, or the employee’s job, such as lost vendor trust, a compliance investigation, or a damaged supplier relationship. A personal feeling alone isn’t a workplace consequence.

Do I have to reach a decision in the resolution sections?

Yes. Each part (b) asks how a person using the theory would resolve the dilemma, so state the decision and explain how the theory leads to it.

Can I submit the C717 Task 2 example from this page?

No. It analyzes fictitious practice dilemmas, not the FZP1 dilemmas, and copying any example would violate WGU’s academic integrity policy.

Want a Second Look Before You Submit?

If you’re working full time and want structured assignment support sharpening your consequences, applying the three theories, or checking your resolutions before you submit, message Gradevia on WhatsApp at +1 564 544 6924.

Message us on WhatsApp

Sources

Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2024). Deontological ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2026). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2023). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/