Part (b) required candidates to discuss the possible impact on, and the response of, the company to two specific ethical issues. On the whole, answers tackled the first issue of relocation of farmers better than the second issue of the relationship between the leaders of the country and the company.

Poorer answers in the first issue often did not recognise that it was not the company that displaced the farmers but the country’s leadership. For both issues, many answers did not consider both the impact on the company and its response.

There was quite a bit of repetition of the question’s narrative, which was not necessary and gained no marks. It seems that many candidates did not read or understand what was required, and who had undertaken what action.

Some answers, very naively, suggested drastic actions such as replacing the CEO because of the relationship with the president, without recognising that in real life good relationships are essential to gaining business and embedding trust, as long as correct and transparent procedures are followed.