Instructions For Week 3 Individual Assignment Total Nu

Instructionsinstructionsweek 3 Individual Assignmenttotal Number Of Q

Instructionsinstructionsweek 3 Individual Assignmenttotal Number Of Q

Instructions: You have ten problems—one on each tab of the provided Excel file. Show your work in the cells using formulas rather than writing answers directly, so the instructor can review your process and provide feedback. The problems involve calculations related to markup, markdown, discounts, and organizational ethics, drawing from provided scenarios. Use Excel functions to determine costs, prices, discounts, and compare organizational adherence to ethical principles like CERES. Provide complete solutions for all ten problems, approximately 1000 words total, with ten credible references cited appropriately.

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment requires a comprehensive exploration of ten financial and ethical problems presented through Excel scenarios. This analysis not only involves executing precise calculations but also contextualizing these within societal and organizational ethics frameworks, particularly the CERES principles.

Problem 1 involves calculating the cost, selling price, and rate based on a markup percentage. Nordstrom’s Brahmin Croc Embossed Laptop Case is marked up $130.50 over cost at a 58% rate based on cost. To determine the cost, the formula is: Cost = Sell Price / (1 + Markup Rate). Here, the markup rate based on cost corresponds to 58%, thus: Cost = $130.50 / 0.58 ≈ $225.00. The selling price is then: $225.00 + $130.50 = $355.50. The rate of the selling price relative to the original cost is: ($355.50 / $225.00) * 100 ≈ 158%. These figures depict the markup scheme and are crucial for understanding pricing strategies in retail.

Problem 2 examines a sign sold for $49 with an 80% markup based on the selling price. To find the cost, use: Cost = Selling Price / (1 + Markup). Substituting, Cost = $49 / 1.80 ≈ $27.22. The markup amount is: $49 - $27.22 ≈ $21.78. This calculation emphasizes the impact of markup based on selling price on cost structure and pricing decisions.

Problem 3 involves a markdown of 12.563% for a dishwasher priced at $398. The markdown amount is: $398 * 0.12563 ≈ $50.00. The reduced price becomes: $398 - $50 ≈ $348.00. This illustrates typical markdown calculations used in retail to manage inventory and promotional sales.

Problem 4 addresses pricing apples with a 180% markup on the cost, considering spoilage. Fresh Food Market pays $0.25 per pound for 300 pounds but expects a 5% spoilage. To find the selling price, first determine the effective quantity to sell: 95% of 300 pounds = 285 pounds. The total cost is: 300 pounds $0.25 = $75. To achieve 180% markup on cost: Selling Price = Cost (1 + 1.80) = $75 * 2.80 = $210. The required unit price per pound is: $210 / 285 ≈ $0.7368. These calculations are vital for pricing perishables considering shelf life and spoilage ratios, balancing profit margins and inventory wastage.

Problem 5 involves calculating the net price of a software listed at $70 with a 12% discount using the system of complements. The discount rate indicates Net Price = List Price (1 - Discount Rate), thus: $70 (1 - 0.12) = $70 * 0.88 = $61.60. This straightforward computation supports retail pricing and discount strategies.

Problem 6 compares two trade discount series for similar furniture sets. The first involves a 5/10/10 series on a $1899 set, and the second a 5/5/10 series on a $1800 set. Calculations involve multiplying the list price by successive complement discounts: First set net price = $1899 (1 - 0.05) (1 - 0.10) (1 - 0.10) ≈ $1899 0.95 0.90 0.90 ≈ $1459.60. The second set’s net price: $1800 (1 - 0.05) (1 - 0.05) (1 - 0.10) ≈ $1800 0.95 0.95 0.90 ≈ $1458.15. The second deal offers a marginally better net price, illustrating the importance of the sequence in trade discounts in procurement decisions.

Problem 7 calculates the trade discount and net price of a water heater priced at $395 with an 18% discount. The discount amount: $395 * 0.18 ≈ $71.10. The net price: $395 - $71.10 ≈ $323.90. These calculations are fundamental in wholesale purchasing negotiations.

Problem 8 involves computing a cash discount and net amount for an invoice of $3,848.96 with terms 2/10, 1/15, n/30, paid after 10 days but within 15 days. The 2% discount applies if paid within 10 days, so since payment occurs after 10 days, the discount is not applicable; otherwise, the 1% discount applies if paid within 15 days. The cash discount amount: $3,848.96 * 0.01 ≈ $38.49, and the net amount after discount: $3,848.96 - $38.49 ≈ $3,810.47, assuming payment within the 15-day window. This problem demonstrates the importance of timing in discount strategies.

Problem 9 pertains to Office Max's partial payment of $50,000 on an invoice of $89,517 with terms 2/10, n/30. The early payment discount on $50,000: $50,000 * 0.02 = $1,000. The amount credited after discount: $50,000 - $1,000 = $49,000. The remaining balance: $89,517 - $49,000 = $40,517. This scenario highlights cash flow management and early payment discounts in organizational finance.

Problem 10 concerns a $3,097.15 invoice dated September 8, with terms 3/15 ROG (Receipt of Goods), received on September 12. To qualify for a 3% cash discount: the payment should be made within 15 days of receipt, i.e., by September 27. The total to be paid if paid within discount: $3,097.15 * (1 - 0.03) ≈ $3,005.22. It emphasizes timely payments and discount benefits in supply chain logistics.

Beyond the calculation-focused problems, the scenarios integrate ethical considerations relating to organizational responsibility, transparency, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability practices, exemplified through the CERES principles. The discussion maintains that organizations may find it challenging to satisfy all stakeholder needs equally but can strive for honesty, respect, and transparency, essential for maintaining trust and accountability in a global economy. Ethical leadership and sustainability initiatives, as showcased in industry examples, demonstrate commitment to responsible practices, aligning economic growth with societal and environmental stewardship. Cultivating common ethical grounds across diverse cultures depends on understanding shared values such as human rights, fairness, and environmental responsibility, fostering collaboration and mutual respect at international levels.

References

  • Johnson, C. E. (2016). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Gibbs, D. (2009). Sustainability and the City: The Role of Urban Planning. Routledge.
  • Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.
  • Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Greenleaf Publishing.
  • Gowdy, J. M. (2014). Environmental and resource economics. Routledge.
  • Banerjee, S. B. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 31(3), 503-522.
  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Capstone Publishing.
  • Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organizational value creation: Whose value, which interests? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793-821.
  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2010). Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision support for business leaders? Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 13-26.
  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

Related Assignments