Read the Guidant case "Dicing with Death?" Links to an external site.or Dicing with death pdf. You will select one stakeholder (your choice) to "represent" in the discussion and will post an argument about what Guidant should have done when it found out about the manufacturing defect in its Prizm2 device. In your argument, clearly state what stakeholder you are representing, your position, and consider both the definition(s) of CSR as well as the expectations various stakeholders might have about what responsible corporate conduct might mean.

You might consider the following as discussion starters:

• which stakeholder is most important (if any)?
• does the definition of CSR used to evaluate the case influence which course of action Guidant should have taken?
• do the recommendations about what to do reflect any particular CSR approach (based on Ulrich's 5 approaches)?
• what are the key tensions between the different stakeholder interest?
• Is there a solution/approach that resolves most tensions?