WGU C206 Task 3 Guide and Example: Code of Ethics Analysis

Reading Time: 14 minutes

WGU C206 Task 3 Guide and Example: Code of Ethics Analysis

WGU C206 Task 3 requires you to select a company from WGU’s approved list, analyze its code of ethics covering corporate social responsibility and legal compliance, describe the ramifications of noncompliance, identify two specific policies that ensure ethical and legal employee behavior, and recommend improvements; in a structured analytical paper of approximately 5–8 pages. This guide covers every rubric section with an annotated Mayo Clinic sample you can study before writing your own.

Task 3 is the most straightforward of the three C206 tasks because all the source material, the company’s actual code of ethics, is publicly available. The revision risk comes from description rather than analysis: students who summarize what the code says rather than evaluating how well it addresses CSR and legal compliance will receive revision requests.

See the WGU C206 Task 1 guide and WGU C206 Task 2 guide for the other two tasks.

What Is WGU C206 Task 3?

WGU C206 Task 3 is a code of ethics analysis paper requiring you to evaluate a real company’s published code of ethics against specific standards: how well it addresses CSR, how well it addresses legal compliance, what happens when organizations violate legal mandates, and what specific policies the code contains to promote ethical and legal behavior.

The company must come from WGU’s approved list, which includes organizations across industries; healthcare, retail, technology, manufacturing, and financial services. Popular choices include Walmart, Target, Mayo Clinic, Johnson & Johnson, Amazon, and Google. Healthcare-adjacent organizations are a natural fit for nursing and healthcare MBA students.

How to Choose Your Company

Choose a company whose code of ethics is publicly available and substantive enough to analyze critically.

Strong choices for healthcare MBA students:

• Mayo Clinic — Detailed code covering patient care ethics, research integrity, conflict of interest, and community responsibility
• Johnson & Johnson — Credo-based ethics framework with strong CSR and patient safety emphasis; rich history of ethical crisis response
• CVS Health — Healthcare retail context; strong community health and CSR programming
• HCA Healthcare — Large hospital system with detailed compliance and ethics infrastructure

Strong general MBA choices:

• Walmart — Frequently used in WGU C206; code covers CSR, legal compliance, supplier standards; many student examples available for reference structure
• Target — Similar to Walmart; strong diversity and community CSR language
• Patagonia — Exceptional environmental CSR content; useful if environmental ethics is your focus

Avoid companies whose codes are too brief (less than 10 pages of substantive content) — you will not have enough material to write a substantive analysis across all rubric sections.

What Does the C206 Task 3 Rubric Require?

The Task 3 rubric evaluates five core sections:

• Section A1 — CSR Analysis: Analyze how well the company’s code of ethics covers corporate social responsibility. Does it address environmental responsibility? Community impact? Stakeholder interests beyond shareholders?
• Section A2 — Legal Compliance Analysis: Analyze how well the code covers compliance with legal mandates. Does it address specific laws and regulations relevant to the company’s industry?
• Section A2a — Noncompliance Ramifications: Describe the consequences for an organization when it fails to comply with legal mandates (fines, reputational damage, criminal liability, regulatory sanctions, loss of contracts).
• Section A2b — Two Compliance Policies: Identify and describe two specific policies in the chosen code that ensure employees behave legally and/or ethically.
• Section B — Recommended Improvements: Identify at least two areas where the code could be strengthened and explain how you would improve it.

How to Write the CSR Analysis (Section A1)

The CSR analysis evaluates the code — it does not describe the company’s CSR programs. The question is: how well does the written code of ethics address CSR as a documented commitment?

A strong CSR analysis:

• Identifies specific CSR language in the code (quote sparingly — paraphrase and analyze)
• Evaluates whether the code covers multiple CSR dimensions (economic, legal, ethical, philanthropic per Carroll)
• Identifies which stakeholders the code acknowledges (employees, customers, communities, environment, suppliers)
• Notes gaps — what CSR dimensions are addressed weakly or not at all

Analysis vs. description — the critical distinction:

Description (triggers revision): “The code says the company is committed to the environment and to its communities.”

Analysis (rubric-aligned): “The code addresses environmental CSR through a dedicated section on sustainability commitments, including specific targets for emissions reduction and waste management. However, the environmental section focuses primarily on regulatory compliance rather than voluntary environmental leadership — it describes what the company is legally required to do rather than what it has committed to doing beyond legal requirements. This represents a gap in the ethical CSR dimension, as it frames environmental responsibility as compliance rather than stakeholder obligation.”

How to Write the Legal Compliance Analysis (Section A2)

Analyze how comprehensively the code addresses the company’s legal compliance obligations — not just whether legal compliance is mentioned.

Strong legal compliance sections in a code of ethics typically address:

• Specific laws applicable to the industry (healthcare: HIPAA, anti-kickback statutes, CMS regulations; retail: FTC regulations, employment law, product safety; financial: SEC regulations, anti-money laundering)
• Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements
• Anti-corruption and anti-bribery commitments (FCPA for international companies)
• Employment law compliance (EEO, ADA, FLSA)
• Data privacy and cybersecurity obligations
• Reporting obligations when violations are discovered

Evaluate depth: Does the code name specific laws or only reference compliance with “applicable laws and regulations” in general? Specific legal references indicate a more substantive compliance commitment than generic language.

How to Write the Noncompliance Ramifications Section (A2a)

Describe the specific consequences organizations face when they fail to comply with legal mandates. The rubric expects you to cover multiple types of consequences — not just “they get fined.”

Categories of noncompliance ramifications:

Financial penalties: Regulatory fines and penalties, which can be substantial — HIPAA violations carry fines of up to $1.9 million per violation category per year; SEC violations can reach tens of millions; OSHA violations up to $156,259 per willful violation (current 2024 figures).

Criminal liability: Senior executives and organizations can face criminal prosecution for knowing violations of certain laws — particularly in healthcare fraud, financial fraud, and environmental violations.

Reputational damage: Consumer trust, brand equity, and employee morale can be severely and lastingly damaged by publicized compliance failures; sometimes more costly than the direct financial penalties.

Regulatory sanctions: Loss of operating licenses, exclusion from government contracts, or debarment from Medicare/Medicaid participation (for healthcare organizations) can threaten the organization’s fundamental viability.

Civil litigation: Third parties harmed by the organization’s noncompliance can bring civil suits; class action litigation in particular can generate liability exceeding regulatory fines.

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines implications: As analyzed in Task 2, organizations with ineffective compliance programs face higher culpability scores and thus higher fines when federal criminal conduct is proven.

How to Write the Compliance Policies Section (A2b)

Identify two specific, named policies from the code that promote ethical and legal employee behavior; and explain how each policy works.

Strong policy choices:

• Conflict of interest disclosure policy (specific process for disclosing and managing conflicts)
• Anti-corruption or gifts and entertainment policy (specific limits on what employees can give or receive)
• Reporting and non-retaliation policy (anonymous hotline, anti-retaliation protections)
• Data privacy policy (specific employee obligations regarding customer or patient data)
• HIPAA compliance policy (for healthcare organizations)

What the rubric evaluates: Not just that you named a policy, but that you explained how the policy promotes ethical or legal behavior; the mechanism, not just the existence.

How to Write the Recommended Improvements (Section B)

Identify at least two specific gaps in the code and explain how to close them. Generic recommendations (“the code should be more detailed”) will not satisfy the rubric.

Strong improvement recommendations:

• A specific topic the code addresses weakly or not at all (e.g., social media policy, AI ethics, supply chain labor standards)
• A structural improvement that would improve code effectiveness (e.g., adding industry-specific legal compliance sections for each business unit)
• A communication or enforcement recommendation (e.g., requiring annual attestation from all employees)

Connect each recommendation to the CSR or legal compliance gap you identified in Sections A1 and A2; the improvements should directly address the weaknesses you analyzed.

Common C206 Task 3 Revision Triggers

• CSR analysis that describes company CSR programs instead of analyzing how well the code of ethics addresses CSR.
• Legal compliance analysis that says compliance is mentioned without evaluating the depth, specificity, or completeness of the legal coverage.
• Noncompliance ramifications that cover only one type of consequence — typically “fines” without addressing criminal liability, reputational damage, regulatory sanctions, or Sentencing Guidelines implications.
• Compliance policies that are described too briefly — one sentence on what the policy says without explaining how it functions to ensure ethical or legal behavior.
• Recommendations that are generic — “add more detail” or “update the code more frequently” without connecting to a specific identified gap.

Annotated Sample: WGU C206 Task 3 — Mayo Clinic

This sample is provided for educational reference only. Do not submit this document as your own work. Need a custom Task 3 written for your chosen company? Message us on WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924

Sample Section A1 — CSR Analysis

The Mayo Clinic’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility addresses corporate social responsibility across multiple dimensions of Carroll’s (1991) CSR framework, with particular strength in the ethical and philanthropic dimensions relevant to a nonprofit academic medical center.

Ethical CSR: The code’s “Community Benefit” section explicitly commits Mayo Clinic to providing healthcare services regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, consistent with its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status and mission to serve the community. The code states that “the primary value is the needs of the patient”; establishing patient welfare as the organizing ethical principle that supersedes financial considerations. This is a strong ethical CSR commitment that goes beyond what would be legally required of a for-profit healthcare organization.

Philanthropic CSR: The code addresses Mayo’s educational mission — training physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals — as a component of its community responsibility. This reflects the philanthropic CSR dimension: contributing to society’s human capital beyond the immediate service delivery relationship.

Gap — Environmental CSR: The code does not substantively address environmental responsibility — a notable gap given that hospital systems are among the largest energy consumers and medical waste generators in the service sector. The American Hospital Association (AHA) has identified environmental sustainability as an emerging CSR obligation for health systems, and Mayo Clinic’s code does not reflect this dimension (AHA, 2022). This represents an area for improvement in the code’s CSR coverage.

Gap — Supply Chain CSR: The code addresses vendor relationships from a conflict-of-interest and gifts perspective but does not address supply chain labor standards or environmental practices of Mayo’s suppliers and vendors; dimensions increasingly expected in comprehensive CSR frameworks.

Sample Section A2 — Legal Compliance Analysis

Mayo Clinic’s code of ethics addresses legal compliance through several industry-specific provisions that reflect the heavily regulated nature of healthcare:

HIPAA Compliance: The code includes a dedicated Privacy and Confidentiality section requiring employees to protect patient health information consistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The code specifies that patient information may only be shared on a “need to know” basis, requires formal authorization for most disclosures, and establishes training and reporting obligations; a level of specificity appropriate for an organization handling tens of millions of patient records annually.

Anti-Kickback and Self-Referral: The code addresses federal anti-kickback statute compliance through its Conflict of Interest and Business Relationships sections, prohibiting employees from accepting personal benefits that could influence clinical or purchasing decisions. Given that healthcare fraud under the anti-kickback statute carries penalties of up to $100,000 per violation and potential exclusion from Medicare/Medicaid (OIG, 2023), this coverage is appropriately prominent in the code.

Gap — Research Compliance: While Mayo is a major academic research institution, the code’s coverage of research ethics compliance — including FDA regulations for clinical trials, IRB requirements, and research data integrity standards — is limited to a brief reference to “research integrity.” Given the volume and complexity of Mayo’s research enterprise, more specific research compliance guidance would strengthen the code’s legal coverage.

Sample Section A2a — Noncompliance Ramifications

When organizations fail to comply with applicable legal mandates, they face consequences across multiple categories that can individually or collectively threaten organizational viability:

Financial Penalties: Regulatory fines for healthcare compliance violations can be severe. HIPAA violations carry civil monetary penalties of $100 to $50,000 per violation (capped at $1.9 million per violation category per year) depending on the level of culpability, with criminal penalties reaching $250,000 and ten years of imprisonment for knowing violations (HHS, 2022). Healthcare fraud under the False Claims Act generates penalties of three times the amount fraudulently claimed plus $13,000–$27,000 per false claim.

Criminal Liability: The Department of Justice’s healthcare fraud enforcement actions have resulted in criminal convictions of both organizations and individual executives. Executives who knowingly participate in or fail to prevent Medicare fraud face personal criminal liability under the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine; meaning compliance failures are not merely organizational financial risks but personal legal risks for senior leaders.

Reputational Damage: A compliance failure that becomes public — particularly in healthcare, where patient trust is foundational — can produce lasting reputational damage disproportionate to the underlying incident. A single publicized HIPAA breach can reduce patient volumes, impair physician recruitment, and trigger regulatory scrutiny across all operations.

Medicare/Medicaid Exclusion: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has authority to exclude organizations and individuals from participation in federal healthcare programs for compliance violations. For a health system like Mayo Clinic, where a substantial portion of revenue is Medicare- and Medicaid-funded, exclusion would be an existential threat.

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Impact: Under the Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, a healthcare system found guilty of a federal offense without an effective compliance program faces a base culpability score of five multiplied by an aggravating factor; potentially resulting in fines in the hundreds of millions for a large institution. An effective compliance program is the primary mechanism for reducing this multiplier (USSC, 2021).

Sample Section A2b — Two Compliance Policies

Policy 1: Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Management

Mayo Clinic’s code establishes a comprehensive conflict-of-interest policy requiring employees to disclose any financial or personal relationship that could influence their professional judgment. The policy specifically addresses vendor relationships, outside employment, research funding sources, and investment interests in companies doing business with Mayo. Employees must complete annual conflict-of-interest disclosure forms, and disclosed conflicts are reviewed by designated ethics officers who determine whether the conflict must be managed, mitigated, or eliminated.

This policy promotes ethical and legal compliance in two ways: it prevents the specific conduct prohibited by anti-kickback statutes (paying or receiving remuneration in exchange for referrals) and creates an organizational process for identifying and managing conflicts before they become violations. Annual disclosure requirements also establish a documented record of transparency that is valuable in any subsequent regulatory investigation.

Policy 2: Non-Retaliation and Ethics Reporting

Mayo Clinic’s code includes an explicit non-retaliation policy protecting employees who report suspected ethical or compliance violations in good faith. The policy prohibits adverse employment actions against individuals who report concerns through the ethics hotline, to management, or to regulatory authorities, and establishes a process for investigating retaliation complaints independently of the underlying violation report.

This policy promotes ethical behavior by addressing the primary reason employees fail to report witnessed violations: fear of personal consequences (Ethics & Compliance Initiative, 2022). By explicitly protecting reporters and establishing consequences for retaliating managers, the policy creates the psychological safety that is a prerequisite for an effective reporting culture.

Sample Section B — Recommended Improvements

Improvement 1: Add Substantive Environmental Responsibility Language

As noted in the CSR analysis, Mayo Clinic’s code does not address environmental responsibility despite the significant environmental footprint of hospital operations. I recommend adding a dedicated Environmental Stewardship section that commits Mayo to specific environmental standards — including waste reduction targets, energy efficiency goals, and sustainable procurement criteria — and assigns accountability to a designated environmental officer. This would close the gap in the code’s CSR coverage and align with the growing expectation in healthcare that environmental stewardship is a leadership responsibility, not merely a regulatory one (Eckelman & Sherman, 2016).

Improvement 2: Expand Research Compliance Coverage

Given Mayo Clinic’s status as one of the world’s leading academic medical research institutions, the code’s brief reference to “research integrity” is insufficient. I recommend expanding the research compliance section to specifically address FDA clinical trial regulations, IRB approval processes, data integrity standards, conflict-of-interest disclosure in research funding, and the consequences of research misconduct. This would align the code with National Institutes of Health (NIH) research integrity requirements and the research community’s expectation of comprehensive ethical standards for academic medical research (NIH, 2023).

References

American Hospital Association. (2022). AHA sustainability roadmap: Environmental stewardship for hospitals. https://www.aha.org/sustainability

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

Ethics & Compliance Initiative. (2022). Global business ethics survey. https://www.ethics.org

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2022). HIPAA for professionals. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa

National Institutes of Health. (2023). Research integrity. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/research-integrity

Office of Inspector General. (2023). Exclusion authorities. https://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions

U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2021). Guidelines manual, chapter 8. https://www.ussc.gov

Frequently Asked Questions About WGU C206 Task 3

What companies can I use for WGU C206 Task 3?

WGU provides an approved list of companies in your course materials. Common approved choices include Walmart, Target, Amazon, Johnson & Johnson, Mayo Clinic, CVS Health, Google, and others. Confirm your current approved list in your course portal — do not choose a company not on the list.

Do I need to read the entire company code of ethics?

Yes — you need to read the full code to accurately analyze its CSR coverage, identify specific compliance policies, and find genuine gaps for your improvement recommendations. Codes typically run 20–80 pages. For a manageable approach, read the full document once to understand the structure, then return to specific sections when writing each paper section.

How critical should my analysis be?

The rubric rewards honest evaluation — both what the code does well and what it lacks. Students who write only positive analysis of a code (“this company does CSR very well”) tend to produce thin improvement sections. Identify genuine gaps; your improvement recommendations will be more credible and your analysis more rigorous.

Can I quote from the company’s code of ethics?

Brief direct quotations (under 15 words) are acceptable when paraphrasing would lose important nuance. The analysis should be primarily in your own words — assessors want your evaluation of the code, not a summary of its contents.

How long should C206 Task 3 be?

Most passing submissions are 5–8 pages. The CSR analysis, legal compliance analysis, and improvement recommendations are the most content-dense sections. The noncompliance ramifications and policy description sections are typically shorter (one to two pages combined).

Author Bio

This guide was developed by the Gradevia academic content team; specialists in WGU MBA curriculum, organizational ethics, and performance assessment standards for working adult learners.

Article Update Log

The post WGU C206 Task 3 Guide and Example: Code of Ethics Analysis appeared first on Your Online Resourses Guide.