• Length: 20-25 pages, excluding title page and references. • Resources: A minimum of 20 scholarly resources are referenced and cited according to APA (5th ed.) guidelines. • Doctoral-level writing: Writing is free of errors that detract from the overall message. • Critical thinking: Writing demonstrates evidence of critical thinking, including the ability to compare, contrast, analyze, and synthesize. • Organization and clarity: Presents logical organized arguments, well supported by appropriate resources. The title of the paper is applying ethical theory to human resource practices. In the paper assess current organizational environments in the developed world in terms of the ethics of their human resource practices. Please make sure you relate the issues to at least “3” theoretical perspectives in ethics such as the law of agency, conflicts of interests, Kantian perspective, utilitarian perspective e.t.c. The paper should be at least 20 pages besides the title and reference pages. The paper must be written with at least 20 scholarly resources. PLEASE NOTE:The theoretical perspectives and the 20 scholarly resources are very crucial to the grade. The last paper I ordered was not done how I asked and I ended up with 71% grade even after I filtered a lot of plagiarism out. The reference below is the book I use in the course and these theoretical perspectives can be found there or any other ethic books you guys have. The paper should include an abstract, a title page, body(please include solutions to tackling the issues), and the conclusion. I will attach a discussion I had with my classmates to help give you an idea what the paper should look like. Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (6th ed., with CD). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0131930079. SAMPLE DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC. HRM is commonly defined as the "productive use of people in achieving the organisation''s strategic business objectives and the satisfaction of individual employee needs(Greenwood, 2002 ). The ethics of human resources in the current organizational environments is basically non-existent. Even researchers of the FIRM have failed to introduce theories of ethical development, corporate social responsibility, or stakeholder management. Only a few have actually tried to apply ethical theory to FIRM. Miller (1996) argues ethical FIRM can be achieved by applying principles of fairness and equality. He concludes that ethical or "good" FIRM depends on good employment conditions, which in turn depends on good organisational strategy. Applying ethical theory to HRM requires a whole lot more than just simple assumptions. Greenwood (2002 ) says that Even to begin to apply these ethical stances to HRM is to make significant assumptions about the purpose of the organisation, the roles and responsibilities of managers, and the rights and obligations of employees (and other stakeholders). In relation to the Kantian ethics, the way employees and stakeholders are treated by HRM should be humane. Treating people simply as a means is to regard them as something we use for our own purposes without their full and free consents(Greenwood, ). Rawls (1972, p. 83) and Greenwood (2002, p.268) also holds that people are "self-originating sources of valid claims" and that they matter from a moral point of view because they are "ends in themselves". Rawlsian social justice can only be achieved through social contracts and the existence of institutions to support such contracts. Greenwood (2002) also mentions ideas from critical theorists which includes absence of clear lines of responsibility( which encourages greater contribution and cross-skilling but also frees management to shift and adapt and rationalise without needing to justify their actions),and Team working(which encourages employee involvement and sharing but also allows the avoidance of managerial responsibility and suppresses resistance and confrontation. Greenwood says that this perpective does not offer employees the respect and autonomy necessary to be treated as subjects-inthemselves. Greenwood (2002) notes The utilitarian view can be used to support the case for the opposing view - the stakeholder model but cannot, however, be used to justify the business acting in self-interest to maximise its own utility, that is, to support the "business case”.