4 

As per data,

Pension Plan asset is 7000

Benefit obligations 9000

Formula for pension liability is =Plan assets-plan obligations

Adding values,

Similarly

pension liability = 7000-9000=2000

Pension liability is $2000

Then option 4 is the correct answer

1st option is is not possible because it is same as pension obligations

2nd option is not possible because it is same as pension cost , pension cost not comes under pension liability

3 rd option is not possible because it is same as contribution of pension, contribution is not comes under pension liability.

Then the answer is to be write on balance sheet by cyber report is $200,000.

5 

Employee is fully eligible for benefits.

an employer's obligation for postretirement benefits expected to be provided to or for an employee be fully accrued by the date that employee attains full eligibility for all of the benefits expected to be received by that employee, any beneficiaries, and covered dependents (the full eligibility date), even if the employee is expected to render additional service beyond that date.

6 

Answer :

Giving Voice to Values (GVV)" is a behavioral ethics approach that shifts the focus away from traditional philosophical reasoning to an emphasis on developing the capacity to effectively express one's values in a way that positively influences others by finding the levers to effectively voice and enact one's values. The methodology asks the protagonist to think about the arguments others might make that create barriers to expressing one's values in the workplace and how best to counteract these "reasons and rationalizations." GVV is used post-decision-making, that is, you have already decided what to do. It can be used to ward off the necessity for whistle-blowing if by voicing values others can be convinced about the wrongness of their intended behavior/decisions.

REASONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS

When we encounter values conflicts in the workplace, we often face barriers that appear in the form of “reasons and rationalizations” for pursuing a particular course of action. These obstacles can confound our best attempts to fulfill our own sense of organizational and personal purpose. These are the objections you hear from your colleagues when you try to point out an ethical problem in the way things are being done. Sometimes you don’t even hear them because they are the unspoken assumptions — seeming truisms — of the organization.

It is extremely difficult to make a strong argument against the “prevailing winds” if you feel you are in the minority, or if you don’t feel you have the time to come up with a workable alternative or if you don’t want to take the chance to present a half-baked response. So the Giving Voice to Values curriculum is about creating a time and space to be in the majority, with sufficient time to come up with a fully baked and pre-tested response to some of the most common challenges you are likely to face in your workplace.

In order to develop this ability, we want to consider the challenging situation carefully and answer the following questions:

• What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? That is, what are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
• What is at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with you?
• What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
• What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context?

CATEGORIES OF CONFLICT

Interestingly, these questions are not asking us to apply ethical analysis. Rather, they are all about understanding the reasons and motivations — both rational and emotional, organizational and personal, ethical and perhaps unethical — that guide the behavior and choices of those with whom we want to communicate. What can make this approach particularly useful for tackling values-based conflicts is that, after a while, we will begin to recognize familiar categories of argument or reasons that we typically hear from someone defending an ethically questionable behavior. And, similarly, there are some useful questions, persuasive arguments and ways of framing our own role/purpose, and that of our organization, which can help us respond persuasively to these frequent arguments.

Finally, the very act of recognizing and naming the argument can reduce its power because it is no longer unconscious or assumed; we have made it discussable and even put it into play with equally, or hopefully stronger, counterarguments. Choice becomes possible, and that is what this note is all about.

The most frequent categories of argument or rationalization that we face when we speak out against unethical practice. Some of the most common arguments include:

• Expected or Standard Practice: "Everyone does this, so it's really standard practice. It's even expected."
• Materiality: "The impact of this action is not material. It doesn't really hurt anyone."
• Locus of Responsibility: "This is not my responsibility; I'm just following orders here."
• Locus of Loyalty: "I know this isn't quite fair to the customer but I don't want to hurt my reports/team/boss/company."
• Isolated Incident: "This is a one-time request; you won't be asked to do it again."

Example :

A good example in accounting is the WorldCom fraud. Betty Vinson was convinced it was a one-time request. She felt the need to be loyal and a team player. She believed Scott Sullivan knew what was the correct accounting because of his higher position, and rationalized she did not develop the questionable accounting. She was just following orders. On the other hand, Cynthia Cooper was the hero in the WorldCom fraud ordering her internal audit staff to do an exhaustive investigation into the recording of "prepaid capacity" costs, which were payments for telecommunications access on other providers' networks that should have been expensed as incurred each year but, instead, were capitalized to show a higher level of earnings. Cooper knew it was her responsibility as the vice president of internal audit to make sure the improper accounting was corrected. She knew it was material in amount and wasn't (or shouldn't have been) standard practice. She did not fall for the "locus of loyalty" argument of Scott Sullivan, the CFO.