| Course | BU 380 Strategic Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Governance and obligations memo |
| Length | About 870 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Business memo with analysis, APA 7 references |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 380 Unit 7
Memorandum
To: Governance Committee, Board of Directors (course scenario)
From: Strategy analyst
Date: May 26, 2026
Re: How to respond to a proposal asking Tractor Supply to adopt greenhouse gas reduction targets
The Decision and Why Preference Cannot Settle It
This memo addresses a scenario constructed for this course: a group of shareholders submits a proposal for the 2027 annual meeting asking Tractor Supply Company to adopt and publish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario is realistic because the company withdrew its carbon emission goals in June 2024, announcing in a statement it later placed in a securities filing that it would focus instead on land and water conservation (Tractor Supply Company, 2024). The committee must recommend how the board responds.
Preference cannot settle the question because the parties want things the company cannot deliver together. The proposing shareholders want targets; customers who objected to the company's earlier programs were told in 2024 that the company's activities would tie directly to its business; and the company may have legal reporting duties regardless of what anyone prefers. Any response disappoints someone.
What Each Party Is Owed, and on What Grounds
Proposing shareholders are owed a fair process and, if their proposal meets the rule's requirements, a place on the ballot. The basis is law: the SEC's shareholder proposal rule sets eligibility, procedural and substantive conditions under which a company must include a qualifying proposal in its proxy materials, while allowing exclusion on specified grounds (17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-8). They are not owed adoption; most such proposals are advisory.
Other shareholders are owed decisions that protect long-term value. Their views differ, and the board owes them its judgment rather than deference to whichever group is loudest.
Customers who objected in 2024 are owed consistency with an express commitment. The company told them it had taken their feedback to heart and would ensure its activities tie directly to its business (Tractor Supply Company, 2024). That is not a legal claim, but it is a reasonable expectation the company created.
Team members hold mixed views, and the company's filings commit it to a respectful workplace that values different perspectives (Tractor Supply Company, 2026). They are owed a decision explained honestly.
Regulators and the public are owed compliance. California's climate disclosure law requires large companies doing business in the state to report their greenhouse gas emissions, with the first reports due in 2026 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38532). Whether and how the law applies to Tractor Supply is a question for counsel, but if it applies, reporting is an obligation, not a choice.
The Governance Route
The decision would travel a defined route. The corporate secretary and outside counsel first check the proposal against the rule's eligibility and procedural requirements. If the board believes the proposal may be excluded, for example as relating to ordinary business, counsel may seek the SEC staff's view before excluding it; exclusion without a sound basis invites challenge. If the proposal is included, the board publishes a statement in the proxy explaining its recommendation. Shareholders vote at the annual meeting, and although the vote is advisory, a substantial level of support would carry weight with the board and with proxy advisers. This committee's role is to recommend the board's position and its statement. Mitchell et al. (1997) hold that managers heed stakeholders in proportion to the power, legitimacy and urgency of their claims, and the route mirrors this: shareholders have formal power through the vote, regulators have legal authority and customers have economic power through their purchases.
Recommendation
The committee should recommend that the board include the proposal in the proxy, not seek to exclude it, and recommend that shareholders vote against it, while committing in the board's statement to three things. First, the company will publish the greenhouse gas emissions data it is required to report and will make the same figures available to all shareholders on its website. Second, it will report annually on the land and water conservation work it pledged in 2024, with measurable results rather than descriptions. Third, it will explain in plain terms how it manages energy costs and weather risk, both of which its filings identify as affecting results.
This position honors the legal obligations, respects the shareholder process by letting the proposal go to a vote and keeps faith with the 2024 commitment to customers by declining to reinstate targets the company withdrew. It treats emissions data as information investors can use, which Freeman (1984) would recognize as attention to a legitimate stakeholder, without adopting goals the company decided do not tie to its business.
Who Is Disappointed
The recommendation disappoints the proposing shareholders, who wanted targets and will get data. It may disappoint some team members and investors who supported the earlier goals. It may also disappoint some customers who would prefer no emissions reporting at all, although legal reporting is not optional. The board should say plainly in its statement who holds each view and why it chose as it did, since a recommendation that pretends to satisfy everyone would be less credible than one that names the trade-off.
Everything in this memo about the proposal and the committee's deliberation is a course scenario; the June 2024 statement, the company's filings, the SEC rule and the California statute are real and are cited from public sources.
References
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38532 (2025).
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Shareholder proposals, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-8 (2025).
Tractor Supply Company. (2024, June 28). Form 8-K: Company statement released June 27, 2024. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916365/000091636524000077/tsco-20240627.htm
Tractor Supply Company. (2026). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916365/000091636526000014/tsco-20251227.htm
What the BU 380 Unit 7 instructions ask for
The Unit 7 assignment asks students to write a memo on a decision where stakeholder claims conflict. Most versions want the decision explained, each stakeholder's claim stated with its basis, the governance process the decision would follow described and a recommendation made that acknowledges who loses. Many rubrics allow a realistic scenario if it is labeled as such. Instructors reward claims grounded in law, contract, express commitments or reasonable expectations rather than general preferences. Some sections ask for an ethical framework, while others focus on governance. Expect a memo of a few pages to a board committee, citing laws, company documents and stakeholder theory in APA 7.
How the BU 380 Unit 7 example is put together
The sample opens by labeling its scenario and explaining why preference cannot settle the question. A claims section takes each party in turn, stating what it is owed and why: proposing shareholders under the SEC rule, other shareholders, customers who received a 2024 commitment, team members and regulators under a state disclosure law. The governance section describes the path from counsel's review to the shareholder vote and the committee's role. The recommendation section sets out the board's position and three commitments. A final section names the groups the recommendation disappoints and separates the course scenario from the real facts it draws on. Every claim in the memo is tied to a document a board member could open.
BU 380 Unit 7 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the governance memo generally assesses the framing of the decision, the analysis of claims, the governance description and the recommendation. Framing earns full points when the conflict among stakeholders is clear. The claims analysis is judged by a stated basis for each party's claim, distinguishing legal duties from expectations and preferences. The governance criterion rewards an accurate description of the route a decision would travel, with the relevant rules. Top marks for the recommendation go to a position that grows out of the claims and admits who loses, as the sample's does. Clear labeling of any scenario and correct legal citations complete the grade. Separating legal duties from reasonable expectations usually earns additional credit.
BU 380 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common Unit 7 mistake is treating every stakeholder's wish as an equal claim, without asking what each is actually owed. Another is ignoring legal obligations that apply regardless of preference. Students often describe governance vaguely, saying the board decides, without explaining the process. Some memos recommend a position that pleases everyone, which rarely survives scrutiny. Others present a hypothetical scenario as fact. Finally, write for the committee, not a general reader; board members need the claims, the route and a recommendation, stated briefly, with sources they can check. Label clearly any part of the case that is a scenario rather than fact. Keep the memo short enough for a committee to read before its meeting.
Get a BU 380 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your BU 380 classroom, with the ethical framework your section reads and the firm you have used all term. We write a custom example that states each claim and its basis, routes the decision through governance and names who the recommendation disappoints. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 380 papers and business management samples
- BU 380 Unit 1: Subject firm dossier
- BU 380 Unit 2: Mission and values stress test
- BU 380 Unit 3: External environment scan
- BU 380 Unit 4: Capability and resource audit
- BU 380 Unit 5: Strategic option appraisal
- BU 380 Unit 6: Strategic commitment paper
- BU 380 Unit 8: Strategic direction recommendation
- BU 106 Unit 7: Business ethics case
- BU 217 Unit 7: Real case analysis
- BU 231 Unit 7: Risk and mitigation paper
- BU 242 Unit 7: Service recovery analysis
BU 380 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does the decision have to be one the firm really faced?
It has to be plausible for this firm and grounded in what is published about it. Many sections accept a decision the company genuinely announced and some accept a constructed dilemma. Where you construct one, say so plainly and build it from pressures the firm demonstrably faces, so the memo argues about a real position rather than an invented crisis.
Which ethical framework should the memo use?
Whichever the reading supplies, named where it is first applied. Sections vary, and a memo running an approach the classroom has not covered reads as imported. If the instructions leave the choice open, pick one and use it consistently, since switching frameworks between claims is how these papers end up recommending whatever the writer already preferred.
How much governance detail is expected?
Enough to show who decides and where the decision is recorded. Board committee structures for listed companies are published, so name the committee that would own this and what its remit says. What is not expected is a full description of corporate governance codes, which usually crowds out the weighing the assignment is actually grading.
Where can I find a free BU 380 Unit 7 sample paper?
The finished BU 380 Unit 7 memo, claims analysis through recommendation, is free to read above. If your decision involves different stakeholders, send the prompt and a summary of the conflict, and a free custom memo will be written around it, usually within about two days.
Does the BU 380 Unit 7 decision have to be real?
Not always. The sample uses a realistic scenario built on real facts, a real 2024 statement and real laws, and it labels the scenario clearly. Check your instructions, and if you use a scenario, keep it plausible and separate it from verified facts.