Managing International Business Responsibly- Corporate Social Responsibility Issues Analysis

Criteria

Ratings

Exceeds expectation (High Distinction)

Exceeds expectation (Distinction)

Meets expectation (Credit)

Meets expectation (Pass)

Below Expectation

(Fail)

CSR work of one MNE identified and fully discussed

· Very thoroughly researched

· Effective use of materials

· Comprehensive identification and discussion of issues

· Well researched

· Appropriate use of materials

· Good identification and discussion of all issues

· Competently researched

· Good use of materials

· Good identification and discussion of all issues

· Some use of research materials

· Some misunderstanding of issues or materials

· Some relevant issues overlooked

· Limited research

· Relevant materials overlooked or misunderstood

· Failure to identify and discuss relevant issues

10 pts

8 pts

6 pts

4 pts

2 pts

Critical analysis and logical argument:

- What is good about the CSR in the MNC

-Recommendations to improve the company’s CSR efforts

· Thorough analysis deals effectively with complexity of issues, persuasively argued throughout, contrary arguments anticipated

· Good critical evaluation of material

· Clear, precise, logical structure and organisation

· Professional level recommendations

· Good analysis

· Argument well developed and supported

· Some critical evaluation of materials

· Suitable and coherent structure, and organisation

· Recommendations are logical extrapolations from research

· Some analysis of issues

· Argument may be underdeveloped or unpersuasive

· Synthesis of materials has limited critical evaluation

· Generally coherent structure and organisation, but with occasional deficiencies

· Recommendations based on basic understanding of literature

· Mainly descriptive with little analysis of issues

· Basic argument is unclear, undeveloped, or not well supported

· Some reference to relevant materials

· Some defects in structure and organisation

· General recommendations, not beyond the research base

· Insufficient analysis

· Argument is lacking or unsound

· Failure to use relevant materials may indicate confusion or misunderstanding

· Structure and organisation is incoherent or lacking

· No recommendations, ambiguous recommendations, or not linked to research

20 pts

16 pts

12 pts

8 pts

4 pts

Use core concepts, models and theories from this course to explain answers

· Excellent use of core concepts

· Excellent use of CSR theories

· Excellent critical analysis integrating concepts and theories

· Good use of core concepts

· Good use of CSR theories

· Good critical analysis integrating concepts and theories

· Coherent use of core concepts

· Coherent use of CSR theories

· Coherent critical analysis integrating concepts and theories

· Provided some use of core conceps

· Some use of CSR theories

· Some critical analysis integrating concepts and theories

· Provided insufficient core conceps

· Insufficient use of CSR theories

· Insufficient critical analysis integrating concepts and theories

10 pts

8 pts

6 pts

4 pts

2 pts

Writing is clear with good spelling and grammar

· Written in report or memorandum style (not essay)

· Minimal errors in expression, spelling, punctuation or grammar

· Thoroughly edited

· Written in report or memorandum style (not essay)

· Occasional minor flaws in expression, spelling, punctuation or grammar

· Well edited

· Written in report or memorandum style (not essay)

· Some flaws in expression, spelling, punctuation or grammar

· Some oversights in editing

· Style may not be consistent with report or memorandum

· Writing may be difficult to follow in parts, with flaws in expression, spelling, punctuation or grammar

· Some oversights in editing

· Style may not be consistent with report or memorandum

· Poor, frequent, or repeated flaws in expression, spelling, punctuation or grammar

· Little evidence of, or poor editing

5.0 pts

4.0 pts

3 pts

2 pts

1.0 pts

Quality references used and accurately cited

· High quality references from key journals or quality organisations

· Authorities and sources are accurately cited in full

· Quality references

· Authorities and sources are generally cited correctly

· Good references

· Some references are missing, incomplete, or incorrectly cited

· Some references are not good

· Some references are missing citations or inaccurate

· Inappropriate or poor references, or references missing in text or reference list

· References poorly or inadequately cited

5.0 pts

4.0 pts

3 pts

2 pts

1.0 pts