3k-word paper, choose topic 3
Vincent666
instructionsrequirements.pdf
1
ASSESSMENT TASK TEMPLATE
Module Code: BHS0032
Module Title: Business Responsibility and Sustainability
Assessment Task(s) Individual Coursework
Academic Year 2019-20
Learning Outcomes
This assessment task addresses the following learning outcomes from the module specification Knowledge and Understanding Outcomes
1. Define corporate responsibility and sustainability using key principles and theories. 2. Discuss the application of corporate responsibility and sustainability in business
organisations in relation to stakeholders and organisational strategy. 3. Evaluate how businesses can meet the future challenges of corporate responsibility and
sustainability.
Ability Outcomes
4. Demonstrate the practical application of corporate responsibility and sustainability within business organisations by applying specific principles, concepts and theories.
Assessment brief
The focus of this assignment is the critical evaluation of corporate social responsibility related topics.
Your task is to select ONE of the following topics and write a critical essay of 3,000 words (maximum word limit will be + 10% of 3000 words).
Topics (Please select ONE topic for your essay)
Topic 1
Corporate Social Responsibility is deemed to comprise of six core characteristics (Crane et al., 2014). Critically evaluate the CSR of a selected company (either local or multinational), examining the integration (or non-integration) of these six core characteristics within their CSR practices.
Topic 2
‘Shareholder Activism’ and ‘Responsible Investment’ have become key global trends in recent years. Critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these global trends in
2
relation to their impact upon decision-making for Corporate Social Responsibility. Use examples to support your discussion.
Topic 3
Marketing to the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ is a considered to be a win-win strategy for companies to provide products for the poorest consumers in the world. Critically discuss why companies should (or should not) operate in the Bottom of the Pyramid markets.
Topic 4
Companies can implement CSR by adopting a range of CSR standards. Critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using CSR standards as a way to establish a responsible business organisation.
Topic 5
Governments can use CSR policies to improve business engagement in CSR in a country. Using a selected country (either developed or developing), critically discuss how the specific government has engaged in promoting CSR, examining the effectiveness of these CSR policies.
You are advised to: The assignment should be written in an essay format and should contain the following: A brief overview of no more than 100 words which highlights the topic selected (these 100 words in the ‘overview’ are not counted towards the 3000 word limit) Critical review of topic (see guidance below) A reference list (A minimum of 10 references have to be used – ranging from journal articles, practitioner articles, text books and online materials) – the words in the list of references are not counted towards the 3000 word limit). Work should be referenced in APA 6th style. The link below is to the library guidance on referencing and it is recommended you use these resources to ensure your references are in the correct format. http://www.hud.ac.uk/library/finding- info/informationskills/evaluation/referencing/ Your critical review of topic should contain the following:-
1. Review of Literature – you need to engage in a detailed and comprehensive review of
academic and practitioner literature related to the selected topic. This should be indicated
by using references and in-text citations within the essay. Use of literature beyond those
suggested in your module reading list is expected.
2. Critical analysis of the topic – you must examine the topic critically by identifying
either an argument for, or against it, or by analysing diverse aspects of the topic. This
critical analysis should be most evident in the discussion of the practice-based
implications of the topic to business organisations.
Style of assignment – you must write this assignment using an essay style of writing.
The associated format and language must support an essay writing style, and should also
be in readable English with correct spelling and grammar.
3
Furthermore:-
• Refer back to your tutorial work and notes where you have covered key issues and developed critical argument that is relevant to the requirement of this assessment.
• Pay close attention to the Assessment Criteria at the end of this document – this lists general assessment criteria and specific criteria to the requirements of this assignment. These criteria will be used to inform your electronic feedback on your marked assignment.
• Use the University Referencing guide which is APA 6th. Note that poorly referenced material will lose you marks (make sure you consult the Learning Development Group Tutors on level 1 of the Business School for any additional help needed). You can access APA 6th via Brightspace by clicking on the Library button to access the easy to use online guide.
• Do not exceed the word limit. A 5% mark penalty applies for work exceeding the word limit.
Marking criteria
1. Please refer to the assessment task-specific criteria in Appendix 1. These
show you the issues that will guide your tutors in marking your work. You are encouraged to use these at all stages of preparing your work. Please remember that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
2. In addition to the assessment task-specific criteria, generic assessment
criteria are attached in Appendix 1 & 2.
3. The Learning Development Group are available to help you to understand and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on [email protected]
4. The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including
plagiarism. The Learning Development Group can also advise and help you about academic conventions and avoiding ‘poor scholarship’ which can result in potential academic misconduct.
Submission information
Word Limit: 3000 (maximum word limit will be + 10% of 3000 words).
Submission Date: 20/12/2019
Feedback Date: 20/01/2020
Submission Time: 15.00
Submission Method: Electronically via Brightspace. Papers submissions are not required. For support please contact
Tutor Reassessment Further information will be conveyed to those students who are eligible for Tutor Resubmission in January 2020
4
Assessment Criteria - Your essay will be graded accordingly to the following criteria.
Criteria/ Grade Referred/Marginal Fail (F) < 40%
Bare Pass (D) 40 – 49%
Competent Pass (C) 50 – 59%
Good Pass (B) 60-69%
Excellent Pass (A) 70%+
Depth of understanding (40%)
Key aspects of the topic/s have been ignored or not addressed. Aspects which have been addressed shows a clear lack of understanding in relation to the topic/s
The work is somewhat conversant with the topic/s but it fails to demonstrate an overall understanding effectively.
The work indicates an adequate understanding of the topic demonstrated in a logical, coherent and lucid manner.
The work shows a comprehensive understanding of the topic/s demonstrated in a logical, coherent and lucid manner.
The work shows an impressive, original and reasoned understanding of the topic/s as well as its relevance to practice
Reading (Sources) (15%)
There is no evidence of reading around the subject topic/s
There is little evidence of reading around the subject topic/s
There is some limited but relevant reading around the subject topic/s.
The work demonstrates the ability to appraise critically the theory and literature from a variety of sources, developing own ideas in the process.
Justifies own ideas using a wide range of relevant and current sources, including theoretical and practice- based literature, which has been thoroughly analysed, applied and tested.
Interpretation and critical appraisal (15%)
The work has no evidence of critical and reflexive analysis.
The work lacks critical and reflexive analysis.
The work demonstrates the application of some critical and reflexive analysis.
There is clear evidence of the application of critical and reflexive analysis.
The work consistently demonstrates the application of highly critical and reflexive analysis.
Argumentation (Conclusions) (10%)
Very poor conclusions and argumentation which lacks clarity and is superficial
Unsubstantiated conclusions based on anecdotes and generalisations only.
Evidence of limited findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.
Good development shown in summary of arguments based on theory/literature as well as good synthesis.
The work provides analytical and clear conclusions well-grounded in literature, and shows clear evidence of original concepts.
Structure and Presentation (5%)
No clear structure and very poor presentation
Structure unclear with poor presentation
Coherent structure and satisfactory presentation.
Structure supports the arguments clearly and presentation is clear and appropriate.
Very well structured and it guides the reader through the arguments. Outstanding presentation.
Written Expression (5%)
Very poor use of language, including grammar and spellings, making the purpose and meaning of the work very unclear.
Poor use of language making the purpose and meaning of the work unclear. Grammar and spelling poorly used.
Language is mainly fluent with mostly accurate grammar and spellings.
Well written with thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate and language fluent
Excellently written. Consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling with fluent professional/academic writing.
Referencing (10%)
Referencing is absent or inaccurate throughout the work.
Major inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing.
Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing.
Referencing relevant and mostly accurate.
Referencing is clear and always correct.
5
Appendix 1 Assessment task-specific marking criteria [Module leaders should develop assessment task-specific criteria,
based on the relevant generic marking-criteria. The descriptors (i.e. unacceptable, unsatisfactory, pass, fair, good, very
good, excellent and outstanding) must not be changed. For additional support in developing assessment task-specific
marking criteria, please contact the Learning Development Group]
Unacceptable
Unsatisfactory (Refer if required)
Pass
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Outstanding
Tutors to create assessment-task specific
criteria eg
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Knowledge of Theory, Concepts and Methods
Scholarship: Evidence of Reading and Research
Critical Reasoning
Use of Evidence: Analysis & Evaluation
6
Appendix 2 Generic marking criteria
UG Generic Assessment Criteria (covering a range of types of assessment)
Unacceptable Work at this level -does not address the task set or represents a wholly inadequate attempt -requires a complete re-write
Unsatisfactory (Refer if required) Work at this level will demonstrate -an incomplete answer -insufficient depth of understanding -some serious errors and/or major omissions -a potentially recoverable piece of work
Pass Work at this level will demonstrate -limited use of
module material
-a basic level of understanding
-a simply descriptive approach
-some errors and omissions
Fair Work at this level will demonstrate -generally good
use of some of the module material
-reasonable and coherent description of theory
-limited analysis and evaluation
-no major errors
Good Work at this level will demonstrate -good use of
module material
-ability to compare and contrast material from a variety of relevant sources
-analytical ability underpinning logical argument
-well-structured, clear and consistent presentation, although there may be a few errors
Very Good Work at this level will demonstrate -accomplished
discussion and application of theory
-clear ability to compare and contrast material from a wide variety of relevant sources
-some synthesis based on critical analysis
-well- structured, clear and coherent presentation, although there may be a few minor errors
Excellent Work at this level will demonstrate -a mastery of complex knowledge and ideas - originality and
insight derived from a mature depth of understanding of material that goes well beyond that provided in the module
- creative synthesis arising from critical analysis and evaluation of relevant information
- presentation that is clear, coherent and error free
Outstanding Work at this level will demonstrate -a mastery of complex knowledge and ideas - originality and
insight derived from a mature depth of understanding of material that goes well beyond that provided in the module
- creative synthesis arising from critical analysis and evaluation of relevant information
- presentation that is clear, coherent and error free
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Knowledg e of Theory, Concepts and Methods
Does not address any relevant theories, concepts or methods
Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods
Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods wholly inadequate attempt at
Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods inadequate attempt at use or explanation
Relevant theory, concepts and models used or explained but some aspects may have been missed or misconstrued
Most relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained in an appropriate and straight forward manner with some assumptions and implications recognised
Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained insightfully with assumptions, implications and contextualisation recognised
Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained insightfully with wide range of assumptions and
Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained innovatively with full range of assumptions and implications recognised with
Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained innovatively with full range of assumptions and implications recognised with
7
use or explanation
implications recognised with highly appropriate contextualisatio n demonstrating excellent understanding
highly appropriate contextualisation demonstrating excellent understanding of complex material
highly appropriate contextualisation demonstrating exceptional understanding of complex material
Scholarshi p: Evidence of Reading and Research
No evidence presented or what is presented is wholly irrelevant
No evidence presented or what is presented is generally irrelevant
Minimal evidence presented is generally irrelevant or lacking currency
Minimal evidence presented uncritically and lacks evidence of independent research beyond core texts
Evidence of limited but relevant reading which is presented uncritically and tends to use summary description
Evidence of relevant reading which shows clear attempt at independent reading and some attempt at synthesis
Evidence of range of relevant reading generally used critically which shows clear attempt at independent reading and ability to synthesise
Evidence of wide range of relevant reading used critically which shows high degree of independent reading and a strong ability to synthesise
Evidence of the fullest range of relevant reading used critically which shows a very high level of independent reading and an excellent ability to synthesise
Evidence of the fullest range of relevant reading used critically which shows the highest level of independent reading and an outstanding ability to synthesise
Critical Reasonin g
No demonstr ation of critical thought
No demonstrati on of critical thought
No demonstrati on of critical thought
No demonstration of critical thought but has potential to be developed
Minimal demonstration of critical thought
Demonstrates critical thought
Often demonstrates critical thought
Consistent application of well integrated critical thought
Consistent application of excellently integrated critical thought
Consistent application of outstandingly integrated critical thought
Use of Evidence: Analysis & Evaluatio n
Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant
Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant
Does not analyse but basic concepts are understood
Does not analyse but the potential for analysis is evident. Shows potential to develop arguments.
Demonstrates limited analysis with some development of argument and related evaluation (if applicable)
Demonstrates good ability to analyse and evaluate (if applicable) with arguments developed coherently
Demonstrates very good ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically. Evaluation is well supported (if applicable). Arguments are well structured and logical.
Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are well structured, complex and logical.
Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are complex, lucid and persuasive.
Demonstrates outstanding ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Exceptionally complex, lucid and persuasive arguments.
Clarity of Written
Incoheren t and incompre
Largely incomprehe nsible
Generally comprehens ible but
Language errors often impede understanding
The meaning is clear but contains language errors
Generally fluent and accurate use
Consistently fluent and accurate use of
Consistently fluent and accurate use of
Consistently fluent and accurate use of
Consistently fluent and accurate use of
8
Expressio n
hensible througho ut
language errors generally impede understandi ng and flow of reading
and flow of reading
of grammar and spelling
grammar and spelling
grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre
grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre and excellent expression
grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre and exceptional expression
Skill or Compete nce: INSERT NAME
Not attempte d
Attempted but not demonstrat ed
Inadequatel y demonstrat ed
Insufficiently demonstrated to be considered competent
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have acceptable competence level
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have fair competence level
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have good competence level
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have very good competence
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have excellent competence
Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have outstanding competence
Structure No structure
Structure wholly inappropria te to the task
Structure generally inappropriat e to the task
Structure does not meet expectations of the task
Shows sufficient awareness of required general structure
Demonstrates good organisation and awareness of required general structure
Demonstrates consistently logical organisation and awareness of required general structure
Polished and excellently organised; fully meets structural expectations
Polished and excellently organised; fully meets structural expectations and demonstrates a highly imaginative approach
Polished and outstandingly organised; fully meets structural expectations and demonstrates a highly imaginative approach
Oral Communi cation (monolog ue) Inc organisati on, supportin g material and delivery
Barely comprehe nsible, no connectio n to context. No audience awarenes s. Does not demonstr ate any understan ding
Completely inadequate, Significant lack of clarity, inconsistent , indifferent to context. Little audience awareness. Demonstrat es minimal understandi ng
Significant lack of clarity, inconsistent , minimal connection to context. Inadequate audience awareness. Demonstrat es an inadequate level of understandi ng
Insufficient clarity, little tailoring to context. Some significant inadequacies, weak expression with some systematic errors . Insufficient audience awareness. Does not demonstrate sufficient level of understanding
Generally clear, some tailoring to context. Some flaws in expression, some systematic errors of expression. Generally engages audience. Demonstrates a sufficient level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery
Appropriately tailored to context. Fluent expression with articulate delivery. Generally engages audience. Demonstrates a general level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery
Persuasive delivery and effectively tailored to context. Engages audience throughout. Demonstrates a high level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery
Lively, eloquent persuasive delivery and very effectively tailored to context. Engages audience throughout. Demonstrates excellent understanding through extemporaneou s delivery
Lively, eloquent, highly persuasive, sophisticated delivery, superbly tailored to context. Provides audience with high levels of engagement throughout. Demonstrates excellent understanding through extemporaneous delivery
Lively, eloquent, highly persuasive, sophisticated delivery, superbly tailored to context. Provides audience with the highest levels of engagement throughout. Demonstrates outstanding understanding through extemporaneous delivery
Presentati on of work
Length requirem ents may not be observed; does not follow academic conventio ns;
Length requiremen ts may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions ; language
Length requiremen ts may not be observed; generally does not follow academic conventions
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language or presentation
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language or presentation
Fair standard of presentation; length requirement met and academic conventions followed
Good standards of presentation
Very good standards of presentation
Professional standards of presentation
Highest professional standards of presentation
9
language and presentati on errors impact on intelligibili ty
and presentatio n errors impact on intelligibility
; language and/or presentatio n errors may impact on intelligibility
Reflection No attempt at reflection
Some evidence of an attempt at reflection but does not constitute reflection.
A wholly inadequate level of reflection. There is no link between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretati ons are missing, inappropriat e, and/or unsupporte d. Irrelevant exemplificat ion.
A level of reflection which does not meet minimum expectations. Insufficient linking between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are insufficiently supported or supported with flawed arguments. Irrelevant exemplification.
An adequate level of reflection. There is evidence of relevant linking between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are generally supported. Some relevant examples, when applicable, are provided.
A fair level of reflection. There are some of instances where relevant links have been made between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are supported. Appropriate examples are provided, as applicable
A good level of reflection. There are a number of instances where relevant links have been made between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight.
Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable.
A very good level of reflection. There are many instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight.
Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable.
An excellent reflection. Contains a wide range of instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight.
Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable.
An outstanding reflection. Contains a wide range of instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight.
Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable
Ethics, sustainabi lity & Responsib ility (subject area)
Not considere d or no relevance
Considerati on at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject.
Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject.
Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject.
Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject.
Wide consideration with relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject.
Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for subject with wide range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for subject with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for subject with full range of solutions discussed in detail.
10
Ethics, sustainabi lity & Responsib ility (professio nal practice)
Not considere d or no relevance
Considerati on at a superficial level with minimal relevance shown to professional practice.
Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to professional practice.
Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to professional practice.
Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to professional practice.
Wide consideration with relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to professional practice.
Full consideration of implications for professional practice with range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for professional practice with wide range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for professional practice with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail.
Full consideration of implications for professional practice with full range of solutions discussed in detail.
Teamwor k and Oral communi cation (dialogue)
No evidence of teamwork or engageme nt with views or learning of others.
Minimal teamwork, unaddresse d conflicts evident, negative engagemen t with difference
Marginal teamwork, conflicts unaddresse d, little engagemen t with difference
Little teamwork or effort to collaborate effectively, symptoms of lack of mutual respect.
Worked together much of the time, With adequate level of engagement. Some unresolved conflict but mostly respectful with evidence of listening.
Generally cohesive team, all members active most of the time, exercising mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict resolved.
Highly cohesive team, all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict identified and resolved quickly.
Very good team cohesion, all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early.
Excellent team cohesion, all members consistently active mutually respectful and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early.
Exceptional team cohesion, all members consistently active mutually respectful and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early.
Critical peer review
No comment made on the work of peers
Lack of any reasoning in comments made on the work of peers
Unsupporte d reasoning in comments made on the work of peers
Insufficiently supported reasoning in comments made on the work of peers
Evidence of reasoned comments made on the work of peers
Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers
Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement
Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides commentary on assessment outcome and can offer insights into how it could be developed.
Evidence of excellent ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides commentary on assessment outcome and can offer detailed insights into how it could be developed.
Evidence of outstanding ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides outstanding commentary on assessment outcome and can offer detailed insights into how it could be developed.
Originalit y
No evidence of any attempt at independ ent thinking
Any attempt at independen t thinking is irrelevant
Any attempt at independen t thinking is generally irrelevant
Insufficient evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
Limited evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
Some evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
General evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
High level of evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
Strong evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
Outstanding evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
11
