| Marking Criteria/Rubric |
| | Scale 1 No Submission | Scale 2 Poor | Scale 3 Incomplete | Scale 4 Basic | Scale 5 Appropriate | Scale 6 Competent | Scale 7 Commendable | Scale 8 Excellent | Scale 9 Outstanding | Scale 10 Exceptional |
| Criterion 1 - Executive Summary (5%) Criterion 1 description. Setting of Context. (to be no more than one page) | No Executive Summary | Poor Executive Summary or Inadequate information provided. | Inadequate attempt at an Executive Summary. Limited information given in an Introduction rather than a summary. Limited inclusion of recommendations. Inadequate in-text referencing | Basic attempt at providing an Executive Summary. Acceptable level of articulation of the key features of the submission. Satisfactory inclusion of recommendations. Basic referencing. Acceptable attempt to set the submission in context. | An Executive Summary is presented which appropriately highlights the key features of the submission. Fair inclusion of recommendations but with brief rationale. Reasonable referencing. Sets the submission partially in context. | Overall well-presented commendable Executive Summary that articulates the key features of the submission including recommendations with rationale. Overall good referencing. Sets the submission in context. | Proficiently well- presented Executive Summary that clearly articulates the key features of the submission including recommendations with rationale. Fully referenced. Sets the submission firmly in context of the overall management report. | Articulated and well- presented Executive Summary that clearly articulates the key features of the submission including recommendations with rationale. Fully referenced. Sets the submission firmly in context of the overall management report. | Superbly presented Executive Summary that clearly articulates the key features of the submission including recommendations with rationale. Fully referenced. Sets the submission firmly in context of the overall management report. | Industry standard presented Executive Summary that clearly articulates the key features of the submission including recommendations with rationale. Fully referenced. Sets the submission firmly in context of the overall management report. |
| Criterion 2 - Introduction (5%)Criterion 2 description. Ability to effectively present the aim of the management brief. Giving a clear structure of the brief and arguments with an explicit identification of areas of analysis and evaluation supported by relevant background information of the case study organisation | No Introduction | Weak management brief lacks proper introduction and is poorly structured. Unsatisfactory presentation of the aims of the brief. Weak identification of the relevant arguments and issues and inadequate background information provided. | The management brief lacks proper introduction and presentation. It lacks coherence and provided very limited presentation of aim(s) of the management brief. Equally giving limited identification of the relevant arguments and issues and some background information. | The management brief shows satisfactory effective introduction and presentation. The student provides a report with a basic structure and an acceptable level of coherency. Acceptable presentation of the aims of the management report. Identification of relevant arguments and issues and some background information is given. | The management brief has reasonable introduction and presentation. The student provides a report with an appropriate and coherent structure. Appropriate presentation of the aims of the management report. Identification of relevant arguments and issues supported by relevant background information which however requires further development. | The management brief has competent introduction and presentation. The student demonstrates commendable ability to produce a report with a coherent structure. Commendable presentation of the aims of the management report supported with relevant background | The management brief has proficient presentation. The student provides a report with a clear and has a very good structure. The introduction provides the aims of the management report and explicitly identifies the relevant arguments and issues to be address, supported with relevant background. The identified areas are proficiently developed logically within the main body of the analysis. There is a very good conclusion of the areas discussed that follow on from the analysis. | The management brief is highly impressive in its presentation. The student provides a report with an articulated and coherent structure. The introduction provides the aims of the management report and explicitly identifies the relevant arguments and issues to be address, supported with excellent and relevant background. The identified areas are developed logically within the main body of the analysis. There is a firm conclusion of the areas discussed that follow on from the analysis. | The management brief has outstanding presentation. The student provides a report with a clear and coherent structure. The introduction provides the aims of the management report and explicitly identifies the relevant arguments and issues to be address, supported with relevant background. The identified areas are developed logically within the main body of the analysis. There is a firm conclusion of the areas discussed that follow on from the that follow on from the analysis. | The management brief has publishable presentation. The student provides a report with an industry standard and coherent structure. The introduction provides the aims of the management report and explicitly identifies the relevant arguments and issues to be address, supported with relevant background. The identified areas are developed logically within the main body of the analysis. There is a firm conclusion of the areas discussed that follow on from the that follow on from the analysis. |
| Criterion 3 - Current CSR strategy across national contexts -6 Core charactertistics (20%) -Criterion 3 description. Critical evaluation of Critical evaluation of the organisation's the organisation’s CSR strategy, clearly identifying which valid identifying theoretical models and have application in different contexts in the assessment of the organisation's current CSR strategy. This must include the This must include the six core characteristics of CSR | No Current CSR Strategy | Poor evaluation of data. Weak critical data. Unsatisfactory critical investigation .Models and Models and frameworks either not either not considered or considered or poorly represented. Poor understanding of the basic issues. | There is limited attempt at analysing and evaluation of data information. Inadequate discussion of the relevant models and frameworks. Limited frameworks. Inadequately criticality presented. Statements are very limited. | Demonstrates a basic attempt and analysing/evaluating information/data. Basic application of the relevant models and frameworks. Very basic and descriptive in form. | Demonstrates an appropriate level of interpretation, critical evaluation and critical evaluation and categorisation. This part of the submission is appropriate in forms. | Demonstrates effective ability to interpret, critically evaluate and categorise appropriate frameworks and models which shows commendable level of the analysis. A range of implications for the organisation are explored. | Demonstrates vey good ability to interpretability to interpret, critically evaluate and categorise to a very good standard. Interrelationships are clearly developed and clearly developed and illustrated. Implications are fully explored. | Demonstrates excellent ability to interpret and critically evaluate and categorise to high standard.Interrelationships are clearly developed and illustrated. Implications are fully explored at a high standard. | Demonstrates outstanding ability to interpret, critically evaluate and categorise to an exceptionally high standard. Interrelationships are clearly developed and clearly developed and illustrated. Implications illustrated with original thinking. | Demonstrates faultless ability to interpret, critically evaluate and categorise to an exceptionally high standard. Interrelationships are clearly developed and clearly developed and illustrated. Implications illustrated with original thinking. |
| Criterion 4 -Recommendations -Examine how your chosen organisation’s CSR strategy on the ecological environment can be further enhanced (10%) - Criterion 4 description. Ability to analyse and synthesise understanding and knowledge of critical aspects of the organisation’s CSR strategy. Articulate such synthesis in clear recommendations. understanding and knowledge of critical aspects of the organisation’s CSR. | No Recommendations on ecological environment | There is weak organisation of ideas from findings to a ideas. Difficult to follow logic. Poor information sources used. Inadequate information base. | Limited recommendations based on anecdotal and generalisations. Recommendations inadequately grounded in reality. There is no linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Satisfactory approach. Recommendations shows basic development with acceptable theoretical and practical evidence. Basic understanding of the Issues of grounding within reality. There is acceptable linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Reasonable attempt to overall approach. Recommendations generally coherent supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Recommendations appropriately grounded in reality. There is fair level of linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Commendable approach, partially analytical. Recommendations are effective and supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Effective recommendations grounded in reality. Commendable level linkage to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach is very good with clearly and well defined recommendations. Coherent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations are proficient to preceding material stated in the assignment. | High standard approach with clearly and well defined recommendations. Excellent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Outstanding approach with clearly and well defined recommendations. Excellent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Industry standard approach with clearly and well defined recommendations. Publishable theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. |
| Criterion 5 - Recommendations -Examine how your chosen organisation’s CSR strategy in the community can be further enhanced (10%) -Criterion 5 description. Ability to analyse and synthesise understanding and knowledge of critical aspects of the organisation’s CSR. Articulate such synthesis in clear recommendations. | No Recommendations on community | There is weak organisation of ideas from findings to a ideas. Difficult to follow logic. Poor information sources used. Inadequate information base. | Limited recommendations based on anecdotal and generalisations. Recommendations inadequately grounded in reality. There is no linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Satisfactory approach. Recommendations shows basic development with acceptable theoretical and practical evidence. Basic understanding of the Issues of grounding within reality. There is acceptable linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Reasonable attempt to overall approach. Recommendations generally coherent supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Recommendations appropriately grounded in reality. There is fair level of linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Commendable approach, partially analytical. Recommendations are effective and supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Effective recommendations grounded in reality. Commendable level linkage to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach is very good with clearly and well defined recommendations. Coherent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations are proficient to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach with clearly and highly articulated recommendations. Impressively supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations articulated grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach with clearly and well defined recommendations. Coherent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Industry standard analytical approach with clearly and well defined recommendations. Coherent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. |
| Criterion 6 -Recommendation - Examine how your chosen organisation’s CSR strategy in the workplace can be further enhanced (10%) - Criterion 6 description. Ability to analyse and synthesise understanding and knowledge of critical aspects of the organisation’s CSR strategy. Articulate such synthesis in clear recommendations | No Recommendations on Workplace | There is weak organisation of ideas from findings to a ideas. Difficult to follow logic. Poor information sources used. Inadequate information base. | Limited recommendations based on anecdotal and generalisations. Recommendations inadequately grounded in reality. There is no linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Satisfactory approach. Recommendations shows basic development with acceptable theoretical and practical evidence. Basic understanding of the Issues of grounding within reality. There is acceptable linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Reasonable attempt to overall approach. Recommendations generally coherent supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Recommendations appropriately grounded in reality. There is fair level of linkage to preceding material in the assignment. | Commendable approach, partially analytical. Recommendations are effective and supported by theoretical and practical evidence. Effective recommendations grounded in reality. Commendable level linkage to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach is very good with clearly and well defined recommendations. Coherent and consistently supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations are proficient to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Analytical approach with clearly and highly articulated recommendations. Impressively supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations articulated grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Superb approach with clearly and highly articulated recommendations. Impressively supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations articulated grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. | Industry standard approach with clearly and highly articulated recommendations. Impressively supported by theoretical concepts and practical evidence. Recommendations articulated grounded in reality. Clearly links recommendations to preceding material stated in the assignment. |
| Criterion 7 . Conclusion and reflection (10%) - Criterion 7 description. Synthesis of knowledge and understanding of findings and various critical strategic issues from the CSR audit to draw and present coherent and consistent sets of CONCLUSIONS. You also need to reflect on the learnings from the module. | No Conclusion | There is weak organisation of ideas from findings to a ideas. Difficult to follow logic. Poor information sources used. Inadequate information base. | There is very limited organisation of ideas | Demonstrates basic ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw coherent conclusion. Presenting acceptable support from analysis done and some reflection can be seen within the report | Demonstrates reasonable ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw coherent conclusion. Though limited, but demonstrates appropriate level of evidence of ability to logically synthesis findings and critical issues in the business environment. Reasionable reflection can be seen within the report | Demonstrates commendable ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw very coherent set of conclusions that follow effectively on analysis carried out. Easy to follow, logical presentation of synthesis of findings and critical issues in the business environment's. Commendable reflection can be seen with in the report. | Demonstrates very good ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw very coherent set of conclusions that follow effectively on analysis carried out. Demonstrates proficient ability to synthesise findings and critical issues in the business environment and logically presented Reflection is very clear and detailed. | Demonstrates an articulated ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw very coherent set of conclusions that follow effectively on analysis carried out. Demonstrates highly impressive ability to synthesise findings and critical issues in the business environment and logically presented. Excellent representation on the reflection in the report. | Demonstrates a superb ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw very coherent set of conclusions that follow effectively on analysis carried out. Demonstrates highly impressive ability to synthesise findings and critical issues in the business environment and logically presented. Fully detailed coherent reflection on the trip. | Demonstrates an industry standard ability to organise ideas and perspectives from finding in the analysis to draw very coherent set of conclusions that follow effectively on analysis carried out. Demonstrates highly impressive ability to synthesise findings and critical issues in the business environment and logically presented. Industry standard understanding of the sustainability gained reflected within the report. |
| Criterion 8 - Practical Application (10%) - Criterion 8 description. Practical application of theoretical models, theories and frameworks in the context of the case study company. | No Theoretical Framework | Inadequate demonstration of practical application of the models, theories and frameworks | There is limited demonstration of practical application of the models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates basic practical application of the relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates a reasonable level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates a competent level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates proficient level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates excellent level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates an outstanding level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. | Demonstrates an exceptional level of practical application of relevant models, theories and frameworks to the organisation. |
| Criterion 9 . Structure and Presenttion (10%) - Criterion 9 description. Demonstrates a clear structure (required components covered clearly) with the points clearly presented and related together | No Structure | Inadequate information base. The submission is unsatisfactory and incoherent. Does not follow the requirements as stated in the Assessment Brief | The arguments are limited and not related together and, to the extent they are, this is done in a manner that is weak, with inadequate synthesis or analysis. The assignment is poorly organised with incomplete balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. | The relevant arguments are related together in a manner that is acceptable and achieves a satisfactory level synthesis. The structure has a in equated balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. Basic level of understanding when follows the requirements as stated in the Assessment Brief | The assignment is organised and the arguments are related together in a appropriate manner, and there is some degree of analysis and synthesis but fair attempt towards originality. | The assignment is effectively organised achieving a good balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. The structure clearly supports the overall delivery of the author's argument. Follows the requirements as stated in the module guide. | The assignment is proficiently organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. The document is professional and reflects the very good standards expected in academic or professional publications. Follows | The assignment is highly impressive organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. The document is professional and reflects the standards expected in academic or professional publications. Follows | The assignment is outstandingly organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. The document is professional and reflects the standards expected in academic or professional publications. Follows | The assignment is outstandingly organised for publication, achieving an excellent balance between context, research, discussion, analysis and synthesis. The document is professional and reflects the standards expected in academic or professional publications. Follows |
| Criterion 10 ,Citing and Referencing (10%) -Criterion 10 description. Demonstrates range of appropriate academic literature with references properly cited expressed in the CULC Harvard referencing format. (accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation) | No Referencing and Not Present | Weak attempt. Significant problems with structure and accuracy in expression. Very difficult to follow and understand. | Citing and referencing is limited, unclear and/or very inadequately placed in context. There is little mention of relevant literature, and any outline of these is highly restricted, unclear, and/or with no sense of context. In the future, better referencing and a stronger interaction with the question at hand would go far in helping to achieve a pass. The overall and specific meaning of the writing is unclear. There are consistent grammatical and spelling errors throughout the submission. | Basic relevant literature is outlined, but this outline is acceptable. Satisfactorily located in an adequate Harvard Referencing Format. Some major points of the literature are brought out, but there are acceptable. The overall meaning shows acceptable understanding. However the quality of the writing is variable. There are basic level of grammar and punctuation. | Citing and referencing is appropriate and there is a strong engagement with the literature. The paper reads well, has appropriate level of transitions and carries a clear argument throughout, appropriately supported by accurate in-text citations and quotations in Harvard Referencing Format. Writing style generally fluent. Spelling, grammar and punctuation generally accurate. | Citing and referencing is commendable and located in an appropriate context, there are no significant omissions and the essential points of the sources are brought out and related to reveal a competent grasp of the topic in question combined with accurate in-text citations and quotations in Harvard Referencing Format. Fluent writing style. Spelling, grammar and punctuation accurate. | Strong and proficient literature has been creatively chosen, properly cited, referenced in Harvard Referencing Format, and outlined and located in an appropriate context. | Articulated and excellent literature has been creatively chosen, properly cited, referenced in Harvard Referencing Format, and outlined and located in an appropriate context. | Superb and original literature has been creatively chosen, properly cited, referenced in Harvard Referencing Format, and outlined and located in an appropriate context. | Extensive and relevant literature has been creatively chosen, properly cited, referenced in Harvard Referencing Format, and outlined and located in an appropriate context. |
| | | | | | | | There are no significant omissions, and the essential points of the sources are brought out and related to reveal an outstanding overall grasp of the topic in question, combined with accurate in-text citations and quotations. Exceptionally fluent writing style. Engaging to read. Spelling, grammar and punctuation accurate. | There are no significant omissions, and the essential points of the sources are brought out and related to reveal an outstanding overall grasp of the topic in question, combined with accurate in-text citations and quotations. Exceptionally fluent writing style. Engaging to read. Spelling, grammar and punctuation accurate. | There are no significant omissions, and the essential points of the sources are brought out and related to reveal an outstanding overall grasp of the topic in question, combined with accurate in-text citations and quotations. Exceptionally fluent writing style. Engaging to read. Spelling, grammar and punctuation accurate. | There are no significant omissions, and the essential points of the sources are brought out and related to reveal an outstanding overall grasp of the topic in question, combined with accurate in-text citations and quotations. Exceptionally fluent writing style. Engaging to read. Spelling, grammar and punctuation accurate. |
alexalex
Rubriccw278csr.xlsx
