Assignment Remit
Programme Title Business Management Suite
Module Title Responsible Business: Theory and Practice
Module Code 32264
Assignment Title Assessment 1
Level LI
Weighting 50%
Lecturers Adam Nix; Jennifer TyreeHageman
Hand Out Date 30/09/2021
Due Date & Time 11/11/2021 12-noon (UK)
Feedback Post Date 03/12/2021
Assignment Format Essay
Assignment Length 1800 words at least
Submission Format Online Individual
Note: This assessment is subject to confirmation by the External Examiner. Therefore, details may still change until final approval has been obtained.
Assignment:
This assignment provides an opportunity to think critically about the sort of complex issues that often cause conflicts between organizations and stakeholders, as well as how businesses manage them. In looking at the issue of global meat production and its impact on deforestation, we want you to apply responsible business theories to a contemporary, real-world case.
Assignment Task:
Analyze the conflict around global meat production and its link to deforestation, and then evaluate Tesco’s response to the issue from a stakeholder management perspective.
assignment Instructions:
For this assignment, you need to do the following:
Tip: You will not only find useful information in the media, but also in academic, industry, and NGO sources that discuss the conflicts as well as the interests and motivations of those involved.
Tip: Using an arena approach will help you map the conflict arena and identify its various participants and their relationship to each other. Revisit the two papers on your reading list for week 3 – regarding conflicts in the tobacco industry and salmon farming. The arena approach is applied to stakeholder management in these two papers.
It is recommended that you allocate around 20% of the available word limit to the introduction and conclusion, 40% for the analysis of the conflict, and 40% for the evaluation of Tesco’s response.
Presentational Requirements
The following presentational requirements should be followed when submitting your work:
NB – Failure to follow these guidelines will affect your performance in this assignment.
Cover Sheet and Submissions
Module Learning Outcomes:
In this assessment the following learning outcomes will be covered:
LO 1. Demonstrate a theoretically informed analysis of the reasons why businesses may choose to act irresponsibly.
LO 3. Evaluate different business processes and practices from a responsible business perspective.
LO4. Diagnose problems in a range of business cases and design effective solutions. LO5. Understand the importance of effective communication and collaboration in responsible business transformation.
LO6. Articulate the risks and opportunities associated with responsible and irresponsible businesses.
Grading Criteria:
Please see the marking rubric provided below.
Feedback to Students:
Both Summative and Formative feedback is given to encourage students to reflect on their learning that feeds forward into following assessment tasks. The preparation for all assessment tasks will be supported by formative feedback within the tutorials/seminars. Written feedback is provided as appropriate. Please be aware to use the browser and not the Canvas App as you may not be able to view all comments. For advice on viewing your grade and feedback please see: Viewing your Marks and Feedback FAQ
NB – The Canvas Assignment Tool (SpeedGrader) provides a Comment Area for each assignment. Please be aware that it is College policy that staff will not be actively engaging in conversations over matters of feedback and grades within SpeedGrader.
Plagiarism:
It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand correct referencing practices. You are expected to use appropriate references and keep carefully detailed notes of all your information sources, including any material downloaded from the Internet. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are not vulnerable to any alleged breaches of the assessment regulations. More information is available at https://intranet.birmingh am. ac.UK/as/studentservices/conduct/misconduct/plagiarism/index.aspx.
Late submission:
Normal school policies apply to this assignment. If work is submitted late and no extension has been granted, then a penalty of 5% will be imposed for each day that the assignment is late until 0 is reached, for example, a mark of 67% would become 62% on day one, 57% on day two, and so on. The days counted will not include weekends, public holidays, and University closed days.
Shows comprehensive understanding. Demonstrates a very thorough grasp of concepts, attention
to detail, and original thinking that consistently exceeds expectations.
Shows a very advanced understanding, with only minor omissions and errors. Demonstrates a thorough grasp of
concepts, attention to detail, and original thinking.
Shows a good grasp of concepts but
may be incomplete and/or contain the occasional error. Demonstrates a sound grasp of the subject overall. The use of concepts is generally detailed and convincing.
Shows a basic understanding of the main elements of the subject area. Contains errors or omissions and misses some of the detail needed to fully address the task.
Shows only a partial grasp of the subject area, which is vaguely expressed and lacking in detail. Key ideas are unclear in places. There are frequent omissions
or errors of detail.
Shows little evidence of any understanding of the subject area.
The work presents only isolated pieces of correct information. There are important gaps or errors in understanding.
Virtually no understanding of the subject area or concepts involved. Key themes and/or theories are either not
mentioned, or they are represented with
major errors or omissions.
Analysis (25%) An extremely well-developed, coherent analytical argument, which is systematically explored. Excellent integration of appropriate contemporary, real-world contexts, and relevant theory. Argumentation displays substantial novelty, critique, and balance.
A very well-developed analytical argument, which is coherent and comprehensively explored. Shows a skilled integration of appropriate
contemporary, real-world contexts, and relevant theory. Argumentation displays novelty
and a consistent ability to be both critical and balanced.
A mostly coherent and well-supported analytical
argument. Relevant conceptual ideas are well connected to appropriate
contemporary, real-world contexts. Depth of
application is good, with only minor flaws and/or oversimplifications.
Satisfactory
analytical arguments, albeit with some unsupported opinion/speculation. An adequate attempt to relate conceptual ideas to a contemporary, real-world context. However, some flaws and/or oversimplifications are present.
Sense of emerging analytical argument, but mainly descriptive content with unsupported opinion. Limited attempts to relate conceptual ideas to a contemporary, real-world context. Significant flaws, oversimplifications, and/or uncritical paraphrasing are present.
Little or no meaningful analytical argument was presented. Content is entirely descriptive or impeded by unbalanced and/or unsupported opinions. Very weak attempts to relate appropriate conceptual ideas to contemporary, real-world contexts.
There is no evidence of any analytical process, and it is not possible to infer any sense of an analytical argument. Not only is the content either entirely descriptive, but it also contains problematic claims, which either suggest significant oversimplification or imbalance.
Evidence (25%)
Highly accomplished and extensive use of relevant literature and well-researched examples. Demonstrates a comprehensive awareness of, and ability to critique relevant literature, both from established and emerging debates.
Shows clear evidence of significant reading beyond the provided materials. Theoretical discussion is critical and based on solid research evidence, including journal articles as well as textbook sources. Very good use of well-researched examples.
Shows some evidence of reading beyond the provided materials. Goes beyond basic themes and
engages critically with relevant sources. Good use is made of examples, which are generally well researched from quality sources.
Shows an ability to summarize and draw on provided material but displays limited evidence of relevant further reading. Some attempt at
synthesis and critique of relevant literature is shown but arguments are inconsistent and not fully developed. Examples are given but with limited support or accuracy.
Shows very little evidence to support arguments. Heavy reliance on only the most summary of materials (e.g., lecture slides) with only superficial reference to literature. No meaningful attempts at critique or synthesis. Examples are infrequent or inaccurate and are left largely unsupported.
Contains numerous unsupported statements and assertions, which are not adequately explained. No evidence of meaningful research and only cursory or incorrect reference to module resources or related literature. Little to no meaningful or appropriate example usage.
No research evidence was used, with discussion very speculative and heavily opinionated. Devoid of relevant support from either the module resources or literature. No examples are given and no sense of any underlying research from which the discussion has stemmed.
Structure (15%)
Structured in a highly effective way, displaying exceptionally clear thought. Fluency, overall readability, and linkages
between points are highly effective and consistently exceed expectations.
Structurally clear and easy to follow. The focus of the work is explicit and well signposted throughout. Convincing and fluent links are made between sections, which all contribute logically to the overall topic and position.
Generally structured in a
well-organized and logical manner, which is clear and easy to follow. The focus is mostly well signposted, and the flow between
points is good. While it is clear how each section adds to the discussion, the structure could have been more effective in terms of framing the overall topic and position.
The work is structured in a broadly organized and logical manner but is somewhat formulaic. There is repetitive discussion in places. Links between sections and/or the rationale
for their inclusion are reasonable but at times unclear.
Fragmented and difficult to follow in places. Repetitive and/or missing key structural elements. Formulaic to a point that suggests over-reliance on generic templates. Weak links between sections and the rationale for inclusion are regularly unclear.
Structurally very disjointed and vague, presenting only a basic fluency of argument. Generally difficult to follow with limited substance or logic to the sections presented. Links between sections or points are generally disjointed, contradictory, and/or lacking in relevance to the overall topic.
Very disorganized, highly fragmented, impossible to follow. No apparent logic as to why any given topic is discussed or how it contributes to the overall topic. The work is aimless, and the contents do not contribute towards a discernible position or point.
Style (10%)
Essentially error-free. Flawlessly referenced using the Harvard method. Appropriate format conventions (e.g., essay, report, presentation) are
used very effectively. Where appropriate, highly novel and creative solutions are utilized.
Written clearly and fluently, with only very occasional minor errors. Very well referenced using the Harvard method. Effective use of appropriate format conventions and very well presented. Where appropriate, shows some evidence of novel or creative solutions.
Generally well expressed, with only minor errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Reference using the Harvard method, with only minor errors
and/or omissions. Effective use of appropriate formatting conventions, with a good overall presentation.
Adequately expressed but ambiguous and/or unclear in places. Occasional grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Referenced using the Harvard method but with omissions and errors. Adequate use of appropriate formatting conventions, though the presentation is somewhat unrefined.
Often unclear and difficult to understand. Regular errors were made in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Not adequately referenced and/or incorrect referencing conventions are
used. Follows the basic formatting conventions asked for but is untidy and poorly presented.
Generally, very
unclear, and difficult to understand. Consistently weak spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Poorly referenced with significantly flawed use of referencing conventions. Poor usage of formatting conventions, with regular issues around the untidy or inappropriate presentation.
Consistently difficult to understand. Very weak spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Little or no referencing is provided, irrespective of specific conventions. Inappropriate formatting is used, which materially changes the nature of the work produced.
ORDER THIS ASSIGNMENT WITH US!!