English homework help

English homework help. 1
32264 – LI: Responsible Business: Theory and Practice
Coursework, 100%, 4,000 word equivalent, e.g.
1. 2,000 words essay (500 words are reflection, including an excel sheet of their sources)
(individual) 50%
2. 2,500 words group report 25%
3. 5min video (individual on group report) 25%
Learning outcomes
– Assessment (1)
o (1) Demonstrate a theoretically informed analysis of the reasons why businesses may
choose to act irresponsibly.
o (3) Evaluate different business processes and practices from a responsible business
perspective.
o (4) Diagnose problems in a range of business cases and design effective solutions.
o (5) Understand the importance of effective communication and collaboration in
responsible business transformation.
– Assessment (2a)
o (1) Demonstrate a theoretically informed analysis of the reasons why businesses may
choose to act irresponsibly.
o (2) Identify and justify a range of responsible business solutions.
o (3) Evaluate different business processes and practices from a responsible business
perspective.
o (4) Diagnose problems in a range of business cases and design effective solutions.
o (6) Articulate the risks and opportunities associated with responsible and
irresponsible businesses.
Assessment 1: 2,000 individual essay (50%)
Task: Analyse the ‘conflict around neonicotinoid based pesticides’ from the perspective of an
agrochemical company – possible choices BASF, Bayer, Syngenta.
Your work needs to include the following three parts:
– 1,500 words academics essay
– 500 words reflection of on your research process, how you use what lecture materials to
inform your research process, what hurdles you face and how you overcome those.
– An excel sheet that shows your research process, i.e. sources that you find and work through,
no matter if you do or do not use them in the end. This will be more extensive than your
bibliography and needs to reflect your whole research process.
(More information on pages 2 – 4).
Assessment 2: 2,500 words report (25%) and 5mins individual video (25%)
Task: Analyse, compare and contrast two business models within the fashion industry. As part of
your work analyse the SDG materiality of both business models. What risks and opportunities are
present in those business model?
Your work needs to include the following two parts:
– Your group report should include recommendations for both businesses.
– Your individual video should explain how you arrived at those recommendation and why you
think they have not yet been implemented by the businesses.
(More information on pages 5 – 7).
2
Responsible Business: Theory and Practice – Individual Essay (50%)
Note: This assessment is subject to confirmation by the external examiner. Therefore, details may
still change until final approval has been obtained.
Task
Using the arena model analyse the ‘conflict around neonicotinoid based pesticides’ from the
perspective of a agrochemical company – possible choices BASF, Bayer, Syngenta.
Your work needs to include the following three parts:
– 1,500 words academics essay
– 500 words reflection of on your research process, how you used what lecture materials to
inform your research process, what hurdles you face and how you overcome those.
– An excel sheet that shows your research process, i.e. sources that you found and worked
through, no matter if you did or did not use them in the end. This will be more extensive than
your bibliography and needs to reflect your whole research process.
Coursework Specification Guidance
1. Familiarise yourself with the materials around ‘The Business of Bees’ and the arena model.
The focus should be on the critical analysis, i.e. make sure you understand why the arena
model was used in the paper for stakeholder conflicts, what the model is designed to achieve
and how it can address the stakeholder conflict around pesticides and bee decline.
You should look for material published by the different stakeholders that make up the arena.
2. Identify the arena(s) in which the conflict takes place. This includes identifying the
stakeholders and their motivations and interests.
You should look for academic, industry or NGO sources that discuss the conflicts as well as
the interests and motivations.
3. Identify a company in the agrochemical industry that is involved in the conflict. In the process
you should analyse company materials, as well as additional materials targeted at the
company written by other stakeholders, e.g. NGOs or investors.
You should look for academic, industry or NGO sources that discuss the role of the
agrochemical company of your choosing.
4. Based on the previous steps you should now create conflict arenas from the perspective of
your chosen company, that will enable the company to manage its stakeholder conflicts. For
your analysis pick two arenas that you determine as most relevant to the company.
You should look into the two papers on your reading list for week 3 – regarding the Ash vs.
BAT conflict and the Salmon farming conflict. The arena approach is applied to stakeholder
management in these two papers. Use this as the basis for your modelling.
5. Presentation of your case study. You should present your case study in a clear and coherent
way. Your case should include an explanation of the issue at hand, a justification of why the
company chosen is relevant, an analysis of the company’s stakeholder conflict arenas – focus
on the two arenas that you picked in (4).
Normal school policies on late submission and plagiarism will apply to this coursework.
3
Marking Criteria
Total
Marks
Very Bad fail Bad fail Third class
performance
2.2 performance 2.1 performance First class performance
Identification and
critical discussion
of relevance
(company)
15 Not completed or
inappropriate,
unjustified
company.
Generic justification
for the selection, no
critical discussion of
the selected
company.
Somewhat generic
justification for the selection,
but remarks are made
regarding the chosen
company.
The arguments used to justify the
selection are company specific.
They are, however, mere
statements and not backed up by
reliable sources.
The arguments used to justify
the selection are company
specific. They are, backed up
by reliable sources, but at
times mere statements.
A clear and well researched line of
argumentation can be shown that
justifies the selection of the chosen
company.
Identification of
the conflict
arenas
surrounding the
issue at hand.
15 Not completed or
inappropriate,
unjustified selection
of arenas.
Analysis of generic
conflicts not
tailored to the
company.
Analysis of conflicts that is
partially relevant to the
company, but not specific to
the selected company.
Analysis of conflicts that are
specific to the company, but the
arenas are not complete, i.e.
‘players’ are missing.
Identification of arenas that
are specific to the selected
company. However, it is not
always clear how they link to
conflict.
Analysis of critical conflicts and the
corresponding arenas for the
company. Well justified line of
argumentation present.
Design and
presentation of
case study
20 Not completed or
inappropriate
material.
Generic case study
that does not
address specified
problems and/or
poorly presented.
Generic case study that only
partially addresses company
specific problems and/or
poorly presented.
Tailored case study that analyses
some company specific problems
but is poorly presented.
Tailored case study that
analyses company specific
problems, but presentation
could be improved.
Tailored case study that analyses
company specific problems, reflects
well on them based on the neonics
issue and is communicated in a highly
effective manner
Arena model 20 Does not make any
reference to the
arena model.
Only refers
superficially to the
arena model.
Refers to the arena model
but fails to discuss the
reasoning behind the
application of the model to
stakeholder management.
Some discussion regarding the
reasoning behind the model, but
mainly just applying the model
without critical reflection.
Evidence of in-depth
understanding of the
underlying reasoning of the
arena model. However, at
times limited critical reflection.
Evidence of in-depth understanding
of the reasoning behind the arena
model. Critical analysis of the
assumption underpinning the arena
model. Discussion of the relevance of
the model and applicability to the
chosen conflicts and company.
Evidence of
original and
critical thinking
10 No evidence of
critical thinking
Some original and
critical thinking but
only in part of the
work.
Limited original and critical
thinking, but mostly applying
the ideas of others.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approaches but often following
given lines of argumentation.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approach, but at times
following given lines of
argumentation.
Demonstrates excellence in original
and critical thinking in arguments or
approach.
Research literature 5 No evidence of
using literature.
Statements are
opinions, which are
not supported with
appropriate
evidence.
Statements are opinions
which are generally not
supported with relevant,
high quality evidence.
References drawn mainly
from potentially unreliable
sources.
Statements are supported using
relevant, high quality evidence in
some places or the evidence used
is not appropriate or drawn from
potentially unreliable sources.
Statements are supported
using relevant, high quality
evidence at important points,
although evidence used is not
always from reliable academic
and professional research.
Statements are consistently
supported using relevant, high quality
evidence from reliable academic and
professional research
4
Referencing 5 No referencing Poor referencing. Significant inconsistency or
inaccuracy in referencing.
Mostly consistent & accurate
referencing.
Consistent and accurate
referencing throughout, but
not perfect.
Perfect referencing throughout.
Structure 5 No clear structure of
the report
Report lacked a
suitable structure.
Used suggested structure,
but sections were not used
effectively in communicating
to the reader.
Used suggested structure, but
sections were of limited
effectiveness in communicating
to the reader.
Used suggested structure, but
some sections were of limited
effectiveness in
communicating to the reader.
Very well structured with all sections
integrated allowing a coherent and
logical progression of ideas, evidence,
justification and conclusions.
Academic writing 5 English syntax and
grammar were such
that the report
failed to
communicate
content to the
reader
English syntax and
grammar were such
that the report
poorly
communicates
content to the
reader.
English syntax and grammar
were acceptable but with a
narrative style that created
some difficulty in
understanding.
English syntax and grammar were
of a high level with a narrative
style that communicated clearly
for the majority of the report,
but with some avoidable errors.
English syntax and grammar
were of a very high level and
had a narrative style that
communicated clearly for the
majority of the report.
English syntax and grammar were of
an excellent level and had a narrative
style that communicated clearly to
the reader throughout the report.
5
Responsible Business: Theory and Practice
Group Report (25%) and Individual Video (25%)
Note: This assessment is subject to confirmation by the external examiner. Therefore, details may
still change until final approval has been obtained.
Task
Analyse, compare and contrast two business models within the fashion industry. As part of
your work analyse the SDG materiality of both business models. What risks and opportunities
are present in those business model?
Your work needs to include the following two parts:
– Your group report should include recommendations for both businesses.
– Your individual video should explain how you arrived at those recommendation and why you
think they have not yet been implemented by the businesses.
Coursework Specification Guidance
6. Familiarise yourself with the materials around ‘(Ir)Responsible Business and the Fashion
Industry’ and SDG materiality. The focus should be on the critical analysis, i.e. make sure you
understand the business model underpinning (ir)responsible business in the fashion industry
and how it is linked to SDG materiality.
You should start your analysis with the materials provided in the canvas section on
‘(Ir)responsible Business in the Fashion Industry’.
7. Identify two companies in the fashion industry – one that you consider responsible and one
that you consider irresponsible. In the process you should analyse company materials, as well
as additional materials targeted at the companies written by other stakeholders, e.g. NGOs
or investors.
You should look for academic, industry or NGO sources that discuss the role of the fashion
company of your choosing.
8. Identify the underlying business models of the two companies of your choosing. Ask yourself
the question ‘How do they conduct busines?’, ‘How do they make a profit?’, ‘What is the
design behind the answers to those two questions?’.
You should look for company information as well as industry and NGO sources.
9. Based on the previous steps you should now have identified two contrasting business
models. In this step analyse the SDG materiality of both business models.
You should look into the materials in the ‘(Ir)responsible business in the fashion industry’
section on canvas. In terms of SDG materiality think about all four dimensions: Impact of the
company on the SDGs, impact of changes happening in order to meet the SDGs on the
company – and for both opportunities (positive) and challenges (negative).
10. Presentation of your report. You should present your report in a clear and coherent way.
Your report should include an explanation of the issue at hand, a justification of why the
companies chosen are relevant, an analysis of the companies’ business models and the SDG
materiality of those.
Normal school policies on late submission and plagiarism will apply to this coursework.
6
Marking Criteria – Group Report
Total
Marks
Very Bad fail Bad fail Third class
performance
2.2 performance 2.1 performance First class performance
Identification and
critical discussion
of relevance
(companies)
15 Not completed or
inappropriate,
unjustified
companies.
Generic justification
for the selection, no
critical discussion of
the selected
companies.
Somewhat generic
justification for the selection,
but remarks are made
regarding the chosen
companies.
The arguments used to justify the
selection are company specific.
They are, however, mere
statements and not backed up by
reliable sources.
The arguments used to justify
the selection are company
specific. They are, backed up
by reliable sources, but at
times mere statements.
A clear and well researched line of
argumentation can be shown that
justifies the selection of the chosen
company.
Business models 20 Does not make any
reference to the
business models.
Only refers
superficially to the
business models or
only refers to one
business model.
Refers to the business
models but fails to critically
analyse the business models
– takes company information
at face value.
Some critical discussion of the
business models, but mainly just
taking information at face value.
Evidence of in-depth
understanding of the business
models. However, at times
limited critical reflection.
Evidence of in-depth understanding
of the business models. Critical
analysis of the assumption
underpinning the business models.
Discussion of the relevance of the
models and applicability to the
chosen companies.
SDG materiality. 15 Not completed or
inappropriate, lack
of understanding of
SDG materiality.
Analysis of generic
issues around
materiality. Lack of
understanding of
SDG materiality.
The selected aspects of SDG
materiality are not linked to
the chosen companies’
business models.
Analyses of SDG materiality that
are specific to the companies,
but aspects are missing, e.g. not
all four dimensions are covered.
Identification of SDG
materiality criteria that cover
all dimensions of materiality.
However, it is not always clear
how they link to the chosen
companies.
Analysis of SDG materiality
dimensions that are linked to the
chosen companies. Well justified line
of argumentation present.
Design and
presentation of
report
20 Not completed or
inappropriate
material.
Generic report that
does not address
specified problems
and/or poorly
presented.
Generic report that only
partially addresses company
specific problems and/or
poorly presented.
Tailored report that analyses
some aspects of company
specific SDG materiality but is
poorly presented.
Tailored report that analyses
company specific SDG
materiality, but presentation
could be improved.
Tailored case study that analyses
company specific aspects of SDG
materiality, reflects well on them
based on the business models and is
communicated in a highly effective
manner
Evidence of
original and
critical thinking
10 No evidence of
critical thinking
Some original and
critical thinking but
only in part of the
work.
Limited original and critical
thinking, but mostly applying
the ideas of others.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approaches but often following
given lines of argumentation.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approach, but at times
following given lines of
argumentation.
Demonstrates excellence in original
and critical thinking in arguments or
approach.
7
Research
literature
5 No evidence of
using literature.
Statements are
opinions, which are
not supported with
appropriate
evidence.
Statements are opinions
which are generally not
supported with relevant,
high quality evidence.
References drawn mainly
from potentially unreliable
sources.
Statements are supported using
relevant, high quality evidence in
some places or the evidence used
is not appropriate or drawn from
potentially unreliable sources.
Statements are supported
using relevant, high quality
evidence at important points,
although evidence used is not
always from reliable academic
and professional research.
Statements are consistently
supported using relevant, high quality
evidence from reliable academic and
professional research
Referencing 5 No referencing Poor referencing. Significant inconsistency or
inaccuracy in referencing.
Mostly consistent & accurate
referencing.
Consistent and accurate
referencing throughout, but
not perfect.
Perfect referencing throughout.
Structure 5 No clear structure of
the report
Report lacked a
suitable structure.
Used suggested structure,
but sections were not used
effectively in communicating
to the reader.
Used suggested structure, but
sections were of limited
effectiveness in communicating
to the reader.
Used suggested structure, but
some sections were of limited
effectiveness in
communicating to the reader.
Very well structured with all sections
integrated allowing a coherent and
logical progression of ideas, evidence,
justification and conclusions.
Academic writing 5 English syntax and
grammar were such
that the report
failed to
communicate
content to the
reader
English syntax and
grammar were such
that the report
poorly
communicates
content to the
reader.
English syntax and grammar
were acceptable but with a
narrative style that created
some difficulty in
understanding.
English syntax and grammar were
of a high level with a narrative
style that communicated clearly
for the majority of the report,
but with some avoidable errors.
English syntax and grammar
were of a very high level and
had a narrative style that
communicated clearly for the
majority of the report.
English syntax and grammar were of
an excellent level and had a narrative
style that communicated clearly to
the reader throughout the report.
8
Marking Criteria – Individual Video
Total
Marks
Very Bad fail Bad fail Third class
performance
2.2 performance 2.1 performance First class performance
Explanation of
recommendation
based on the
group report
15 Not completed or
inappropriate,
explanation.
Generic
recommendations,
no critical discussion
of the selected
recommendations.
Somewhat generic
recommendations, but
remarks are made regarding
the chosen
recommendations.
The arguments used to justify the
recommendations are company
specific. They are, however, mere
statements and not build on
structured arguments.
The arguments used to justify
the recommendations are
company specific. They are,
generally backed up by
arguments, but at times mere
statements.
A clear and well-structured line of
argumentation can be shown that
justifies the selection of the chosen
recommendations.
Analysis of
recommendation
s based on the
group report
15 Does not make any
reference to the
business models or
SDG materiality.
Only refers
superficially to the
business models or
SDG materiality.
Refers to the business
models or SDG materiality,
but fails to critically analyse
the business models or SDG
materiality.
Some critical discussion of the
link to the business models and
SDG materiality.
Evidence of in-depth
understanding of the link
between the
recommendations and the
business models and SDG
materiality. However, at times
limited critical reflection.
Evidence of in-depth understanding
of the link between the
recommendations and the business
models and SDG materiality.
Discussion of how the
recommendations are based on the
business models and SDG materiality.
Critical reflection
on why they have
not yet been
implemented.
30 Not completed or
inappropriate, lack
of understanding of
the fashion industry.
Analysis of generic
challenges. Lack of
understanding of
the fashion industry.
The selected challenges are
not linked to the chosen
recommendations.
Analyses of challenges specific to
the recommendations, but depth
of analysis is missing in regards to
the fashion industry.
Identification of relevant
challenges, specific to the
recommendations made.
However, it is not always clear
how they link to the chosen
companies.
Analysis of the fashion industry, its
stakeholders and the resulting
conflicts. Challenges linked to the
chosen companies and
recommendations. Well justified line
of argumentation present.
Design and
presentation of
the video
20 Not completed or
inappropriate
material.
Generic video that
does not address
specified problems
and/or poorly
presented.
Generic video that only
partially addresses company
specific problems and/or
poorly presented.
Tailored video that analyses
some aspects of the
recommendations and
challenges, but is poorly
presented.
Tailored video that analyses
company specific
recommendations and
challenges, but presentation
could be improved.
Tailored video that analyses company
specific recommendation and
challenges, reflects well on them
based on the specifics of the fashion
industry and is communicated in a
highly effective manner
Evidence of
original and
critical thinking
15 No evidence of
critical thinking
Some original and
critical thinking but
only in part of the
work.
Limited original and critical
thinking, but mostly applying
the ideas of others.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approaches but often following
given lines of argumentation.
Some original and critical
thinking in arguments or
approach, but at times
following given lines of
argumentation.
Demonstrates excellence in original
and critical thinking in arguments or
approach.
Structure 5 No clear structure of
the video
Video lacked a
suitable structure.
Used a structure, but
sections were not used
effectively in communicating
to the viewer.
Used a structure, but sections
were of limited effectiveness in
communicating to the viewer.
Used a clear structure, but
some sections were of limited
effectiveness in
communicating to the viewer.
Very well structured with all sections
integrated allowing a coherent and
logical progression of ideas, evidence,
justification and conclusions.

English homework help