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.

1. In Bai Xianyong’s “Eternal Snow Beauty,” why does Yin Hsueh-yen never seem to age? 2. In the novel Orphan of Asia, Taiming had a crush on Hisako, but she turned him down. Why?