Posted: November 14th, 2022

Assessment 1 Responsible Business: Theory and Practice

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 Monday 26th September
Due Date & Time Thursday 17th November 12-noon (UK)
Feedback Post Date Friday 9th December

Assignment Format Essay

Assignment Length 2000 words

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 role businesses play within society and the responsibilities they hold to different groups (stakeholders) within it.
Assignment Task:

Using relevant theories and concepts, critically analyse the following statement:

Businesses exist to create value for their owners through the realisation of growth and profit. All other considerations are secondary.

Assignment Instructions:
For this assignment, you need to do the following:
1. Refamiliarize yourself with the lecture content of Weeks 2, 3 and 4 along with related seminars. These sessions cover the learning most relevant to answering this question. You should also be prepared to do further research into the topic (e.g., via the readings provided in ResourceList).
2. Using the information gathered in (1), critically analyse the above statement. By this, we are looking for you to develop your own well-supported and logical assessment of the above statement based on the description, analysis and evaluation of relevant conceptual themes. Additionally, we recommend you support your analysis with some empirical (“real world”) application, for instance, by identifying illustrative examples or considering the significance of changes over time in the social, economic, and environmental contexts in which businesses exist and theories are developed.
3. Building on the analytical work you did in (2), craft an essay that presents your findings, along with a reasoned conclusion as to whether or not you agree with the statement. It doesn’t matter which side you are on (or to what extent you completely agree/disagree), just that you base your conclusion on an informed and balanced critical analysis.
4. Remember: A good essay is based on a well-supported analysis, not unsupported opinion:
• Be sure to use (and explicitly reference) the concepts and theories we’ve covered in class to guide your analysis and underpin your argument.
• You should also support (i.e., properly reference and cite) any empirical (“real world”) claims or facts you provide. For instance, drawing on reputable media outlets (e.g., Financial Times), civil society organizations (e.g., Greenpeace) or company and government websites.
Presentational Requirements
The following presentational requirements should be followed when submitting your work:
• 2000-word limit (excluding the reference list)
• Personal information should be avoided to aid anonymized marking
• An academic essay structure should be used (guidance here)
• An easily readable font (e.g., Arial) should be used throughout
• The font size should be 11 or 12
• Double line spacing should be used throughout
• References should be cited using in-text citations (i.e., Harvard Referencing)
• Pages should be numbered
NB – Failure to follow these guidelines will affect your performance in this assignment.
Cover Sheet and Submissions
• You must download the Cover Sheet and use this as the first page of your assignment. You may want to use this from the start or you can paste the whole page into the document afterwards.
• Save your document – do not include your name in the file name or anywhere else in the document.
• You need to upload a Word or PDF Document as your main assignment (including the cover sheet page) unless otherwise instructed.
• Appendices and other supporting documents should be uploaded to the same submission by using the [+] Add another file button.
• Do not use Google Docs for submitting your assignment as it will not be possible for it to be marked.
• If you are having technical problems submitting please see our help page: Submitting Your Assignment.
• For advice on viewing your grade and feedback please see: Viewing your Marks and Feedback FAQ

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.
• 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

Marking Rubric:

Criteria Excellent Very Good Good Developing Poor
Response to the brief (25%)
The extent and proficiency to which the specifics of the assignment task have been attempted and completed.

Provides an exceptionally high-quality response to the specifics of the brief, which is both comprehensive and novel. Instructions have been followed completely. Provides a complete and effective response to the brief. Task instructions have been accurately followed, albeit with some minor gaps or errors. Provides a broadly appropriate response to the brief, which delivers the core elements of the task. Some elements are better than others, and there may be some gaps or errors. Provides a partial response to the brief, with deviation and/or omission from the task instructions. May contain apparent misunderstanding or oversimplification of the required task. Does not address the brief in any meaningful way. Content provided is not at all relevant, and instructions have not been followed. Suggestion of material misunderstanding of the required task.
Conceptual themes (25%)
The extent to which relevant theoretical concepts and practice-based frameworks (e.g., UN SDGs) are accurately recalled, critically discussed and applied.

Shows comprehensive understanding of relevant conceptual themes. Demonstrates a very thorough grasp of academic and practice-based ideas. Shows attention to detail and a highly developed ability to engage in critical discussion and application. Conceptual themes are well developed and applied. Shows a detailed and varied understanding of core and related themes. Demonstrates a very good grasp of key academic and practice-based ideas. Shows an ability to engage in critical discussion. Demonstrates a mostly accurate knowledge of core module themes. Draws explicitly on key academic and practice-based ideas. Show an awareness of concepts and related literatures introduced within the module. May containing some attempts at critical discussion Shows some basic awareness of relevant conceptual themes, albeit limited by misunderstanding or gaps in knowledge. Generally descriptive with an apparent absence of critical thinking or application. No meaningful engagement with concepts and theory from relevant literature. Similarly, no engagement with relevant practice-based frameworks. Suggestive of material misunderstanding or gaps in knowledge.
Analytical fluency (25%)
The extent to which a submission demonstrates a critical and informed examination of a given topic.

An extremely well-developed, coherent analytical argument which systematically draws on conceptual themes. Excellent integration of appropriate contemporary, real-world contexts and relevant theory. Argumentation displays novelty, critique, and balance. Shows an ability to go beyond description and engage in analytical discussion of a topic. Analytical conclusions are clearly informed by conceptual themes. Argumentation displays levels of critical and evaluative thinking. Shows an ability to bring together and describe information relevant to a topic. Conclusions have links to conceptual themes, though these may be vague or implicit at times. Thinking appears broadly logical but is not always fully explained or evidenced. Shows an ability to discuss details relevant to a topic but with little or no explicit connection to specific conceptual themes or empirical support. Discussion is either based on description or unsupported opinion, and the logic may be unclear. No attempt to integrate conceptual themes into the discussion. Discussion entirely descriptive or based on unsupported assertions. Suggests material issues in terms of balance and/or accuracy.
Structure and presentation (15%)
The extent to which a submission is clearly and appropriately structured and presented.

Structured and presented in a highly effective way. Displays exceptionally clear thought. Fluency, overall comprehension, and linkages between points are highly extremely well developed. Consistently tidy, well organised, and in line with task instructions. Uses appropriate formatting (e.g., paragraphs) to structure and present the submission in an effective manner. Consistently good grammar, and comprehension. Structured and presented in a broadly coherent manner and in line with the key requirements of the task. Occasional issues with formatting (e.g., paragraphs), grammar, and comprehension. Generally untidy and disorganised, with some areas hard to follow. Issues with formatting (e.g., paragraphs), grammar, and comprehension hinder clarity. Untidy and disorganised, to the point where it is consistently difficult to follow. Extremely poor presentation. Deviates materially from the instructions provided.
Referencing practice (10%) The accurate and consistent use of correct (Harvard-style) referencing practice.

Near flawless referencing using the Harvard-style method. Conceptual and empirical claims are reliably referenced from high-quality and varied sources. Extensive and consistent referencing of relevant support. Conceptual and empirical claims are consistently supported. Harvard-style in-text referencing is used accurately and effectively. A reasonable effort has been made to reference relevant support. Main conceptual and empirical claims are supported. Harvard-style referencing is used, albeit with some formatting errors or omissions. Generally poor referencing, with significant gaps, formatting errors, and/or weak source usage. Correct referencing conventions have not been followed. Missing either reference list or in-text references. No meaningful attempt made to reference academic or empirical sources, irrespective of specific conventions. No reference list or in-text references are provided.