ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title MGT301A: Ethics and Sustainability
Assessment Scenario Report
Individual/Group Group and Individual
Length 2000 words (+/ 10%)
Peer review form
Learning Outcomes a) Identify questions of ethics and sustainability and analyse how they impact on one’s day-to-day work experience. b) Apply a range of ethical frameworks and develop a vocabulary for ethical issues.
c) Demonstrate the ability to apply the various frameworks that underpin how individuals and organisations make decisions on complex ethical issues.
d) Analyse the impact of economic, commercial, social and environmental trends on organisation’s ethical and sustainability behaviours.
e) Explore specific sustainability tools such as values-based management and stakeholder perspectives.
f) Evaluate the role of the individual as an agent of ethical and sustainable behaviour in organisations.
Submission Due by 10 am Friday of module 6.2 (week 12).
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context
This assessment allows students to develop writing skills in ethics and sustainability scenarios and to explore the ways in which stakeholder theory and values management can be used by organisations, as tools in addressing economic, commercial, social and environmental problems.
Instructions
Group task
You will be allocated to a group of three students who, in module 5.2 (week 10) and module 6.1 (week 11) will prepare a short written scenario that describes one ethical or sustainability issue facing an organisation of your choice. A framework for writing the scenario will be provided in class, and available later as an online resource in Blackboard.
Individual task
You will then use the group scenario to prepare an individual report.
The scenario report will take the form of a business case, made to the senior management of the organisation, recommending how the issue should be dealt with. The report will employ either stakeholder theory or values management as an analytical tool.
• Structure
1. Executive summary (100 words)
2. Introduction (100 words)
3. Summary of scenario (200 words)
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 1 of 5
4. Description of theory used for analysis (stakeholder theory OR values management) (400 words)
5. Analysis (750 words)
6. Identification of 3 alternative solutions (250 words)
7. Recommendations (100 words)
8. Conclusion (100 words)
9. Reference list (excluded from word count)
This assessment task should include appropriate academic referencing and a reference list following
APA 6th edition style of referencing. Please see the Academic Skills page on Blackboard for information on referencing in APA 6th: https://laureate-
au.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20163_1&content_id =_2498849_1
Peer review
Each member of the group will review the contribution of other group members, to the task, using the Peer Review Form. You can find this form in the corresponding Assessment folder in Blackboard. The Peer Review Form focuses on the ways each group member behaves, in relation to ethics, throughout the activity. You will have to use one Peer Review Form, per group member, and collate these in a single document for submission. Your mark for this assessment will be based, equally, on the review provided by your peers.
Scenario report
The Learning Rubric (pp. 3-5) is your guide to how your assessment will be marked. Please be sure to check this rubric very carefully before submission.
Submission Instructions
Submit the Individual Scenario Report and Peer Review Form by 10 am Friday of module 6.2 (week 12) via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in MGT301A: Ethics and Sustainability. The learning facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 2 of 5
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3- Scenario Report
Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75 -84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Knowledge and
Understanding as reflected in research and analysis.
30% Report does not address the question, demonstrates limited understanding of the topic with limited/no developed aspects of the task.
Report indicates confusion of personal opinion and information (substantiated by evidence) from the research/course materials. ?
Report shows little/no evidence of research or enquiry.
Report addresses the basic components of the question, demonstrates only a cursory understanding of the topic and develops the minimum aspects of the task.
Report indicates some confusion of personal opinion and information (substantiated by evidence) from the research/course materials. ?
Report shows basic evidence of research or enquiry.
Report addresses most components of the question, demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and develops most aspects of the task.
Report t justifies personal opinion, by utilising evidence and information from independent research.
Report shows sufficient evidence of research or enquiry.
Report addresses the full components of the question, demonstrates a very good understanding of the topic and develops all aspects of the task.
Report discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information
(substantiated by robust evidence) from independent research and extended reading.
Report shows substantial evidence of research or enquiry.
Report addresses the full components of the question, demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic and develops thorough and critical analysis of the task.
Report systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from independent research.
Report shows exceptional evidence of research or enquiry and indicates serious contemplation of sources and extended reading.
Identification of solutions and
recommendations
Requires a clearer identification of alternative solutions and recommendations. Alternative solutions and recommendations have been identified.
Alternative solutions and recommendations have been proficiently identified. Alternative solutions and recommendations have
been effectively identified. Alternative solutions and recommendations have been skilfully identified.
30%
Requires justification, based on analysis of theoretical frameworks and academic resources, as applied to the organisation’s context and ethical/sustainability issue.
A basic standard of
justification is
inconsistently based on a satisfactory level of analysis and superficially supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue.
A good standard of justification, based on a good level of analysis, and partially supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue.
A discerning and critical standard of justification based on in-depth analysis, and well supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue. An expert standard of justification based on critical, in-depth analysis, and supported by evidence thoroughly, to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue.
Structure and Flow of
Ideas
20% Report does not present information and evidence adequately.
Report lacks logical/clear structure and flow of ideas, making it difficult to understand.
Line of reasoning is unclear and difficult to follow.
Report presents information and evidence sufficiently, however requires further logic and more clarity.
Report has a sufficient structure, however flow of ideas are a challenge and can be difficult to understand.
Line of reasoning is passable, however, can sometimes be difficult to follow and requires clarity. Report presents information and evidence clearly and logically.
Report has a good structure, with a good flow of ideas.
Line of reasoning is of a good standard and easy to follow.
Report presents information and evidence clearly and logically.
Report has a sufficient structure, however flow of ideas are a challenge and can be difficult to understand.
Line of reasoning is of an exceptional standard and easy to follow.
Report presents information and evidence clearly and logically.
Report has a good structure, with a good flow of ideas.
Line of reasoning is of a professional standard and easy to follow.
Correct citation of key
resources and
evidence
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, however, these are not always Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop
10%
to support and develop ideas.
Does not use sufficient sources.
Does not include correct references or intext citations; does not use APA 6th style.
explicit or welldeveloped.
Uses sufficient sources, however can be greatly improved.
Attempt made to include references or in-text citations, however these are sometimes insufficient for research purposes, or incorrect;
uses APA 6th style, however may contain some citation or referencing errors.
Shows good evidence of attempts to source information, with a sufficient number of sources..
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, however may contain minor citation or referencing errors.
arguments and statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, containing minimal and or no errors.
arguments and position statements.
Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
Incorporates in-text and citations references from suitable sources; uses APA 6th style, containing no errors.
Peer Review
10% Did not behave in a manner that resulted in the most benefit to all group members.
Treated group members inequitably.
Behaved in ways that were not consistent with the common good. Usually behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members.
Occasionally treated group members inequitably.
Occasionally behaved in ways that were not consistent with the common good. Almost always behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members.
Almost always treated group members equitably.
Almost always behaved in ways that were consistent with the common good. Always behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members.
Always treated group members equitably.
Always behaved in ways that were consistent with the common good. Always behaved in ways that benefitted all group members, at times to own personal detriment.
Made extra effort to ensure that group members were treated equitably.
Made extra effort to behave in ways that were consistent with the common good.