CORP5060: Business and Sustainability


FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND LAW
PG MODULE REASSESSMENT INFORMATION
AUGUST 2020

MODULE CODE: CORP5060 MODULE TITLE: Corporate Social Responsibility
Module Leader: Louise Obara Contact details
• Room: HU4.54
• Tel: +44 (0)116 257 7407
• Email: louise.obara@dmu.ac.uk
Reassessment is by: 2750 – 3000 word report
Re-assessment coursework
deadline date.
Friday 14th August 2020 by 12 noon (midday)
Do I need to submit my work
by Turnitin?
Yes by 12 noon on the hand in date via TURNITIN on Blackboard
https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/ or Blackboard

CORP5060: Business and Sustainability
Assessment Brief
Task Overview and Instructions
Your task is to read the ‘Burberry in Treorchy’ case study (available on the module’s
Blackboard site in folder ‘Reassessment / Deferred Assessments’) and write a report
that (a) outlines the nature and context of the dispute, (b) summarises how Burberry
responded to the criticisms levelled against them, (c) analyses critically the
company’s strategy to deal with the situation, and (d) provides relevant, specific and
actionable recommendations based the analysis.
Note that you are advised to consult the following resources to help you answer the
question.
• Feedback / comments received on the first assessment (if submitted)
particularly the sections, “Critical analysis of the company’s strategy to deal
with the criticism / allegation” and “Recommendations”.
• Lecture 1: Overview of approaches and introduction to key terms
• Lecture 2: Stakeholder theory and management.
• Lecture 3: Ethical CSR
• Lecture 4: Corporate social responsiveness
• Lecture 6: Tools and techniques of managing ethics in business
• Lecture 10: CSR and corporate governance.
Your submission must meet the following requirements.
• Submit your report to Turnitin under the folder named “August 2020
Submission” by 12 noon (midday) on Friday 14th August 2020. Note that only
online submissions will be accepted.
• The word limit is 2750 – 3000 (please do not go over 3000 words).
• You must not include your name anywhere in the document as we mark your
work anonymously.
• The title page must include your P number, module title and module code.
Also include your P number in the file name.
• Use Arial font size 12 and at least 1.15 line spacing.
• The title page, list of references and appendices are not included in the word
count.
• Make sure you keep the submission email receipt as proof that you have
submitted.
• Both Microsoft Word and PDF files are acceptable.
• For citation of references, please use the Faculty of Business and Law Harvard
referencing system (available here)
Marking Criteria
The report will be marked according to the criteria set out below. This takes into
account, and aligns with, DMU’s undergraduate marking descriptors (available here).
Please read the marking criteria and rubric carefully and make sure you use it to
help you answer the question.

Task / Criteria Weighting
1 Overview / summary of the dispute between Burberry and Keep
Burberry British (KBB) campaigners (note that you must not cut and
paste from the case study but paraphrase / summarise in your own words).
10%
2 Overview / summary of Burberry and their strategy to deal with KBB
demands (i.e. how did Burberry respond?).
10%
3 Critical analysis of Burberry’s strategy to deal with the situation
(i.e. why did they respond in the way they did, was their response
effective / right, and should they have responded in a different way?).
50%
4 Recommendations. 20%
5 Structure, coherence, clarity and presentation. 10%

Marking Rubric

Distinction Merit Pass Fail
80-100%
Excellent – Outstanding
70-79%
Very Good – Excellent
60-69%
Good – Very Good
50-59%
Satisfactory – Good
40-50%
Poor – Satisfactory
<40%
Unsatisfactory
Overview / summary
of the dispute
between Burberry
and Keep Burberry
British (KBB)
campaigners
(10%)
Outstanding overview of
the dispute between
Burberry and KBB. All
relevant information
identified and clearly
outlined. Exceptional
positioning of the
Burberry case within the
corporate sustainability
context / debate.
Excellent overview of
the dispute between
Burberry and KBB.
Effectively positions
the Burberry case
within the corporate
sustainability context
/ debate.
Good overview of the
dispute between
Burberry and KBB.
Good placement of the
Burberry case within the
corporate sustainability
context / debate but
some detail lacking.
Reasonably good
overview of the dispute
between Burberry and
KBB but some key
information missing
and/or not relevant.
Reasonable placement
of the Burberry case
within the corporate
sustainability context /
debate but lack of
clarity in places.
Satisfactory overview of
the dispute between
Burberry and KBB.
Some information
provided but
predominantly not
relevant. Weak or no
positioning of the
Burberry case within
the corporate
sustainability context /
debate.
Unsatisfactory overview of
the dispute between
Burberry and KBB. Limited
or no information provided
and/or not relevant. No
attempt to place the
Burberry case within the
corporate sustainability
context / debate.
Overview / summary
of Burberry and
their strategy to deal
with KBB demands
(10%)
Outstanding overview of
Burberry and their
response to KBB. All
relevant information
identified and clearly
outlined (i.e. provides the
context necessary for the
critical analysis
discussion).
Excellent overview of
Burberry and their
response to KBB.
Relevant information
effectively identified
and outlined.
Good overview of
Burberry and their
response to KBB. Most
key areas identified /
discussed but some
relevant information
missing and/or not
relevant.
Reasonably good
overview of Burberry
and their response to
KBB but some key
information missing
and/or not relevant.
Satisfactory overview of
Burberry and their
response to KBB. Some
information provided
but predominantly not
relevant.
Unsatisfactory overview of
Burberry and their
response to KBB. Limited
or no information provided
and/or not relevant (i.e.
does not provide the
context necessary for the
critical analysis
discussion).
Critical analysis of
Burberry’s strategy
to deal with the
situation
(50%)
Outstanding analysis of
Burberry’s response.
Exceptional use of
corporate sustainability
theories and academic
literature / research to
explore and evidence
points. Significant
originality displayed.
Excellent analysis of
Burberry’s response.
Very good use of
corporate
sustainability
theories and
academic literature /
research to explore
and evidence points.
Some originality
displayed.
Good analysis of
Burberry’s response.
Effective use of
corporate sustainability
theories and academic
literature / research to
explore and evidence
points but some
aspects lacking in detail
(e.g. research / theories
not discussed or
applied fully).
Reasonably good
analysis of Burberry’s
response. Clear attempt
to use corporate
sustainability theories
and academic literature
/ research to explore
and evidence points but
large sections lack
detail / clarity and often
descriptive.
Satisfactory analysis of
Burberry’s response.
Some attempt to use
corporate sustainability
theories and academic
literature / research to
explore and evidence
points but application is
weak and
predominantly
descriptive.
Unsatisfactory analysis of
Burberry’s response.
Limited or no attempt to
use corporate
sustainability theories and
academic literature /
research. A descriptive
account of Burberry’s
response only and/or
arguments lack evidence /
support (i.e. personal
opinion only).
Grade
Marking
criteria
it i
Recommendations
(20%)
Outstanding
recommendations. Clear
link to, and grounded in,
the evidence and
analysis presented. A
range of
recommendations
provided e.g. the
selected company (its
future management of
criticisms / allegations),
companies in the sector /
industry, government
policy / action, future
research, etc.)
Excellent
recommendations.
Most link to, and
grounded in, the
evidence and
analysis presented.
A range of well
thought through
recommendations
provided.
Good
recommendations. Most
link to, and grounded in,
the evidence and
analysis presented.
Majority are well
thought through but
some lack detail and/or
focus on one
stakeholder only.
Reasonably good
recommendations.
Many relate to the
evidence and analysis
presented but some
lack detail and/or vague
and/or range is narrow.
Satisfactory
recommendations.
Some relate to the
evidence and analysis
presented but many
lack detail, clarity,
and/or range is narrow.
No recommendations
provided and/or weak (e.g.
not linked to the analysis,
lack clarity, not relevant,
too vague / broad, too
many, not enough, narrow
range, etc.).
Structure,
coherence,
clarity and
presentation
(10%)
Outstanding structure,
coherence, clarity and
presentation. The report
flows seamlessly.
Contains no spelling or
grammatical errors.
Excellent structure,
coherence, clarity
and presentation.
The report flows
almost seamlessly.
Contains very few
spelling or
grammatical errors.
Good structure,
coherence, clarity and
presentation. The report
flows well with only a
few points lacking in
clarity. Contains some
spelling or grammatical
errors.
Reasonably good
structure, coherence,
clarity and presentation.
The report flows
reasonably well but
some parts lack clarity /
feels disjointed.
Contains many spelling
or grammatical errors.
Satisfactory structure,
coherence, clarity and
presentation. The report
feels disjointed in
places and large parts
lack clarity. Contains a
significant number of
spelling and/or
grammatical errors.
Unsatisfactory structure,
presentation, clarity and
presentation. The report is
disjointed, lacks clarity,
and arguments are difficult
to follow. Spelling and
grammatical errors present
throughout.

The post CORP5060: Business and Sustainability appeared first on My Assignment Online.



This essay is written by:

Prof. SirMojo Verified writer

Finished papers: 435

Proficient in:

English, History, Business and Entrepreneurship, Nursing, Psychology, Management

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer
© 2017 theacademicessays. All Rights Reserved. Design & Developed by theacademicessays.
How to Avoid Plagiarism
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Get help from professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay
Loading...