Listofcompanies.JPGAssignmentdetails.JPGExamplereportmarkinggrid xFAQs.JPGFAQs2.JPG
 

• Type of paperAssignment
• SubjectCase Study
• Number of pages8
• Format of citationHarvard
• Number of cited resources10
• Type of serviceWriting

You are required to evaluate a local company’s Environmental Sustainability practices against theory and best practice You are to research the company using secondary sources and to make justified conclusions and recommendations based on the issues evaluated. The report should be approximately 2,000 words in length and must involve a review of academic theory on the issues covered

Additional Service

i

Progressive delivery

With progressive delivery, you have an additional deadline by which you have to provide a first half of the paper for the customer. The customer may evaluate this work and add his or her commentary.

Criteria

<35%

35%-39%

40%- 49%

50% – 59%

60% – 69%

70% and greater

1. Environmental SustainabilityTheoretical Review (40%)

Choice of Theory (14%)

· Poor choice of concepts – nothing related to the environmental sustainability business issue.

· Weak choice of concepts related to the environmental sustainability business issue. These may be mainly definitions rather than anything that can be applied to the organisation

· Satisfactory choice of at least 1 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices.

· Good choice of at least 2 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices.

· Very Good choice of at least 3 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices.

· Excellent choice of at least 3 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices.

· At least one of these concepts should be unearthed by research and is not in the main course slides

Critical Evaluation (14%)

· Nothing of academic merit

· No attempt at critical evaluation – any course concept is simply described

· Only a limited attempt made at critical evaluation

· Satisfactory critical evaluation of course concepts –strengths and maybe limitations considered

· Good critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths and limitations considered

· Excellent critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths and limitations considered and some comparisons with other course concepts made.

Illustrative Examples (8%)

· No examples found to support points.

· A few examples found to support points but may not be referenced

· A few examples found to support points but may not be fully relevant or contemporary

· At least 1 Good contemporary example found to support points. Other examples given may be illustrative but not related to a specific company example (e.g. agile product development is suitable for a fast changing external environment)

· At least 3 Good contemporary examples found to support points

· At least 3 Excellent contemporary examples found to support points

Journal references (4%)

· No references from academic journals used. More reliance on internet sources and maybe a single text.

· No references from academic journals used but some main textbooks used. More reliance on internet sources.

· At Least 1 reference from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks.

· More than 2 references from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks.

· More than 3 references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to the main textbooks.

· More than 5 references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to main textbooks.

Criteria

<35% 35%-39%

40% – 49%

50% – 59%

60% – 69%

70% and greater

2. Evaluation of organisation’s environmental sustainability practices (40%)

Evaluation of Strategic Relevance of Business Issue (10%)

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

Poor consideration of the strategic relevance of the business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the organisation’s brand and competitive situation.

Weak consideration of the strategic relevance of the business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the organisation’s brand and competitive situation.

The relevance of the business issue may be implicitly implied rather being explicitly addressed.

Satisfactory consideration of the strategic relevance of the business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the organisation’s brand and competitive situation.

Good consideration of the strategic relevance of the business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the organisation’s brand and competitive situation.

Excellent consideration of the strategic relevance of the business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the organisation’s brand and competitive situation.

Supported by good research or course concepts

Critical Evaluation of Organisation’s Practices (16%)

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

Poor analysis of the organisation’s current practices. Descriptive rather than evaluative and even this is done weakly reflecting limited research of the organisation’s practices.

Weak analysis of the organisation’s current practices. May just describe what the organisation is doing linked to the business issue OR may focus on evaluating the issue itself rather than the organisation’s practices.

Satisfactory analysis of the organisation’s current practices…but more descriptive than evaluative

Good analysis of the organisation’s management of its current practices linked to the business issue.

Excellent critical analysis of the organisation’s management of its current practices

Effective use of Theory to help evaluation of Practices (10%)

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

No use of relevant theory to analyse the problem and come up with a solution.

Weak use of theory to analyse the problem but theory considered in the review is mentioned.

Satisfactory but limited use of theory to analyse the problem…may correctly identify what theory the issue is related to but this is done in passing or almost as an afterthought – it does not advance the analysis.

Good use of theory to analyse the problem.

Excellent use of theory to analyse the problem.

Effective use of Theory to identify or develop recommendations (4%)

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

No use of theory/research to allow suggested solution/s.

Weak use of theory/research to allow suggested solution/s. Weak recommendations which do not flow from previous evaluation using theory but appear to be based on research of the organisation.

Satisfactory use of theory/research to allow suggested solution/s. Satisfactory recommendations which have some connection to the previous evaluation using theory but appear to be more based on research of the organisation.

Good use of theory/research to allow good suggested solution/s.

Excellent use of theory/research to allow excellent suggested solution/s.

Criteria

<35% 35%-39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% and greater

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment

Weak conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with no justification

Satisfactory conclusion/s linked to previous analysis but only a minimal attempt at justification

Good conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with a reasonable attempt at justification

Excellent well justified conclusion/s linked to previous analysis

3. Conclusions/ Recommendations – Environmental Sustainability (10%)
Justified Conclusion/s on Strategic Relevance of Business Issue for Organisation (2%)	No conclusion made in the conclusions section but an attempt made to make a conclusion/s within the body of the report		Weak conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with no justification		Satisfactory conclusion/s linked to previous analysis but only a minimal attempt at justification		Good conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with a reasonable attempt at justification		Excellent well justified conclusion/s linked to previous analysis
Justified Conclusion/s on Management of Business Issue Practices (3%)	No conclusion made in the conclusions section but an attempt made to make a conclusion/s within the body of the report, OR, Poor conclusions which may not even be linked to previous analysis.
Worthwhile Recommendations (5%)	No recommendations	Limited attempt at recommendations but very poor.	Weak recommendations which are not detailed enough (they are more like a conclusion) and do not consider any of the following: · potential costs and benefits · Timescales and possible resources required · Risks or potential barriers to implementation	Satisfactory recommendations which are worthwhile but may not consider any of following in any detail: • potential costs and benefits • Timescales and possible resources required • Risks or potential barriers to implementation	Good well thought out recommendations which are worthwhile and consider at least one of the following: • potential costs and benefits • Timescales and possible resources required • Risks or potential barriers to implementation	Excellent, well thought out recommendations which are worthwhile and consider most of the following: • potential costs and benefits • Timescales and possible resources required • Risks or potential barriers to implementation

Criteria

<35% 35%-39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% and greater

Criteria

<35% 35%-39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% and greater

4. Business Report format (5%)
Executive Summary (3%)	No Executive Summary done whatsoever.	Poor Executive Summary…may be labelled thus but is actually the Introduction for the report (i.e. No Executive Summary actually done)	Weak Executive Summary (reads more like an Introduction and with limited detail)	Satisfactory Executive Summary (Some detail but reads more like an Introduction)	Good Executive Summary which attempts to report findings and recommendations but may lack some detail.	Excellent Executive Summary which reports the key findings and main conclusions/recommendations.
Other Business Report Format (2%)	Nearly non-existent business report format with many of the following not done or done unsatisfactorily: · Introduction, · Conclusions/ Recommendations Section, · Cover page, · Separate contents page · Logical flow to the report	Poor business report format with many of the following not done or done unsatisfactorily: · Introduction, · Conclusions/ Recommendations Section, · Cover page, · Separate contents page · Logical flow to the report	Weak business report format with several of the following not done or done unsatisfactorily: · Introduction, · Conclusions/ Recommendations Section, · Cover page, · Separate contents page · Logical flow to the report	Satisfactory business report format with most of the following done satisfactorily: · Introduction, · Conclusions/ Recommendations Section, · Cover page, · Separate contents page · Logical flow to the report	Good business report format with a good Introduction and Conclusions/Recommendations Section. There is a Cover page, a separate contents page and there is a logical flow to the report	Excellent Introduction which covers the main objectives of the report, report scope, methodology and gives some background Excellent Conclusions/Recommendations section There is a Cover page, a separate contents page and there is a logical flow to the report
5. Report Presentation (5%)
Spelling and Grammar (2%)	Unacceptable grammar and spelling –difficult to understand most of the report.	Unacceptable grammar and spelling –difficult to understand some points being made.	Weakly expressed with frequent mistakes in grammar and spelling.	Satisfactorily expressed but several mistakes in grammar and spelling.	Well expressed with only a few mistakes in grammar and spelling.	Excellently expressed with perfect grammar and spelling.
Readability (1%)	“Readability” absolutely poor.	“Readability” very weak with many long. paragraphs and sentences + limited use of headings and diagrams or tables)	“Readability” weak with several long. paragraphs and sentences + limited use of headings and diagrams or tables)	Satisfactorily presented with Good “Readability” .(e.g. use of short paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams or tables) but one or two long paragraphs	Well presented with Good “Readability” .(e.g. use of short paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams or tables)	Excellently presented with excellent “Readability” .(e.g. use of short paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams or tables)
Referencing (1%)	Limited or no referencing within report.	Many points not referenced within report, or, many references incorrectly Harvard references.	Referencing done within report and supported by reference list at end but some references missing or incorrectly Harvard referenced.	Satisfactory Harvard Referencing done mostly correctly within report and supported by reference list at end but some references missing (Either facts that should be referenced were not, OR, a few references in report not in reference list or vice versa).	Harvard Referencing done correctly within report and supported by complete reference list at end with only minor errors or omissions	Excellent Harvard Referencing done perfectly within report and supported by complete reference list at end
Word Count and Turnitin (1%)	Turnitin score >40%	Any of the following are present: Word count > +30% Report too short (not within 10% limit) Turnitin score >30%	Within +20% of word count Turnitin score <30%	Within +15% of word count Turnitin score <20%	Within +10% of word count Turnitin score <20%	Within 10% of word count Turnitin score <15%