MMM343 ASSIGNMENT 2000 WORDS: 50%
MMM343 ASSIGNMENT 2000 WORDS: 50%
Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Acceptable (Pass) Good (Credit) Very Good (Distinction) Excellent (High Distinction)
An overview of the content of the article (provide title of the article for each overview)
.
(Max 3 marks)
ULO1, GLO1, GLO3 NO overview of the articles has been provided. Very little or a scant overview of the news article which fails to provide an adequate summary of the story that it contains. The overview of each of the news article summarizes the issues adequately. The overview of each of the newsarticle summarizes the issues well. The overview of each of the news article summarizes the issues very well. The overview of each of the news article summarizes the
issues comprehensively.
Identification of ethical issues and stakeholders
(Max 8 marks)
ULO2, ULO3, GLO1 Ethical issues and/or stakeholders not identified. Ethical issues and/or stakeholders not identified adequately.
For example: key ethical issues missed; issues that were identified were done so poorly; key stakeholders not identified or done so poorly. Ethical issues and stakeholders identified adequately.
The major ethical issues and the main stakeholders have been identified. Ethical issues and stakeholders identified well.
The major ethical issues and the main stakeholders have been identified. There is evidence of understanding of the issues and affected stakeholders. Ethical issues and stakeholders identified very well.
The major ethical issues and the main stakeholders have been identified. There is evidence of in-depth understanding of the issues and affected stakeholders. Ethical issues and stakeholders identified comprehensively.
The major ethical issues and the main stakeholders have been identified. There is evidence of comprehensive understanding of the issues and affected stakeholders.
Discussion of the ethical issues raised in the news article is
linked to referenced theory
(Max 6 marks)
ULO3, ULO 4, GLO1, GLO3 No discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory. Unsatisfactory discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory.
For example, when discussing media article: a poor discussion that fails to engage with the Satisfactory discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory.
For example, mention of appropriate referenced Satisfactory discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory.
For example, the discussion draws out some more subtle implications and issues or that Satisfactory discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory.
For example, the discussion draws out and shows clear links between more subtle
implications and issues Satisfactory discussion of ethical issues link to referenced theory.
For example, the discussion
raises the work above the level of a distinction by drawing
relevant issues; very limited or nonexistent use of appropriate referenced theory to inform and substantiate the discussion. theory to inform and substantiate the discussion. demonstrates a good use of referenced theory to inform and substantiate the discussion. or that demonstrates a good use of referenced theory to inform and substantiate the discussion. out in-depth implications and issues and demonstrates a good use of referenced theory to inform and substantiate the discussion.
Recommendations to address the ethical issues raised
(Max 6 marks)
ULO3, ULO4, GLO5 No recommendations provided to address issues raised by the news article Recommendations merely stated; and/ or recommendations poorly relate to the issues raised;
recommendations
illogical or unrealistic Recommendations not argued for but merely stated. No
clear link
demonstrated between the issues from the article and discussion of the recommendations. Recommendations are reasonable and are argued adequately. There is evidence of clear link between issues from the article and discussion of the recommendations. Recommendations provided demonstrates grasp of context and provides a well-argued rationale. A clear link between issues from the article and discussion of the recommendations is presented. Recommendations (from secondary sources and/or own opinion) provided demonstrates a comprehensive
rationale for the recommendation. The link between the issues from the article and discussion of the recommendations is presented.
Academic English, structure and the
presentation of the text.
Referencing and acknowledging your
sources of information.
(max. 2 marks)
GLO2 Evidence of poor academic English, structure or presentation of the writing:
For example one or more of the following may be in evidence: extensive spelling and/or grammatical errors; significant confusion over the meaning of words and phrases; numerous sentences which do not convey meaning well; confusing structure for the work; writing presented in a manner that significantly reduces readability.
There are few or no references used within the body of the discussion, or the references used are Evidence of poor academic English, structure or presentation of the writing:
For example one or more of the following may be in evidence: extensive spelling and/or grammatical errors; significant confusion over the meaning of words and phrases; numerous sentences which do not convey meaning well; confusing structure for the work; writing presented in a manner that significantly reduces readability.
There are few or no references used Evidence of reasonable academic English, structure and presentation of the writing.
Some spelling and/or grammatical errors. Words and phrases generally used appropriately. Sentences generally convey meaning well. The structure and style of the writing make the work quite accessible to the reader.
References are used within the body of the discussion adequately. Evidence of sound academic English, clear structure and good presentation of the writing.
Few spelling and/or grammatical errors. Words and phrases used appropriately. Sentences convey meaning well. Structure and presentation of the work make the work easy to read and understand.
References are used within the body of the discussion well and are in most cases accurate and in the correct format.
The Harvard referencing method is used, with only minor errors. Evidence of very good academic
English, clear structure and good presentation of the writing.
Very few spelling and/or grammatical errors. Words and phrases used appropriately and evidence of a more sophisticated vocabulary. Sentences convey meaning very well. Structure and presentation of the work make it easy to read and understand despite the complexity of some of the issues discussed.
References are used within the body of the discussion very well to Evidence of excellent academic English, clear structure and good presentation of the writing.
No spelling and/or grammatical errors. Words and phrases are used appropriately even when engaging with complex ideas and concepts. Sentences are clear, succinct and convey meaning very well. Structure and presentation of the work make it easy to read and understand despite the complexity of the issues discussed.
References are used within the body of the
mostly inaccurate or the references do not support the points being made.
There is little evidence of an attempt to use the Harvard or author-date referencing method.
There is no reference list at the end, or the list is largely inaccurate in style and/or content. within the body of the discussion, or the references used are mostly inaccurate or the references do not support the points being made.
There is little evidence of an attempt to use the Harvard or author-date referencing method.
There is no reference list at the end, or the list is largely inaccurate in style and/or content. The Harvard referencing method is used, but there may be some errors.
There is a reference list at the end and it is generally accurate in both style and content. There is a reference list at the end and it is largely accurate in both style and content. support the points made and in almost all cases are accurate and in the correct format.
The Harvard referencing method is used, with very few errors.
There is a reference list at the end and it is accurate in style and content. discussion very well to support the points made and in all cases are accurate and in the correct format.
The Harvard referencing method is used, with no errors.
There is a reference list at the end and it is accurate in style and content.
Total
Marks for this article: 25 (N) (N) (P) (C) (D) (HD)
https://apnews.com/article/kenya-fire-68dd1c1e73998c6b4e392b3d79e10d12?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=sharehttps://theconversation.com/8-ways-woolworths-and-coles-squeeze-their-suppliers-and-their-customer
MMM343 Business Ethics Trimester 1 2024
Assessment Task 1 Individual
DUE DATE:Wednesday, 17 April 2024, by 8:00pm (Melbourne time)
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE:50%
WORD COUNT:Maximum number of words (2000 words)
HURDLE:
Description
Purpose
The assignment offers an opportunity for practical application of theories learnt in the unit by analysing real life cases of ethical misconduct of business organisations as reported in the media. This task provides opportunities to learn and apply the knowledge (GLO1 & ULO1) and skills (GLOs 2, 3,5 & ULOs 2, 3, 4) required in the study and practice of management in organisations. By completing this task, you will develop your skills in researching, understanding, applying, evaluating, and presenting information required of business professionals.
Context/Scenario
For this task, assume that you are analysing the two given cases in the form of news articles as an observer trained in business ethics.
Specific Requirements
The task requires you to analyse the ethical issues within each article drawing on the knowledge acquired by you in the weekly lectures and case study discussions.
Your task is to analyse the ethical issues in each case and recommend solutions to resolve the unethical issues as well as meet the expectations of concerned stakeholders.
Presentation:
Overview of the essence of each article with a brief discussion of the identified ethical issue(s).
In depth discussion of the ethical issues. Specifically explain what happened in each case and why it happened, the factors in operation which contributed to the unethical acts/ decisions and their consequences.
Stakeholder Impact- briefly discuss impact (positive and/or negative) on at least two stakeholders.
a discussion that links the essence of ethical issues(s) to the theory (referenced theory to support your ideas is expected and essential).
Your recommendations (as a manager who is aware of ethical decision-making) to resolve the issues identified in the article irrespective of whether a resolution has been mentioned or not in the article.
a conclusion in which you offer a clear solution that is drawn from your knowledge of Business Ethics as learnt in the unit (demonstrate by use of references drawn from textbook, unit readings and case studies).
an academic reference list that is constructed correctly (using Deakin Harvard https:// www.deakin.edu.au/students/studying/study-support/referencing/harvard
Word Limit: 1000 words per article (10% extra i.e. 100 extra words is acceptable)
Learning Outcomes
This task allows you to demonstrate your achievement towards the Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs) which have been aligned to the Deakin Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs). Deakin GLOs describe the knowledge and capabilities graduates acquire and can demonstrate on completion of their course. This assessment task is an important tool in determining your achievement of the ULOs. If you do not demonstrate achievement of the ULOs you will not be successful in this unit. You are advised to familiarise yourself with these ULOs and GLOs as they will inform you on what you are expected to demonstrate for successful completion of this unit. The learning outcomes that are aligned to this assessment task are:
Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs) Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs)
ULO 1 Demonstrate an awareness of the role that ethical issues play in business life; in particular, business policy/procedure formulation and its implementation. GLO 1: Graduates will be able to demonstrate discipline specific knowledge, in the area of business ethics.
ULO 2 Articulate and discuss the principles of business ethics GLO 2 Written, oral and interpersonal communication skills will be evaluated when discussing the assessment task requirements online, and subsequently as part of written submission.
ULO 3 Articulate an understanding of the contextual issues surrounding business ethics in different societies nationally and internationally. GLO 3: Use online sources to identify business ethics issues and find additional resources with respect to the issues and impact on different stakeholders.
ULO 4 Rationalise and argue for their perceptions of each concept in a manner that highlights an objective understanding of the issues concerned GLO 5: Use the gathered information to critically provide realistic solutions and recommendations to address the identified business ethics issues
Submission
You must submit your assignment in the Assignment Dropbox in the unit CloudDeakin site on or before the due date. When uploading your assignment, name your document using the following syntax: <your surname_your first name_your Deakin student ID number_[unitcode].doc (or .docx). For example, Jones_Barry_123456789_ABC123.doc.
Submitting a hard copy of this assignment is not required. You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit until the marked assignment has been returned to you. Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of detecting collusion and/or plagiarism/ use of AI etc and for authenticating work.
When you submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an email to your Deakin email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check that you can see your assignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment Dropbox folder, and it is a valid document that opens correctly after upload, as well as keep the email receipt for the submission.
Marking and feedback
The marking rubric indicates the assessment criteria for this task. It is available in the CloudDeakin unit site in the Assessment folder, under Assessment Resources. Criteria act as a boundary around the task and help specify what assessors are looking for in your submission. The criteria are drawn from the ULOs and align with the GLOs. You should familiarise yourself with the assessment criteria before completing and submitting this task. Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on CloudDeakin 15 working days after the submission date.
Extensions
Extensions are granted as per faculty policy for exceptional and/or unavoidable circumstances outside of your control. Requests for extensions must be made by 12 noon on the submission date using the online Extension Request form under the Assessment tab on the unit CloudDeakin site. All requests for extensions should be supported by appropriate evidence (e.g., a medical certificate in the case of ill health) and a draft copy of the task that you have been working on from week 2 onwards.
Applications for extensions after 12 noon on the submission date require University level special consideration and these applications must be must be submitted via StudentConnect in your DeakinSync site.
Late submission penalties
If you submit an assessment task after the due date without an approved extension or special consideration, 5% will be deducted from the available marks for each day after the due date up to seven days*. Work submitted more than seven days after the due date will not be marked and will receive 0% for the task. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the due date. *'Day' means calendar day for electronic submissions and working day for paper submissions.
An example of how the calculation of the late penalty based on an assignment being due on a Thursday at 8:00pm is as follows:
1 day late: submitted after Thursday 11:59pm and before Friday 11:59pm 5% penalty.
2 days late: submitted after Friday 11:59pm and before Saturday 11:59pm 10% penalty.
3 days late: submitted after Saturday 11:59pm and before Sunday 11:59pm 15% penalty.
4 days late: submitted after Sunday 11:59pm and before Monday 11:59pm 20% penalty.
5 days late: submitted after Monday 11:59pm and before Tuesday 11:59pm 25% penalty.
6 days late: submitted after Tuesday 11:59pm and before Wednesday 11:59pm 30% penalty.
7 days late: submitted after Wednesday 11:59pm and before Thursday 11:59pm 35% penalty.
The Dropbox closes the Thursday after the 7th day by 11:59pm AEST/AEDT time.
Support
The Division of Student Life provides a range of Study Support resources and services, available throughout the academic year, including Writing Mentor and Maths Mentor online drop ins and the SmartThinking 24 hour writing feedback service at this link. If you would prefer some more in depth and tailored support, make an appointment online with a Language and Learning Adviser.
Referencing and Academic Integrity
Deakin takes academic integrity very seriously. It is important that you (and if a group task, your group) complete your own work in every assessment task Any material used in this assignment that is not your original work must be acknowledged as such and appropriately referenced. You can find information about referencing (and avoiding breaching academic integrity) and other study support resources at the following website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-supportYour rights and responsibilities as a student
As a student you have both rights and responsibilities. Please refer to the document Your rights and responsibilities as a student in the Unit Guide & Information section in the Content area in the CloudDeakin unit site.
