Governance, Ethics and Sustainability

123 views 9:09 am 0 Comments May 30, 2023

Page 1 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V1
Document Classification: Publi
Assessment 2 Information

Subject Code: MBA402
Subject Name: Governance, Ethics and Sustainability
Assessment Title: Code of Ethics Workplace Simulation
Assessment Type: Instructional Situation Representing a Realistic Scenario
Word Count: 1,500 words (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 30 %
Total Marks: 30
Submission: Online via MyKBS
Due Date: Week 10

Your Task
Analyse a short Case Study document and prepare a short, written report.
Assessment Description
A thorough understanding of how a company’s Code of Ethics must be worded to effectively
communicate behavioural expectations is an essential managerial competency.
The Learning Outcomes you will demonstrate in performing this assessment include:

LO1: Evaluate the success (or lack thereof) of an organisation’s governance
responsibilities
LO2: Analyse the legal and regulatory environment in Australia with a view to
understanding its impact on business strategy
LO3: Analyse the role of the board in the assessment of strategy and risk, and the
way in which this expertise can be better utilised
LO5: Apply corporate sustainability practices in a real‐world example and examine
their appropriateness in a variety of contexts

Assessment Instructions
1. Read the Case Study document which will be made available to you on Monday, Week 8 in
MyKBS under the Assessments tab.
2. Prepare a short, written report answering the questions in the Case Study.
3. Include at least five academic references from academic journals and textbooks, as well as full
details of informational sources you consulted as part of your assignment research.
Please refer to the assessment marking guide contained in the Case Study document to assist
you in completing all the assessment criteria.
Note: Submissions that fail to use the Answers Template supplied will lose 2 marks.
Page 2 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V1
Document Classification: Publi
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of
cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions:
http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Word Limits for Written Assessments
Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at
which that limit is exceeded.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the
resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information
Page 3 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V1
Document Classification: Publi
Assessment Marking Guide

Criteria F (Fail 0% – 49% ) P (Pass) 50% – 64% C (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction) 75% -864% HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% Mark
Industry Code of
Practice versus
Company
Specific Code		 Discusses none or
only one industrial
Code of Practice.
Does not clearly
identify features of
either Code (Industry,
Company-specific).		 Discusses at least two
industry codes.
Shows limited
awareness of differences
between the two species
of Code (Industry,
Company-specific).		 Considers three
industry codes.
Identifies some
clear differences
between the
species of Code
(Industry, Company
specific).		 Analyses well the differences
between three industry
codes, and strongly contrasts
these with a company
specific Code of Ethics.
Considers the different focus
and scope of the two styles
of Code.		 Answer analyses three
industry codes, possibly
also the industry code
for the case study
company.
Insightful discussion of
the different focus and
scope of the two styles
of Code.		 /5
Discussion of
Ethical Test		 Response is confused
and difficult to follow,
OR
Fails to provide an
ethical test.
No examples of
actions that pass or
failure an ethical test.		 Weakly outlines one
ethical test. One
example provided of an
action that either passes
or fails the ethical test.		 Satisfactory
discussion of two
ethical tests.
At least one
example of an
action that either
passes or fails the
test.		 Strongly outlines two ethical
tests.
Clear demonstration of one
action that passes and one
that fails at least one ethical
test.		 Relies upon multiple
sources to succinctly
outline two ethical tests.
Examples expertly
illustrate how the test
aids ethical decision
making.		 /5
Content for a
Diversity Policy		 Definition of
discrimination is
absent, or very weak.
Shows no awareness
of likely content for a
company diversity
policy.
Response fails to
address either
question (CEO, wider
Board).		 Definition is defective
(e.g. says things
incidentally true of
discrimination without
capturing the concept).
No supporting in-text
citation(s).
Limited discussion of
diversity policy for a
company.
Response fails to
address either question
(CEO, wider Board).		 Adequately defines
discrimination with
supporting in-text
citations.
Shows awareness
of the relevant ASX
advice.
Only addresses one
question (CEO,
wider Board).		 Strongly defines
discrimination, explaining
aspects of first company
scandal.
Succinctly ties diversity policy
to relevant ASX
recommendation.
Addresses both questions
(CEO, wider Board).		 Masterful definition of
discrimination
insightfully applied to the
first company scandal.
Consults sources
including ASX (2019)
when suggesting
content for a diversity
policy.
Insightfully addresses
both questions (CEO,
wider Board).		 /5

Page 4 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline LGPP V1
Document Classification: Publi
Assessment Marking Guide

Criteria F 0%(Fail) – 49% P (Pass) 50% – 64% C (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction) 75%-84% HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% Mark
Comparing
Corruption
and Fraud		 Definitions are weak
OR, fail to distinguish
Corruption from Fraud.
Examples are defective
or missing.
Offers no opinion on
combining or
separating concepts in
the company Code.		 At least one concept
adequately defined and
illustrated for the early
learning context.
Concepts are only
weakly differentiated.
Provides unsupported
opinion on whether to
combine concepts within
the company Code.		 Adequately defines and
separates the concepts.
Examples apply both
concepts to the early
learning context.
Reasons for combining
or separating concepts
within the company’s
Code are minimal or
weak.		 Sound definitions and
workplace examples
serve to separate the
concepts.
Clear reasoning
provided for combining
or separating the two
concepts within the
company Code.		 Strong definitions and
workplace examples
insightfully separate
the two concepts.
Reasons for combining
or separating concepts
within the Code are
both considered and
persuasive.		 /5
Whistleblower
Protections		 ‘Whistleblower’ not
defined. Fails to
identify reasons for
encouraging
Whistleblowers to
report wrongdoing.
Description of likely
content is defective or
missing.		 ‘Whistleblower’ weakly
defined. Weak insight
into the purpose of a
Whistleblower
Protections section.
Sketches some likely
content for such a
section.		 Adequately defines
‘whistleblower’.
Identifies 1-2 key
purposes served by this
section.
Content for a
whistleblower policy
section could be more
detailed.		 Strongly defines
‘whistleblower’.
Cogently identifies
purposes of a
whistleblower policy
section.
Proposes practical
measures to encourage
internal whistleblowing.		 Strongly defines
‘whistleblower’,
distinguishing between
reporting within and
outside a company.
Insightfully discusses
purpose and typical
content for this Code
section, with practical
measures to promote
internal whistleblowing.		 /5
Structure,
Research &
Referencing		 Reference list is
missing or contains
URLs and not full
reference citations.		 References fewer than 6
URLs supplied with the
case study,
OR
Most weblinks provided
are cited, but
References list does not
follow KBS Harvard.		 References fewer than 8
URLs appearing in the
case study document.
Many variations from
KBS Harvard in the list.		 Full Reference details
provided for most URLs
in the case study
document.
Evidence of further
research undertaken.
References list follows
KBS Harvard, with slight
variations.		 Full Reference details
provided for all URLs in
the case study
document, plus further
sources consulted.
Near flawless
application of KBS
Harvard.		 /5
Comments: /30