Assignment #3 Overview and Instructions
Overview
Students will be presented with an organisational case study which includes a number of potential scenarios outlining what an organisation might do in response to the ethical issue introduced in Assessment 1. Students will critique each scenario based around their own ethical framework (identified in Assessment 1) and their understanding of the causes, consequences and leverage points of the problem in the system (developed in Assessment 2). They will recommend one of the scenarios based on their analysis, and justify their recommendation.
Weight: 50% | Length: 2,500 words | Due (indicative): Week 13
Writing Reports with Recommendations
Information about your specific industry
If you are looking for some overview of your industry for your assignment, you could consider the IBIS World Industry reports or the Passport which give a succinct overview of industries
https://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/databases/ibisworld
https://libguides.library.qut.edu.au/databases/passportgmid
Another resources are databases which provide overview of industry journals and newspapers. Good sources are:
You can also find great resources by many of the international organisations (e.g. UN, UNDP, ADB, etc.)
Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2022 (adb.org)Links to an external site.
BSN550 – Assignment #3 : Critical Essay [submission portal and CRA]
Due: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 23:59Due: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 23:59
Ungraded, 50 Possible Points50 Possible Points
Attempt
IN PROGRESS
Next Up: Submit assignment
Add comment
Unlimited Attempts Allowed
Details
Please note:
You can submit multiple versions of your assessment, but only the final one submission will be marked.
When you submit, please check the feedback from the plagiarism software and revise your assignments so that you haven’t inadvertently included text which is not properly referenced or paraphrased.
Ensure that you submit by the deadline.
If you can’t submit by the deadline, please apply for an extension.
It is always wise to submit what you have done by the due date, even if you apply for an extension. If your extension is approved your final submission will over ride the one already in the system
If you receive an extension, always include this on the front page of your assignment to avoid delays in marking your work
View Rubric
BSN550 – Assignment #3
|
BSN550 – Assignment #3 |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Points |
|
[PC3.1] Written communication view longer description |
10 to >8.49 pts High Distinction Writing is professional, well- structured and persuasive. Fluent, coherent and concise writing style. Meaning is consistently clear with a very high level of attention to grammar, syntax and spelling 8.49 to >7.49 pts Distinction Writing is well-structured, and mostly professional. There may be minor problems with flow or conciseness. Meaning is clear with high level of attention to grammar, syntax and spelling 7.49 to >6.49 pts Credit Writing is generally well- structured though there are minor lapses in the use of business language. Shows organisation and coherence. Overall meaning is clear with attention paid to grammar, syntax and spelling with some minor errors. 6.49 to >4.99 pts Pass There is an attempt at structure. Content is somewhat organised, but there are some problems with fluency, conciseness or use of business language. The intended meaning can be discerned. 4.99 to >3.99 pts Marginal Fail Writing lacks structure, coherence and organisation. Use of language fails to make meaning clear with many errors of grammar, syntax and spelling 3.99 to >2.49 pts Fail Work provides minimal evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 2.49 to >0 pts Low Fail Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 0 pts NE No evidence provided |
/ 10 pts |
|
[SE5.1] Ethical and legal principles and practices view longer description |
10 to >8.49 pts High Distinction Comprehensively and critically examines each scenario using a range of deontological frameworks. 8.49 to >7.49 pts Distinction Examines each scenario using a range of deontological frameworks. 7.49 to >6.49 pts Credit Examines each scenario using a selection of deontological frameworks, focusing on those that align with own ethical framework. 6.49 to >4.99 pts Pass Examines each scenario using a limited range of deontological frameworks. 4.99 to >3.99 pts Marginal Fail Examines each scenario using a single deontological framework 3.99 to >2.49 pts Fail Mentions deontological frameworks but doesnt examine the scenario using a framework 2.49 to >0 pts Low Fail Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 0 pts NE No evidence provided |
/ 10 pts |
|
[SE5.2] Socially responsible behaviour in national and international business contexts view longer description |
10 to >8.49 pts High Distinction Comprehensively and critically examines each scenario using a range of consequentialist frameworks. 8.49 to >7.49 pts Distinction Examines each scenario using a range of consequentialist frameworks. 7.49 to >6.49 pts Credit Examines each scenario using a selection of consequentialist frameworks, focusing on those that align with own ethical framework. 6.49 to >4.99 pts Pass Examines each scenario using a limited range of consequentialist frameworks. 4.99 to >3.99 pts Marginal Fail Examines scenarios from a single consequentualist perspective 3.99 to >2.49 pts Fail Does not examine each scenario using consequentialist frameworks. 2.49 to >0 pts Low Fail Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 0 pts NE No evidence provided |
/ 10 pts |
|
[HO2.2] Independent judgement, planning, problem solving and decision making view longer description |
10 to >8.49 pts High Distinction Makes a clear and compelling case for a specific course of action (one scenario). Supports recommendation by comparing its merits and costs with those of other scenarios. Justifies recommendation with evidence from academic and other reliable sources. 8.49 to >7.49 pts Distinction Makes a strong case for a specific course of action (one scenario). Supports recommendation by comparing its merits and costs with those of some other scenarios. Justifies recommendation with evidence from academic and other reliable sources. 7.49 to >6.49 pts Credit Makes a case for a specific course of action (one scenario), clearly identifying benefits. Supports recommendation with evidence from academic and other reliable sources. 6.49 to >4.99 pts Pass Recommends a specific course of action (one scenario), outlining some reasons for its selection. Supports recommendation with limited evidence from academic and other reliable sources. 4.99 to >3.99 pts Marginal Fail May fence site or make a recommendation with minimal justification or support from the literature. Recommendation may be at odds with earlier discussion or case. 3.99 to >2.49 pts Fail Does not provide a recommendation or simply mentions options 2.49 to >0 pts Low Fail Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 0 pts NE No evidence provided |
/ 10 pts |
|
[TS4.1] Self-reflection, responsibility and accountability view longer description |
10 to >8.49 pts High Distinction Critically compares the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues. Clearly articulates plans for dealing with future potential conflict in values. 8.49 to >7.49 pts Distinction Examines the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues. Articulates future plans for dealing with conflicts in values. 7.49 to >6.49 pts Credit Compares the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues. Discusses future plans for dealing with conflicts in values. 6.49 to >4.99 pts Pass Mentions the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues. Mentions future plans for dealing with conflicts in values 4.99 to >3.99 pts Marginal Fail Does not discuss the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues, OR does not mention future plans for dealing with conflicts in values. 3.99 to >2.49 pts Fail Does not discuss the recommended action for the company in relation to your own ethical values and virtues, AND does not mention future plans for dealing with conflicts in values. 2.49 to >0 pts Low Fail Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion 0 pts NE No evidence provided |
/ 10 pts |
|
Total points: 0 |
||
Tags: assignmentexpert, assignmenthelp, assignmenthelpaustralia, assignmenthelper, assignmenthelpuk, assignmenthelpusa, assignmentwriting, bestpriceguaranteed, bestqualityguaranteed, london󾓪, myassignmenthelp, plagiarismfreework