MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230902 1
ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF | |
Subject Code and Title | MGT301A: Ethics and Sustainability |
Assessment | Scenario Report |
Individual/Group | Group and Individual |
Length | 2000 words (+/ 10%) Peer review form |
Learning Outcomes | a) Identify questions of ethics and sustainability and analyse how they impact on one’s day-to-day work experience. b) Apply a range of ethical frameworks and develop a vocabulary for ethical issues. c) Demonstrate the ability to apply the various frameworks that underpin how individuals and organisations make decisions on complex ethical issues. d) Analyse the impact of economic, commercial, social and environmental trends on organisation’s ethical and sustainability behaviours. e) Explore specific sustainability tools such as values based management and stakeholder perspectives. f) Evaluate the role of the individual as an agent of ethical and sustainable behaviour in organisations. |
Submission | Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of module 6.1 (week 11) For Intensive (6 week) class by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 6.1 (Week 6) |
Weighting | 30% |
Total Marks | 100 marks |
Context
This assessment allows students to develop writing skills in ethics and sustainability scenarios and to
explore the ways in which stakeholder theory and values management can be used by organisations
as tools in addressing economic, commercial, social and environmental problems.
Instructions
Group task
You will be allocated to a group of three students who, in module 5.1 (week 9) and module 5.2 (week
10) will prepare a short written scenario that describes one ethical or sustainability issue facing an
organisation of your choice within the last 6 months. A framework for writing the scenario will be
provided in class, and available as an online resource in Blackboard.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 2
Individual task
You will then use the group scenario to prepare an individual report.
The scenario report will take the form of a business case, made to the senior management of
the organisation, recommending how the issue should be dealt with. The report will employ
either stakeholder theory or values management as an analytical tool.
Structure
1. Executive summary (100 words)
2. Introduction (100 words)
3. Summary of scenario (200 words)
4. Description of theory used for analysis (stakeholder theory OR values management) (400
words)
5. Analysis (750 words)
6. Identification of 3 alternative solutions (250 words)
7. Recommendations (100 words)
8. Conclusion (100 words)
9. Reference list (excluded from word count)
Research and Referencing Requirements
1. At least six relevant reliable sources must be referenced and cited in your text.
2. Cited sources describing or discussing the issue must be published within 6 months of the
submission date of this assessment.
3. All in text citations MUST include the page number from which the information was taken.
4. A minimum of 50% of referenced sources must be from the MGT301A modules or include a URL
to the Torrens University online library.
Submissions which do not meet the above criteria will receive a 50% reduction in the grade.
This assessment task should include appropriate academic referencing following APA 7th edition style of
referencing. Please see the Academic Skills page on Blackboard for information on referencing :
https://torrens.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20163_1&co
ntent_id=_2498849_1
The Learning Rubrics below are your guide to how your assessment will be marked. Please be sure to
check the rubrics very carefully before submission
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately
referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to
have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and
subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Peer review
Each member of the group will review the contribution of other group members, to the task, using
the Peer Review Form. You can find this form in the corresponding Assessment folder in Blackboard.
The Peer Review Form focuses on the ways each group member behaves, in relation to ethics,
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 3
throughout the activity. You will have to use one Peer Review Form, per group member, and
collate these in a single document for submission. Your mark for this assessment will be based,
equally, on the review provided by your peers.
The Learning Rubric is your guide to how your assessment will be marked. Please be sure to
check this rubric very carefully before submission.
Submission Instructions
Submit the Individual Scenario Report and Peer Review Form by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of
module 6.1 (week 11) via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in MGT301A: Ethics and
Sustainability. The learning facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal.
Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 4
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 Page 6 of 6
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3- Scenario Report
Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
Explanation of stakeholder theory or values-based management 10% |
Fails to correctly explain theory, or does not explain specified theory |
Basic explanation of specified theory |
Satisfactory explanation of specified theory |
Good explanation of specified theory |
Excellent explanation of specified theory |
Application of theory to the Analysis of the ethical issue 25% |
Inadequate application of specified theory to analyse the ethical issue |
Adequate application of specified theory to the analysis of the ethical issue |
Proficient application of theory to analyse the most significant aspects of the ethical issue |
Excellent application of theory to analyse the most significant aspects of the ethical issue |
Expert application of theory to analyse all significant aspects of the ethical issue |
Identification of solutions 20% |
Requires a clearer identification of alternative solutions based on analysis of theoretical frameworks and academic resources. |
Alternative solutions have been identified based on a satisfactory level of analysis and superficially supported by evidence. |
Alternative, feasible solutions have been proficiently identified based on a good level of analysis, and partially supported by evidence. |
Alternative feasible and effective solutions Have been effectively identified based on in-depth analysis, and well supported by evidence. |
Alternative, feasible, effective and creative solutions have been skilfully identified based on critical, in-depth analysis, and supported by evidence thoroughly. |
Recommendations 10% |
Requires justification, based on analysis of theoretical frameworks and academic resources, as applied to the organisation’s context and ethical/ sustainability issue. |
A basic standard of justification is inconsistently based on a satisfactory level of analysis and superficially supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue. |
A good standard of justification, based on a good level of analysis, and partially supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue. |
A discerning and critical standard of justification based on in-depth analysis, and well supported by evidence to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue. |
An expert standard of justification based on critical, in-depth analysis, and supported by evidence thoroughly, to address the organisation’s ethical/sustainability issue. |
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 Page 6 of 6
Application of credible research 15% |
Report shows little/no evidence of research. Does not use sufficient sources. |
Report shows some evidence of basic research. Does not use sufficient sources of good quality. |
Report shows sufficient evidence of research. Includes in-text citations and references from suitable sources. |
Report shows evidence of substantial research. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing credible evidence. |
Report shows evidence of extensive research and serious contemplation of sources. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing highly credible evidence. |
Correct application of APA referencing style 10% |
Does not include correct references or in- text citations; does not use APA 7th style. |
Uses APA 7th style, however may contain some citation or referencing errors. |
Uses APA 7th style, however may contain minor citation or referencing errors. |
Uses APA 7th style, containing minimal and or no errors. |
Uses APA 7th style perfectly. |
Peer Review 10% |
Did not behave in a manner that resulted in the most benefit to all group members. Treated group members inequitably. Behaved in ways that were not consistent with the common good. |
Usually behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members. Occasionally treated group members inequitably. Occasionally behaved in ways that were not consistent with the common good. |
Almost always behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members. Almost always treated group members equitably. Almost always behaved in ways that were consistent with the common good. |
Always behaved in a manner that benefitted all group members. Always treated group members equitably. Always behaved in ways that were consistent with the common good. |
Always behaved in ways that benefitted all group members, at times to own personal detriment. Made extra effort to ensure that group members were treated equitably. Made extra effort to behave in ways that were consistent with the common good. |