Assessment Information – What you need to do
The assessment for this module requires you to write an individual report in which you evaluate
the sustainability strategy / performance of a company of your choice. It is recommended that
you select a business you are familiar with (e.g. a company you run or work for). The overall aim
is to provide an independent, balanced, and external evaluation of a company’s performance in
relation to sustainability. In doing so, you should explore both the benefits and limitations of the
company’s approach to sustainability, and provide relevant, specific and actionable
recommendations for how the business can improve its sustainability strategy / performance.
Your report should contain the following content:
(a) an overview of the organisation and its sustainability strategy;
(b) an evaluation of the organisation’s sustainability strategy / performance;
(c) at least five relevant, specific and actionable recommendations based on your evaluation;
and,
(d) a discussion of what you have learnt as a result of this task (e.g. about yourself and/or
your organisation), and how this knowledge may inform your personal and/or
professional practice (maximum 400 words).
Criteria for Assessment – How you will be marked
The individual report will be marked according to specific criteria (see the table below). This
takes into account, and aligns with, DMU’s postgraduate marking descriptors (available here).
For more information about what each criteria entails please refer to the rubric provided at the
end of this brief. Note that time is built into the schedule in week 23 to discuss the assessment
task, including marking criteria, in more depth.
Assessment Marking Criteria
1 Overview of the organisation and its sustainability approach 15%
2 Evaluation of the organisation’s sustainability strategy / performance 40%
3 Recommendations 20%
4 Personal reflection 15%
5 Structure, coherence, clarity and presentation 10%
This assignment is designed to assess the following learning outcomes:
1. Acquire knowledge of business-relevant sustainability issues based on rigorous and up-to-date
academic research.
2. Develop a theoretical and practical understanding of challenges and solutions relating to business
and sustainability, as well as of the extended social impact of business in society.
3. Learn to apply critical thinking and innovative solutions and to challenge existing orthodoxies,
especially in relation to commonly accepted ideas around labour or the role of business, nonprofit organisations and the public sector.
4. Explore different approaches to stakeholder management / engagement and how to integrate
conflicting needs and mandates.
5. Learn to make sense of current methods of measuring impact, present data, develop research
skills and champion innovation and rigour in the area of impact assessment.
6. Develop a more knowledge-based, nuanced and integrated personal vision for sustainable
business which has cross-sector relevance and applicability.
Assessment Details
Your submission must meet the following requirements.
• Submit your report to Turnitin under the folder named ‘LBPG5032 Assessment’. Please
include your P number in the file name.
• The front page must include your P number, module title and code. You must not include
your name anywhere in the document as your report will be marked anonymously.
• The maximum word limit for the individual report is 4000 words, and an additional 400
words for the personal reflection. Anything over these word limits will not be considered.
• Your personal reflection should go at the end of your report, after the list of references.
• The title page, list of references, tables / diagrams, executive summary / abstract, and
appendices are not included in the word count.
• Please use Arial font size 11 or 12 and at least 1.15 line spacing.
• Both Microsoft Word and PDF files are acceptable.
• For citation of references, you are required to use DMU’s Harvard referencing system
called “Cite Them Right” available here.
• Make sure you keep the submission email receipt as proof that you have submitted.
How to Submit your Assessment
The assessment must be submitted by 12 noon (GMT/BST) on 18/03/22. No paper copies are
required. You can access the submission link through the module web.
• Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin.
Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
• Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable
files will receive a mark of zero. The Faculty accepts Microsoft Office and PDF documents,
unless otherwise advised by the module leader.
• All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason will
be subject to the University regulations on late submissions.
o If an assessment is 1-10 university working days late the mark for the work will be capped at
the pass mark of 40 per cent for undergraduate modules or 50 per cent for postgraduate
modules
o If an assessment is submitted beyond 10 university working days late the work will receive a
mark of zero per cent
o The above applies to a student’s first attempt at the assessment. If work submitted as a
reassessment of a previously failed assessment task is submitted later than the deadline the
work will immediately be given a mark of zero per cent
o If an assessment which is marked as pass/fail rather than given a percentage mark is
submitted later than the deadline, the work will immediately be marked as a fail
• The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events
happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events
should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for
an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for
a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the re-sit
period following the main Assessment Boards). Please note that you must apply before the
deadline, and, unlike last year, module leaders and programme leaders no longer approve
these requests. This is now carried out centrally. For more information about extensions
and deferrals, and how to apply, please see click here.
• Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
• Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism
checking websites.
Return of Marked Work
You can expect to have feedback returned to you on 20/04/22. If for any reason there is a delay
you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online. It is important that you
access the feedback you receive as this will help to make improvements to your later work, you
can request a meeting with your Module Leader or Personal Tutor to discuss your feedback in
more detail.
Marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will
be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed their review.
More information on assessment and feedback can be found here.
Academic Integrity
In submitting a piece of work for assessment it is essential that you understand the University’s
requirements for maintaining academic integrity and ensure that the work does not contravene
University regulations. Some examples of behaviour that would not be considered acceptable
include plagiarism, re-use of previously assessed work, collusion with others and purchasing your
assignment from a third party. For more information on academic offences, bad academic
practice, and academic penalties, please read chapter four of our academic regulations.
Academic Support and Your Well-being
Referencing is the process of acknowledging other people’s work when you have used it in your
assignment or research. It allows the reader to locate your source material as quickly and easily
as possible so that they can read these sources themselves and verify the validity of your
arguments. Referencing provides the link between what you write and the evidence on which it is
based.
You identify the sources that you have used by citing them in the text of your assignment
(called citations or in-text citations) and referencing them at the end of your assignment (called
the reference list or end-text citations). The reference list only includes the sources cited in your
text. The main referencing guide can be found here and includes information on the basics of
referencing and achieving good academic practice. It also has tabs for the specific referencing
styles depending on whether you require Harvard style used in business or OSCOLA style used by
the Law school.
The University has a wealth of support services available to students; further information can be
obtained from Student Gateway, the Student Advice Centre, Library and Learning Services and,
most importantly, your Personal Tutor. If you are struggling with your assessments and/or
deadlines please do seek help as soon as possible so that appropriate support and guidance can
be identified and put in place for you. More information can be found on the Healthy DMU
pages.
Faculty of Business and Law Postgraduate Grade Descriptors
Modules are marked on a range of 0-100%. Mark descriptors are given in the table below. A mark
below 50% indicates a fail grade (the shaded boxes).
Mark Range Criteria
90-100%
Distinction
• Demonstrates an exceptional ability and insight, indicating the highest level of
technical competence.
• The work has the potential to influence the forefront of the subject, and may be of
publishable/exhibitable quality.
• Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at the highest possible standard.
80-89%
Distinction
• Demonstrates an outstanding ability and insight based on authoritative subject
knowledge and a very high level of technical competence.
• The work is considered to be close to the forefront of the subject, and may be close
to publishable/exhibitable quality.
• Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very high level.
70-79%
Distinction
• Demonstrates an authoritative, current subject knowledge and a high level of
technical competence.
• The work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence. It may
show some originality. Clear evidence of capacity to reflect critically and deal with
ambiguity in the data.
• Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a high level.
60-69%
Merit
• Demonstrates a sound, current subject knowledge. No significant errors in the
application of concepts or appropriate techniques. May contain some minor flaws.
• The work is well developed and coherent; may show some originality. Clear
evidence of capacity to reflect critically.
• Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a good level.
50 – 59%
Pass
• Demonstrates satisfactory subject knowledge. Some evident weaknesses; possibly
shown by conceptual gaps, or limited use of appropriate techniques.
• The work is generally sound but tends toward the factual or derivative. Limited
evidence of capacity to reflect critically.
• Relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level.
40-49%
Fail
• Demonstrates limited subject knowledge. Some important weaknesses; possibly
shown by factual errors, conceptual gaps, or weak use of appropriate techniques.
• The work tends toward the factual / derivative, or lacks sound development. Little
evidence of capacity to reflect critically.
• Relevant generic skills do not meet the requirements of the task.
30-39%
• Demonstrates inadequate subject knowledge.
• The work lacks coherence and evidence of capacity to reflect critically.
• The quality of the relevant generic skills do not meet the requirements of the task.
20-29%
• Demonstrates seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject.
• The work contains minimal evidence of awareness of relevant issues or theory.
• The quality of the relevant generic skills do not meet the requirements of the task.
10-19%
• The work is almost entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge of the subject. No
evidence of awareness of relevant issues or theory.
• The quality of the relevant generic skills do not meet the requirements of the task.
0-9% • The work presents information that is irrelevant and unconnected to the task.
• No evident awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques.
Assessment Marking Rubric
Distinction Merit Pass Fail
80-100%
Excellent – Outstanding
70-79%
Very Good – Excellent
60-69%
Good – Very Good
50-59%
Satisfactory – Good
<50% Unsatisfactory Overview of organisation and sustainability / CSR approach 15% Outstanding overview of the company and their sustainability / CSR approach. All relevant information identified and clearly outlined (i.e. provides the context necessary for the critical analysis discussion). Very good to excellent overview of the company and their sustainability / CSR approach. Relevant information effectively identified and outlined. Good to very good overview of the company and their sustainability / CSR approach. Most key areas identified / discussed but some relevant information missing and/or not relevant. Satisfactory to good overview of the company and their sustainability / CSR approach but some key information missing and/or not relevant and/or lacks clarity in places. Unsatisfactory overview of the company and their sustainability / CSR approach. Limited or no information provided and/or not relevant (i.e. does not provide the context necessary for the critical analysis discussion). Evaluation of organisation’s sustainability strategy / performance 40% Outstanding analysis. Exceptional use of corporate sustainability theories / perspectives, and/or academic research, and/or appropriate benchmarking frameworks, to explore and evidence points. Significant originality displayed. Very good to excellent analysis. Very good use of corporate sustainability theories / perspectives, and/or academic research, and/or appropriate benchmarking frameworks, to explore and evidence points. Some originality displayed. Good to very good analysis and use of corporate sustainability theories / perspectives, and/or academic research, and/or appropriate benchmarking frameworks, to explore and evidence points. However, some aspects lack detail (e.g. research / theories not discussed or applied fully). Good to satisfactory analysis. Clear attempt to use of corporate sustainability theories / perspectives, and/or academic research, and/or appropriate benchmarking frameworks, to explore and evidence points, but application is weak and/or not fully explained, and often descriptive. Unsatisfactory analysis. Little or no attempt to use corporate sustainability theories / perspectives, and/or academic research, and/or appropriate benchmarking frameworks, to explore and evidence points. A predominantly descriptive discussion only. Recommendations 20% Outstanding recommendations. Clear link to, and grounded in, the evidence and analysis presented. A range of recommendations provided for the selected organisation. Very good to excellent recommendations. Link to, and grounded in, the evidence and analysis presented. A range of well-thought through recommendations provided. Good to very good recommendations. Most relate to the evidence and analysis presented but some lack detail and/or vague and/or range is narrow. Satisfactory to good recommendations. Majority relate to the evidence and analysis presented but many lack detail, clarity, and/or range is narrow. No recommendations provided and/or weak (e.g. not linked to the analysis, lack clarity, not relevant, too vague / broad, too many, not enough, narrow range, etc.). Grade Marking criteria Personal reflection (max. 400 words) 15% Outstanding level of reflection. Detailed outline of the learning and knowledge gained, and the impact it may have on personal / professional practice. Very good to excellent personal reflection. Effectively outlines the learning and knowledge gained, and the impact it may have on personal / professional practice. Good to very good personal reflection. Outlines the learning and knowledge gained, and the impact it may have on personal / professional practice but some parts lack detail and/or too vague/broad. Satisfactory to good personal reflection. Outlines the learning and knowledge gained and/or the impact it may have on personal / professional practice but lacks detail and/or is too vague/broad, and/or not all parts addressed (e.g. impact on practice). Very little reflection demonstrated and/or no personal commentary provided. Structure, coherence, clarity and presentation 10% Excellent to outstanding structure, coherence, clarity, presentation and referencing of material / sources. The report flows seamlessly. Contains no spelling or grammatical errors. Very good to excellent structure, coherence, clarity, presentation and referencing of material / sources. The report flows almost seamlessly. Contains very few spelling or grammatical errors. Good to very good structure, coherence, clarity, presentation and referencing of material / sources. The report flows well with only a few points lacking in clarity. Contains some spelling or grammatical errors. Satisfactory to good structure, coherence, clarity, presentation and referencing of material / sources. The report flows reasonably well but some parts lack clarity / feels disjointed. Contains a number of spelling or grammatical errors. Unsatisfactory structure, presentation, clarity, presentation and referencing of material / sources. The report is disjointed, lacks clarity, and arguments are difficult to follow. Contains a significant number of spelling and/or grammatical errors. Referencing of sources is weak and/or inaccurate.