MGT301A: Ethics and Sustainability

MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 1 of 5
ASSESSMENT 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, socialand
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 ethicaland
sustainable behaviour in organisations.
Submission
Due by 10 am Friday of module 6.1 (week 11).
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. A framework for writing the scenario will be provided in
class, and available later as an online resource in Blackboard.
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)
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 2 of 5
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)
This assessment task should include appropriate academic referencing and a reference list following
APA 6th edition style of referencing. Please see the Academic Skills page on Blackboard for
information on referencing in APA 6th: https://laureateau.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20163_1&content_id
=_2498849_1
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,
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.
Scenario report
The Learning Rubric (pp. 3-5) 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 10 am Friday 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 Page 3 of 5
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3- Scenario Report
Assessment
Attributes
Fail (Unacceptable)
0-49%
Pass
(Functional)
50-64%
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74%
Distinction
(Advanced)
75 -84%
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Knowledge and
Understanding as
reflected in research
and analysis.
20%
Report does not
address the question,
demonstrates limited
understanding of the
topic with limited/no
developed aspects of
the task.
Report indicates
confusion of personal
opinion and
information
(substantiated by
evidence) from the
research/course
materials.
Report shows little/no
evidence of research or
enquiry.
Report addresses the
basic components of the
question, demonstrates
only a cursory
understanding of the
topic and develops the
minimum aspects of the
task.
Report indicates some
confusion of personal
opinion and information
(substantiated by
evidence) from the
research/course
materials.
Report shows basic
evidence of research or
enquiry.
Report addresses most
components of the
question, demonstrates a
good understanding of the
topic and develops most
aspects of the task.
Report t justifies personal
opinion, by utilising
evidence and information
from independent
research.
Report shows sufficient
evidence of research or
enquiry.
Report addresses the full
components of the
question, demonstrates a
very good understanding
of the topic and develops
all aspects of the task.
Report discriminates
between assertion of
personal opinion and
information
(substantiated by robust
evidence) from
independent research
and extended reading.
Report shows substantial
evidence of research or
enquiry.
Report addresses the full
components of the
question, demonstrates
a comprehensive
understanding of the
topic and develops
thorough and critical
analysis of the task.
Report systematically
and critically
discriminates between
assertion of personal
opinion and information
substantiated by robust
evidence from
independent research.
Report shows
exceptional evidence of
research or enquiry and
indicates serious
contemplation of
sources and extended
reading.
Identification of
solutions and
recommendations
Requires a clearer
identification of
alternative solutions
and recommendations.
Alternative solutions and
recommendations have
been identified.
Alternative solutions and
recommendations have
been proficiently
identified.
Alternative solutions and
recommendations have
been effectively
identified.
Alternative solutions and
recommendations have
been skilfully identified.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 4 of 5
20%
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.
Structure and Flow of
Ideas
20%
Report does not
present information
and evidence
adequately.
Report lacks
logical/clear structure
and flow of ideas,
making it difficult to
understand.
Line of reasoning is
unclear and difficult to
follow.
Report presents
information and
evidence sufficiently,
however requires further
logic and more clarity.
Report has a sufficient
structure, however flow
of ideas are a challenge
and can be difficult to
understand.
Line of reasoning is
passable, however, can
sometimes be difficult to
follow and requires
clarity.
Report presents
information and evidence
clearly and logically.
Report has a good
structure, with a good flow
of ideas.
Line of reasoning is of a
good standard and easy to
follow.
Report presents
information and
evidence clearly and
logically.
Report has a sufficient
structure, however flow
of ideas are a challenge
and can be difficult to
understand.
Line of reasoning is of an
exceptional standard and
easy to follow.
Report presents
information and
evidence clearly and
logically.
Report has a good
structure, with a good
flow of ideas.
Line of reasoning is of a
professional standard
and easy to follow.
Correct citation of key
resources and
evidence
Demonstrates
inconsistent use of
good quality, credible
and relevant resources
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant
resources to support and
develop ideas, however,
these are not always
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant
resources to support and
develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of
good quality, credible
and relevant resources to
support and develop
Demonstrates use of
high-quality, credible
and relevant resources
to support and develop
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief Page 5 of 5
10%
to support and develop
ideas.
Does not use sufficient
sources.
Does not include
correct references or in
text citations; does not
use APA 6th style.
explicit or well
developed.
Uses sufficient sources,
however can be greatly
improved.
Attempt made to include
references or in-text
citations, however these
are sometimes
insufficient for research
purposes, or incorrect;
uses APA 6th style,
however may contain
some citation or
referencing errors.
Shows good evidence of
attempts to source
information, with a
sufficient number of
sources..
Incorporates in-text and
citations references from
suitable sources; uses APA
6th style, however may
contain minor citation or
referencing errors.
arguments and
statements.
Shows evidence of wide
scope for sourcing
evidence.
Incorporates in-text and
citations references from
suitable sources; uses
APA 6th style, containing
minimal and or no errors.
arguments and position
statements.
Shows evidence of wide
scope for sourcing
evidence.
Incorporates in-text and
citations references from
suitable sources; uses
APA 6th style, containing
no errors.
Peer Review
30%
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.

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

(USA, AUS, UK & CA  PhD. Writers)

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM - CUSTOM PAPER