|
Templates (30%)
|
Templates are not used, or if so are mainly incomplete, not relevant or lacking relevant information, with little or no suitable references.
|
Basic. Some templates used, often incomplete, mainly relevant, some relevant information, with some suitable references.
|
Reasonable completion of relevant templates, most information included though some points unclear, with mainly relevant and suitable references.
|
Good selection and completion of strategy templates highlighting detailed relevant information, most points have references that are relevant and suitable. Some mistakes.
|
Excellent selection and completion of relevant strategy templates with detailed relevant information and key points clearly explained, references throughout using nearly all relevant and suitable sources. Few mistakes
|
Exceptional selection and completion of relevant strategy templates with clear and succinct points on each part, completely referenced using relevant and suitable sources.
|
|
Knowledge on organization and context (20%)
|
Knowledge of the organization and context is superficial, rudimentary and reliant on a few inappropriate sources.
|
Some appropriate sources, but knowledge about the organization and context lacks relevance, direction, accuracy and substance. Megatrend not linked to evidence.
|
Reasonable, but standard, knowledge of the organization and context using several reliable sources. Limited connection of megatrend to evidence. Many inaccuracies.
|
Good understanding of the organization and context clearly identifying their significant features. Use of a range of reliable sources. Megatrend accurately linked to evidence. Some inaccuracies.
|
Excellent understanding of the organization and context clearly identifying their significant features and ranked importance. Use of all relevant sources. Megatrend consistently and accurately linked to evidence. Few inaccuracies.
|
Outstanding insight on the organization and context demonstrating features, links and ranked importance. Use of all sources. Megatrend consistently and accurately linked to evidence. No inaccuracies.
|
|
CSR and Ethics concepts (20%)
|
Very weak understanding of key concepts and unable to use them appropriately. There is little or no evidence of familiarity of academic sources.
|
Basic and limited understanding of key concepts, little familiarity of ethics sources, limited range of concepts, frequently relying on lectures, many errors in application.
|
A reasonable understanding of key concepts and some familiarity with core ethics textbooks. Multiple errors in application to the organization.
|
A good understanding of concepts based on a wide range of ethics sources. Some gaps in analysis and some inaccuracies in application to the organization.
|
Demonstrates an excellent understanding and wide familiarity of key concepts based on a comprehensive range ethics sources applied to the organization with few inaccuracies.
|
Exceptional understanding of relevant concepts, their usefulness and applicability from a compete range of sources, accurately applied to the organization.
|
|
Critical analysis and insight (20%)
|
There is no evaluation or analysis; the report is entirely descriptive with claims and conclusions not warranted
|
Unable to use key concepts appropriately and meaningfully in analysis of the organization(s). Report is largely descriptive. Very few claims warranted. Recommendations unclear, not linked to analysis, nor justified.
|
Key concepts used to make sense of data, although analysis is presented in a superficial manner and does not go beyond the standard interpretations. Some links made to suitable recommendations.
|
Uses key concepts to generate robust and reliable insights into the organization(s). Well-presented and clearly argued analysis. Limited application in some parts or key theory missing. Suitable recommendations that are clearly linked to your analysis.
|
Key concepts used and independent judgement and some original insight on the organization(s). Excellent analysis clearly presented and argued (claims and conclusions linked to evidence). Suitable recommendations that are linked to your analysis and suitably justified.
|
Concepts used with independent judgement and original insights on the organization(s). Sophisticated analysis, clearly presented and cogent argument. Suitable recommendations clearly linked to your analysis, suitably justified and accurately prioritised.
|
|
Presentation (10%)
|
Report lacks a structure or clarity with careless referencing. Numerous instances of poor spelling and grammar. Its overall presentation is untidy and unprofessional. No executive summary.
|
Report has limited structure with some poor referencing. Several examples of weak spelling and grammar, and the overall presentation is confusing. Simple description what is in the report in the executive summary.
|
Report is clearly structured, although it lacks clarity in places. Few spelling, grammatical and referencing errors; the overall presentation is standard. What is found out in the report given in the executive summary on some parts of the report.
|
The overall structure is robust and consistent outlining a clear and logical argument. Spelling, grammar and referencing is good; overall presentation is professional. What is found out covers all aspects of the report in the executive summary.
|
Report structure is consistent and outlines an excellent argument. No spelling, grammatical and referencing errors; presentation is highly professional. In the executive summary there are clear headings, accurate key points from each section in report.
|
Report structure is robust, consistent and outlines a sophisticated argument. No spelling, grammatical and referencing; presentation is exemplary. In the executive summary there are clear headings, accurate key points from each section in report.
|
