Task 3 Reassessment Brief: Individual assignment
1. Module code and title AC6003 Social & Environmental Accounting
2. Module tutor Michelle Cook
3. Tutor with responsibility for this Assessment Michelle Cook
This is your first point of contact
4. Task 1
Weighting, Type and Size of Assessment 003: 50% Coursework: Individual, standard written: 2000 words
You will be penalised according to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision if you exceed the size limit.
5. Submission deadline Monday 24th August 2015
Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submission; see Academic Regulations for Taught Provision
6. Arrangements for submission
One soft copy to Admin’s email and one hard copy at office
7. Date and location for return of work
31st August 2015
8. Disabled students
Alternative assessment arrangements may be made, where appropriate, for disabled students. However, these will only be implemented upon the advice of the Disability Advisor. Disabled students wishing to be considered for alternative assessment arrangements must give notification of the disability (with evidence) to the Disability Advisor by the published deadlines.
9. University Regulations for Assessment
All assessments are subject to the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision. These include regulations relating to Errors of Attribution and Assessment Offences. In exercising their judgement, Examiners may penalise any work where the standard of English, numeracy or presentation adversely affects the quality of the work, or where the work submitted exceeds the published size or time limits, or where the work fails to follow normal academic conventions for acknowledging sources.
10. Requirements for the assessment
“An organisation’s sustainability depends on its ability to build and maintain sustainable relationships with all of its key stakeholders including the broader community”( Perrini and Tencati, 2006).
Required:
With reference to academic literature, critically evaluate the above statement in no more than 2,000 words.
Students may find the following articles useful:
Gadenne, D., Sands, J., Mia, L. (2012). The association between sustainability performance management goals and organisational performance. E-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 3(2), 27-42.
Manetti, G. (2011) The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 18(2), 110-122.
Perrini, F. and Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new
corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems, Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15, 296 – 308.
Sangle, S. (2010). Critical success factors for corporate social responsibility: a public sector perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(4), 205-214.
11. Assessment Criteria
The assessment will be marked in line with the marking scheme and grid shown at Appendix 1
12. Referencing
Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others. You are expected to employ the referencing conventions recommended in the Course. These conventions apply to information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures. If you are unsure of the way to reference properly, seek advice from a member of staff before you submit the assessment.
These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work:
• Are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably acknowledged (placed in quotation marks or indented)?
• Have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing convention used in the Course?
• Have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting directly from the source?
• Have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)
• If you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are presenting sufficiently your own?
In submitting your work for assessment you are making a statement that it is your own work, it has not been submitted for any other assessment, and it does not infringe the ethical principles set out in the University’s Handbook for Research Ethics.
Appendix 1
AC6003 Task 3: Individual Assignment Marking Grid
Description Fail
0 – 29% Refer
30 – 39% Pass 3:0
40 – 49% Pass 2:2
50 – 59% Pass 2:1
60 – 69% Pass 1st
70 – 84% Pass 1st
85 – 100%
Structure
(10%)
No structure, difficult for reader to follow Inadequate structure, evidence of poor design Some evidence of weak design, lacks logic in parts Satisfactory design, although some areas of weakness Effective design, easy to follow, logical Elegant design, creative, independent and imaginative Completely original and innovative design
Knowledge
(15%)
Restricted information, little/no references Inadequate range of content and limited relevant reading Satisfactory but incomplete, evidence of some reading Good range of information and terminology Detail and overview of factual information is very good, evidence of wide gathering of information Comprehensive review of factual information with correct emphasis Professional review of factual information which goes beyond the bounds of the question
Understanding
(15%)
Confused, no interpretation of facts or evidence, significant errors Errors of understanding, poor explanation, unconvincing Satisfactory understanding, some errors, largely descriptive, satisfactory explanation Good understanding and explanations, minor errors/some areas of weakness Comprehensive understanding, some areas less clear, most of answer to high standard Comprehensive and demonstrates excellent grasp of complexity, error free, complete answer Comprehensive and demonstrates exceptional understanding of complex issues, error free, expands the bounds of the question
Application
(15%)
No attempt to apply theory Very little application of theory, largely descriptive Limited application of theory, may be incomplete Correct application of theory, reasonable answer meeting major elements Professional approach, integrates theory into practice using examples, mainly correct, some marginal errors Comprehensive and excellent application of theory Exceptional application of theory which is comprehensive and makes use of real-life examples
Analysis
(15%)
No significant analytical ability, unclear Fails to correctly identify components of arguments, little logic Fair discussion, some structure to argument but not always logical Generally logical and clear argument, adequate arguments, some linkages Good recognition of relationships, analysis based on some evidence Highly effective analysis, excellent analytical skills, elegance in argument Exceptional analysis and analytical skills, innovative arguments
Critical evaluation
(15%)
No judgement or appraisal Inadequate appraisal, no clear views developed Some appraisal, judgement unclear Satisfactory appraisal which evaluates major limitations but not always convincing Comprehensive appraisal, some areas less clear, most of answer to high standard Excellent appraisal which is well justified and takes into account other sources Exceptional appraisal which is extremely well justified, is convincing and takes into account a wide range of other sources
Quality of references
(10%)
Little/no references Inadequate range of content and limited relevant reading, poor referencing Satisfactory but incomplete, evidence of some reading, barely adequate referencing Some good references which may not be recent Evidence of wide gathering of information from good/recent sources Very good referencing throughout Exceptional referencing
Use of English
(5%) Poor use of English, difficult to understand Unsatisfactory English Adequate English Competent English Competent English and fluent writing style Excellent English with distinct writing style Exceptional use of English and grammar with original writing style
AC6003 Assignment 003 Marking Scheme
Name
Student Number
Task Number 003
Marks Available Marks Awarded Comment
Structure 10
Knowledge 15
Understanding 15
Application 15
Analysis 15
Critical evaluation 15
Quality of references 10
Use of English 5
TOTAL MARKS
100
Additional Comments
Date
Moderator