Faculty of Arts Business & Social Sciences – Assessment Brief for Students
First Sit – 2020 / 2021
|Module code and title
||6HR005 – Social Responsibility|
|Diet||First attempt – Semester 1 2020/21
||Semester 1 – See Canvas for date and time of submission|
||4,000 words with an allowance of +10% will be accepted. Figures/tables/diagrams specified in the assignment brief, appendices and the reference list are NOT included in this word limit.|
|Assessment brief (if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
Paper and email submissions will NOT be marked.
You will NOT gain marks for simply explaining information or copying and pasting the case study information from the brief into your answer. You should ensure that the majority of your answer is used to analyse the information using relevant theories from academic sources.
In writing your responses, you should use a range of text books and at least two peer-reviewed journal articles to support your analysis across the whole assignment.
Each answer is worth 25% of the final mark and should be approximately 1,000 words in length. To achieve a pass, you MUST answer all four questions.
The following Declaration should be inserted at the front of your assignment submission. A separate copy of this declaration is available on the Canvas topic.
Electronic Cover Sheet
|Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)|
|Criteria||Weighting (If applicable)|
|· Level of research and range of additional material used||n/a|
|· Identification and critical analysis of key issues||n/a|
|· Application of theory to the case study materials||n/a|
|· Structure of argument, clarity of writing and Harvard referencing||n/a|
|Performance descriptors in use;
· University of Wolverhampton No
· Professional or Statutory Body No
· Module specific Yes
· Other (specify below) No
|Return of assessments
(Instructions for return / collection of assessments)
Feedback sent through Canvas, within 4 working weeks.
|This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes||Tick if tested here|
|LO1||Critically analyse concepts and theories of business ethics||Ö|
|LO2||Discuss the relevance of social responsibility concepts in organisational contexts||Ö|
|LO3||Differentiate social responsibility issues from the perspective of a variety of stakeholders||Ö|
|LO4||Examine the future of social responsibility and business ethics within organisations and reflect upon its impact on leaders and managers||Ö|
Additional information for students
The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;
- The required referencing style for your assignment.*
Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.
- Submission of your work
- Marking, feedback and moderation in accordance with the University of Wolverhampton Assessment Handbook
- Extensions on submission dates *
- Additional support *
- Academic conduct with regards to cheating, collusion or plagiarism *
- Links to appropriate sources of relevant information *
* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on wlv.ac.uk.
Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers
The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:
- The submission is your own work
- Any material you have used has been acknowledged and appropriately referenced
- You have not allowed another student to have access to your work
- The work has not been submitted previously.
The following information is important when:
- Preparing for your assignment
- Checking your work before you submit it
- Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Module Learning Outcomes
- Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.
- Assessment Criteria
- The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.
- Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
To help you further:
- Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or who need to re take any component.
- Refer to the VLE topic for contact details of your module leader / tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on the VLE module topic.
- The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
|Assessment criteria||A (70-100%)
Work of an outstanding, excellent and very good standard.
Work of a good standard.
Work of a competent standard.
Work of a satisfactory standard to pass.
Work of an unsatisfactory standard *
No learning outcomes fully met.
|Level of research and range of additional material used.
||Evidence of wide independent reading with variety of relevant and up to date source materials used. Excellent analysis of researched material to the topic.||Some evidence of reading outside the module list and beyond classroom notes. All significant content accurate. Analyses a good range of sources.||Content relevant to the question/task. Reading based on main texts or materials, but not always utilized in supporting argument. Analyses a range of sources.||Limited reading only; mostly just class notes. Only a few sources used and those taken from materials provided in class.||Material merely repeats taught input. Too little evidence of reading, from class notes or outside. Limited analysis of sources. Failure to answer the question as set.||Little/no attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes or to engage with module materials. No evidence of reading or analysis of sources. Failure to answer the question as set.|
|Identification and critical analysis of key issues||A comprehensive understanding of ethical and Social Responsibility theory and issues demonstrated. Focused and in-depth identification of the key issues, which are then analysed in an insightful way.
Full answers provided to all parts of the assignment and supported throughout by theory.
|Good understanding of ethical and Social Responsibility theory and issues demonstrated.
Full identification of key issues, which are analysed in a thorough way.
Theory should be applied to support answers to a good overall standard.
|Competent understanding of ethical and Social Responsibility theory and issues demonstrated. Competent identification of most key issues which are analysed competently. A range of relevant theory competently applied to support answers in most places.||Basic understanding of ethical and Social Responsibility theory and issues demonstrated. Some key issues identified but discussed in a predominantly descriptive rather than analytical way. Limited relevant theory applied to support the answers.
||Lacks understanding of basic ethical and Social Responsibility theory and concepts. Few key issues identified. Wholly descriptive.
No evidence of examination or application of theory. Failure to answer the question as set.
|Inadequate/no demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key ethical and Social Responsibility concepts or theories. Wholly descriptive and lacking in theory. Failure to answer the question as set.|
|Application of theory to the case study materials||Focused and comprehensive links made between the case study information and relevant theory. Fully critically evaluates the connection between theory and case study examples in all areas. Draws insightful conclusions from wider reading and information provided.||Clear links made between the case study information and relevant theory. Good level of critical evaluation between theory and case study examples in most areas. Draws meaningful conclusions from wider reading and information provided.||Sound links made between the case study information and relevant theory. Competent level of critical evaluation between theory and case study examples in key areas. Draws sound conclusions from reading key sources and information provided.||Some links made between the case study information and limited relevant theory. Very little critical evaluation of theory and case study examples, the writing is mostly descriptive and repeats the case study details. Draws limited and obvious conclusions from reading of narrow range of sources.||One or two links made between the case study information and theory. No critical evaluation, wholly descriptive and assertions made without substantiation. No meaningful conclusions drawn. Failure to answer the question as set.||No evidence of theory to link to the case study. Wholly descriptive and no attempt made to engage with the topic. Failure to answer the question as set.|
|Structure of argument, clarity of writing and Harvard referencing||All arguments critically analysed, original insights and conclusions offered and overall the structure is clear and well laid out. Articulate and accurate writing style. Very few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax evident. Harvard referencing all present and correct both within the assignment and in the reference list.||Most arguments critically analysed, a range of appropriate insights and conclusions offered and a clear structure and writing style. Minor repeated errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax evident. Minor errors in Harvard referencing, or some omissions both within the assignment and in the reference list.||Key arguments critically analysed, key insights and conclusions drawn and presented. Structure and writing style clear. Repeated errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax evident. Repeated errors and/or omissions in Harvard referencing both within the assignment and in the reference list.||Limited evidence of analysis, some obvious insights offered. Structure muddled, or writing style lacking in coherence. Regular or frequently repeated errors in in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax evident. Significant repeated errors and/or omissions in Harvard referencing both within the assignment and in the reference list.||Little or no evidence of analysis and limited insights or conclusions drawn. Lack of structure, poor writing style with extensive errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax. Harvard references negligible or missing in either the assignment and/or in the reference list.||No evidence of engaging with the assignment materials, content unclear due to poor structure and writing style with extensive errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax. Harvard references missing in either the assignment and/or in the reference list.|