Component 2: Individual Report 2022
Individual report on AMAZON
? Knowledge on organization and context (30%)
? Ethical theories (30%)
? Critical analysis and insight (30%)
? Presentation (10%)
Word count: 2800 words max Submission deadline:
Before 1500hrs, 3th May 2022
Submission procedure: Electronic, via Turnitin on
Individual feedback will be given via Grademark and seminars
There are a number of Megatrends across the world that are affecting how organizations operate including:
? Climate change (eg environmental degradation, resource scarcity, etc),
? Shifts in global economic power (eg from G7 to BRIC, etc),
? Technological breakthroughs (eg automation, Artificial Intelligence, advanced analytics, blockchain),
? Rapid urbanization (eg majority of global GDP generated in cities, increasing infrastructure investment needs, cities consume the most resources and emit the most greenhouse gases, etc),
? Shifting demographics and social changes (eg growing inequality, ageing population, etc).
Working for a management consultancy, you are reviewing and advising on the current ethics of a multinational organization (public, private or third sector). In particular you are required to evaluate its ethical performance in its response to one of the megatrends above.
You have been asked to write a report that should cover:
? Describe the organization, its CSR approach, code of ethics/ conduct, and activities
? Describe what the megatrend is, how the megatrend is affected by the covid pandemic, how it is affecting the organization (and organization's industry) and what the organization is doing about it
? Apply and discuss ethical theories to make sense of their actions and what they have done (cover at least the last three years).
? Critically evaluate the organization’s ethical performance, what has helped/ hindered, and assess the limitations of ethical theories you used
? Propose recommendations for the organization to improve how they could be more responsible/ ethical in their response to the megatrend
? Deadline – before 1500hrs on 2th May 2022
Marking Criteria: HR6020 Component 2: Individual report (70%)
0% – 39% 40% – 49% 50% – 59% 60% – 69% 70%-84% 85% – 100%
Knowledge on organization and context (30%) 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. Success and survival factors not linked to evidence. Reasonable, but standard, knowledge of the organization and context using several reliable sources. Limited connection of success and survival factors to evidence. Many inaccuracies. Good understanding of the organization and context clearly identifying their significant features. Use of a range of reliable sources. Success and survival factors 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. Success and survival factors 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. Success and survival factors consistently and accurately linked to evidence
CSR and Ethics concepts (30%) 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 (30%) 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. Key concepts used to make sense of data, although analysis is presented in a superficial manner and does not go beyond the standard interpretation. 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. 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). Concepts used with independent judgement and original insights on the organization(s). Sophisticated analysis, clearly presented and cogent argument.
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. Report has limited structure with some poor referencing. Several examples of weak spelling and grammar, and the overall presentation is confusing. Report is clearly structured, although it lacks clarity in places. Few spelling, grammatical and referencing errors; the overall presentation is standard. The overall structure is robust and consistent outlining a clear and logical argument. Spelling, grammar and referencing is good; overall presentation is professional. Report structure is consistent and outlines an excellent argument. No spelling, grammatical and referencing errors; presentation is highly professional. Report structure is robust, consistent and outlines a sophisticated argument. No spelling, grammatical and referencing; presentation is exemplary.