Assessment briefs The assessment for this module consists of two components. Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Type Individual presentation 5 mins and Individual essay 2,500 words Weighting 30% 70% 9.2. Assessment 2: Individual essay (70%) You are required to answer one of the following questions.
In 1970 Milton Friedman famously argued that “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. Critically assess the extent to which this view is still relevant today. Use real-life business examples to illustrate your points.
Focussing on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), critically analyse (a) the debates about the role that companies should take towards the SDGs, and (b) the actions taken by one company to address and contribute towards the goals. Assessment 2 submission guide Your submission must meet the following requirements. • Submit your essay to Turnitin under the folder named ‘CORP5060 Assessment 2 – Essay’ by 11:59 am on Wednesday, 19th May 2021. Note that only online submissions will be accepted. • The word limit is 2,500 (+/- 10%). • You must not include your name anywhere in the document as we mark your work anonymously. • It should cite at least (no maximum limit) 8 academic sources, using Harvard format referencing in the text and the reference list. o ‘Academic’ sources are textbooks and academic journal articles. Nonacademic sources can be utilised but will not count against the minimum requirement for academic sources. • The front page must include your P number, module title and code, and the essay you have chosen. Also include your P number in the file name. • Use Arial font size 11 or 12 and at least 1.15 line spacing. • The title page and list of references are not included in the word count. o Word count, however, includes in-text citations. • Both Microsoft Word and PDF files are acceptable. • For citation of references, you are required to use DMU’s Harvard referencing system called “Cite Them Right” available here. • Make sure you keep the submission email receipt as proof that you have submitted. Assessment 2 marking criteria Assignment 2 (essay) will be marked according to the criteria below. This takes into account, and aligns with, DMU’s postgraduate marking descriptors (see Appendix B). Note that there will be time in week 31 sessions to discuss the assessment task, including marking criteria, in more depth. Marking Criteria Question 1 In 1970 Milton Friedman famously argued that “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. Critically assess the extent to which this view is still relevant today. Use real-life business examples to illustrate your points. 1 Outline of Milton Friedman’s perspective 30% 2 Critical analysis of Milton Friedman’s perspective (i.e. is it still relevant today?) 40% 3 Use of business examples / practices to illustrate points 20% 4 Structure, coherence, clarity and presentation 10% Marking Criteria Question 2 Focussing on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), critically analyse (a) the debates about the role that companies should take towards the SDGs, and (b) the actions taken by one company to address and contribute towards the goals. 1 Overview / outline of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 25% 2 Discussion of the debates about the role that companies should adopt towards the SDGs. 35% 3 Analysis of one company’s actions to address the SDGs 30% 4 Structure, coherence, clarity and presentation 10% Anonymous marking will be implemented for this assessment. This will be subject to both internal and external moderation within the module teams and department, as well as by an academic member of staff external to the university. This will ensure that the assessments are of appropriate standard and that the marking process has been correctly followed. Whilst there is no right to ask for a re-mark, if you believe there to be issues with the marking process, you should follow the academic appeals process detailed in DMU student guidelines. Academic appeals can only be made on one of the two following grounds.
That there were demonstrable errors in the conduct of the assessment process which are likely to have made a real difference to the outcome.
That there have been errors in the marking or in the consequent decisions of the assessment board