MAN00034M Part A THE YORK MANAGEMENT SCHOOL Module: Ethics & Sustainability Reporting Module Co-ordinator: Matthias HambachAssessment: Open Word count: 1500 words Release: Spring Term Week 2 Submission: Tuesday 21st April 2020 Weighting 50% Important information. A penalty of FIVE marks will be deducted for late submissions that are made up to and including the first hour of the deadline. Submissions that are more than one hour late but within the first 24 hours of the deadline will incur a penalty of TEN marks. After the first 24 hours have passed, 10 marks will be deducted for every 24 hours (or part thereof) that the submission is late for a total of 5 days. After 5 days it is treated as a non-submission and given a mark of zero. The consequences of non-submission are serious and can include de-registration from the University. If you are unable to complete your open assessment by the submission date indicated above because of Exceptional Circumstances you can apply for an extension. If unforeseeable and exceptional circumstances do occur, you must seek support and provide evidence as soon as possible at the time of the occurrence. Applications must be made before the deadline to be considered. Full details of the Exceptional Circumstances Policy and claim form can be found here: https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/progress/exceptional-circumstances If you submit your open assessment on time but feel that your performance has been affected by Exceptional Circumstances you may submit an Exceptional Circumstances Affecting Assessment claim form by 11am, [7 days from the published assessment submission deadline]. If you do not submit by the deadline indicated without good reason your claim will not be considered. Please take proper precautions to safeguard your work and remember to make backup copies of your data. The University provides all its students with storage space on the University server and you should save and back up any work in progress on this server on a regular basis. Computer failure and theft of your equipment or storage media are not considered exceptional circumstances and extensions cannot be granted for work lost for these reasons. Word count requirements · The word count for this assignment is 1500. · You must state on the front of your assignment the number of words used and this will be checked. · The main text for this assignment must be word-processed in Times New Roman, Font 12, double spacing, minimum 2cm margins all around. · You must observe the word count specified in this assignment brief. The School has a policy of accepting variations to the recommended word count of plus or minus 10%. What does this mean for you? Markers will mark your work up to the word count maximum plus 10% and then will stop marking; therefore all words which are in excess of the word count plus 10% will not be marked. Where your word count is more than 10% below that specifie.

1. MAN00034M
Part A
THE YORK MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
Module: Ethics & Sustainability
Reporting
Module Co-ordinator: Matthias
HambachAssessment: Open
Word count: 1500 words
Release: Spring Term Week 2
Submission: Tuesday 21st April 2020
Weighting 50%
Important information.
A penalty of FIVE marks will be deducted for late submissions
that are made up to and including the first hour of the deadline.
Submissions that are more than one hour late but within the first
24 hours of the deadline will incur a penalty of TEN marks.
After the first 24 hours have passed, 10 marks will be deducted
for every 24 hours (or part thereof) that the submission is late
for a total of 5 days. After 5 days it is treated as a non-
submission and given a mark of zero. The consequences of non-
submission are serious and can include de-registration from the
University.
If you are unable to complete your open assessment by the
submission date indicated above because of Exceptional
Circumstances you can apply for an extension. If unforeseeable
and exceptional circumstances do occur, you must seek support
and provide evidence as soon as possible at the time of the

2. occurrence. Applications must be made before the deadline to
be considered.
Full details of the Exceptional Circumstances Policy and claim
form can be found here:
https://www.york.ac.uk/students/studying/progress/exceptional-
circumstances
If you submit your open assessment on time but feel that your
performance has been affected by Exceptional Circumstances
you may submit an Exceptional Circumstances Affecting
Assessment claim form by 11am, [7 days from the published
assessment submission deadline]. If you do not submit by the
deadline indicated without good reason your claim will not be
considered.
Please take proper precautions to safeguard your work and
remember to make backup copies of your data. The University
provides all its students with storage space on the University
server and you should save and back up any work in progress on
this server on a regular basis. Computer failure and theft of
your equipment or storage media are not considered exceptional
circumstances and extensions cannot be granted for work lost
for these reasons.
Word count requirements
· The word count for this assignment is 1500.
· You must state on the front of your assignment the number of
words used and this will be checked.
· The main text for this assignment must be word-processed in
Times New Roman, Font 12, double spacing, minimum 2cm
margins all around.
· You must observe the word count specified in this assignment
brief. The School has a policy of accepting variations to the
recommended word count of plus or minus 10%.

3. What does this mean for you?
Markers will mark your work up to the word count maximum
plus 10% and then will stop marking; therefore all words which
are in excess of the word count plus 10% will not be marked.
Where your word count is more than 10% below that specified,
it is likely that this will result in a lack of analytical depth or
relevant content which will be reflected in the mark assigned.
What is in the word count?
The word count includes:
· the main text, including in-text reference citations and
quotations.
The word count doesnot include:
- Appendices. These may be used to include supporting data
which may be too detailed or complex to include as a Table.
They are not a device to incorporate material which would
otherwise cause you to exceed the word limit.
- Title page
- Contents page
- Abstract/executive summary
- Tables, figures, legends
- Reference lists
- Acknowledgements
MAN00034M - Ethics and Sustainability Reporting
Part A – Essay – 50%
Question Part A
There is a developing view, in academic circles and among
leading practitioners, that many corporate social responsibility
approaches do not achieve a position in business that is
sufficiently dominant to be transformative of corporate
behaviour and performance. This being concerned with the
objective of meeting the legitimate expectations of

4. stakeholders.
In this context critically discuss how non-financial reporting
initiatives such as triple bottom line-based frameworks (TBL,
GRI, ISO 26000), integrated reporting or alignment with the
Sustainable Development Goals contribute to businesses
achieving true sustainability.
End of Assessment question
Guidance:
· This essay should focus more on systemic issues, such as
planetary and ecological boundaries, and their relationship to
these reporting initiatives, rather than a detailed examination of
one or more of these reporting initiatives.
· A consideration of relevant practitioner views is also
indicated. These should be compared to the theory.
· Your answer should include a reflection on the Stakeholder
Systems Model which is advocated by Mason and Simmons
(2014).
Indicative References (not exhaustive):
Banerjee, S. B. (2008), Necrocapitalism, Organisation Studies,
29(12): 1541–1563.
Browne, J. and Nuttall, R. (2013), Beyond corporate social
responsibility: Integrated external engagement.
http://www.dse.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdi
d320082.pdf, [Accessed 1 November 2019].
Browne, J., Nuttall, R. and Stadlen, T. (2015), Connect: How
companies succeed by engaging radically with society, WH
Allen.
Hahn, R. (2013), ISO 26000 and the Standardisation of Strategic
Management Processes for Sustainability and Corporate Social
Responsibility, Journal of Business Strategy and the
Environment 22,442-455.
ISO. (2011), Social Responsibility, ISO 26000 tells it like it is,
ISO Focus+, 2(3) March 2011.

5. ISO. (2014), GRI G4 Guidelines and ISO26000: 2010 How to
use the GRI4 Guidelines and ISO26000 in conjunction.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-gri-26000_2014-01-28.pdf,
[Accessed 1 November 2019].
ISO (2016) ‘Discovering ISO26000.’
http://www.iso.org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf, 5-11-16.
ISO. (2018). ISO 26000 and the SDGs. International Standards
Organization., pp.1–20. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100
401.pdf [Accessed 1 November 2019].
Mason, C. And Simmons, J. (2014), Embedding Corporate
Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder
Systems Approach, Journal of Business Ethics 119:77-86.
Milne, M.J. and Gray, R. (2013), W(h)ither the Ecology? Triple
Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate
Sustainability Reporting, Journal of Business Ethics 118:13-39.
Polman, P. (2014), Business, society and the future of
capitalism, McKinsey and Company.
Scherer, A. G. and Palazzo, G. (2010), The New political Role
of Business in a Globalised World: a review of a new
perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm,
governance and democracy, Journal of Management Studies.
Schwartz, B. and Tilling, K (2009), ‘ISO-lating’ Corporate
Responsibility in the Organisational Context: A Dissenting
Interpretation of IS0 26000, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 16, 289-299.
Searcy, C. Defining True Sustainability. MIT Sloan
Management Review. [Online]. Available at:
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/defining-true-sustainability/
[Accessed 1 November 2019].
Whiteman, G. Walker, B. and Perego, P. (2013), Planetary
Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate
Sustainability, Journal of Management Studies, 50:2.
Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., Whiteman, G., 2017.
Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management
research. Journal of Cleaner Production.

6. Assessment Formatting Guidance:
· Follow Harvard referencing system.
· Include section headings and page numbers.
· Follow formatting guidelines set out on Page 2.
· Do not use lecture slides, Wikipedia or Investopedia (or
similar) as sources.
· Use simple, neutral language to express yourself. No need to
use sophisticated words.
· Paragraphs should never be longer than 1 page (and even that
is long). Guide on paragraphing can be found here.
· Do not use the Synonyms feature of MS Word. It is usually not
providing good suggestions.
· Carefully proofread your assignment before submitting to
avoid obvious mistakes. Please use spell check.
· Familiarise yourself with the assessment criteria attached
below.
· You are advised to include academic references in your
assignment to support your arguments and analysis.
THE YORK MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
Student number:
Module title: Ethics & Sustainability Reporting Part A
Generic criteria
Module specific learning outcomes
G1
Presentation
S1
Explain, with reference to business and society relations, how
sustainable development, CSR and stakeholder theory, set the

7. framework for SER in practical and theoretical terms.
G2
Theory and literature review
S2
Critically evaluate the historical development of the different
techniques developed and used to measure and audit social and
environmental performance.
G3
Analysis and problem solving
S3
Explain the origins and development of SER in theory and in
practice, in particular in the context of globalisation.
G4
Structure and argument
S4
Evaluate the market-related and socially-related arguments in
favour of SER, and the impact of SER on corporate
performance, with interpretation from practical cases.
G5
Conclusions
S5
Evaluate the relationship between SER and financial reporting,
and investigate investors’ and other stakeholders’ responses to
SER.
G6
Correctness of referencing
S6
Evaluate the role of regulation in SER.
Comments on assessment criteria

8. Suggestions for improvement
Date:
Marker:
Page 5 of 7
Generic Assessment Marking Criteria
You will be marked according to five criteria:
● Quality of Presentation
● Understanding and use of Theory
● Quality of Analysis
● Structure and Argument
● Conclusions
The examiners will be looking for the following elements for
each of these criteria.
Presentation
● All material is thoroughly and correctly referenced.
● Citations are given in the Harvard format, unless specifically
specified otherwise in the assignment brief.
● Direct quotations from sources are referenced with page
numbers.
● Appropriate use has been made of tables, diagrams, graphs
and pictures.
● The use of formatting (line spacing, font, justified margins
etc.) is consistent throughout.
● The text is clear and readable, without typographic errors and
spelling mistakes.
● The assignment is within the maximum word length
suggested.
● The bibliography contains only the works cited in the

9. assignment, is presented in author alphabetical order and is
complete, accurate, and consistently formatted.
Theory
● Evidence of wider reading i.e. not relying on a textbook or
single text source, but engaging with specialist texts, journal
articles and reports.
● A demonstration of an understanding and awareness of a
range of theoretical positions or technical options.
● The ability to place a particular text’s argument within a
range of positions evident in the literature and to recognise its
strengths and limitations as an explanatory framework.
● Direct quotes, paraphrasing or other evidence of active
engagement with theory and/or technique is apparent throughout
the assignment.
Analysis
● The assignment demonstrates an ability to understand
different perspectives i.e. the student can evaluate different
options, engage critically with theory and practice and can
justify their analysis above other available solutions or
viewpoints.
● The analysis results from the use of judgement and
discernment in selecting theory and applying it to the situation
or problem.
● The selection of techniques and viewpoints are justified by
the problem or issue outlined.
● Reflection and observation are integrated in the analysis in an
appropriate way i.e. a supported argument illustrated with
observation rather than a statement of opinion.

10. Structure and Argument
● An essay assignment will normally include an introduction,
several sub-titled sections in the main body, a conclusion and a
bibliography. Alternative formats may be specified by the
assignment brief and, if so, have been used.
● A coherent argument is evident, which clearly links the
different elements of the assignment together and leads the
reader through to a justifiable conclusion.
● The argument is logically constructed with each section
building on the insights of preceding sections i.e. different
perspectives are not simply thrown together without an
understanding of how they contribute to the overall argument
presented.
● Theory is integrated into the analytical and/or practical
elements of the assignment where appropriate
● Meaning is not obscured by poor grammar, paragraph or
sentence construction.
Conclusions
● The conclusion summarises the whole of the assignment and
not just the analysis i.e. conclusions relate questions posed,
adequacy of the theory, empirical issues explored and reflect on
the student’s approach to the work.
● The conclusions refer to the argument presented to that point
and do not introduce new ideas or arguments “at the last
moment”.
● The conclusion demonstrates the ability of the student to
justify their theoretical and analytical approach.
● Conclusions have been drawn and follow, and are justified by,
the analysis in the main body of the assignment. Where
required, practical recommendations are feasible and follow on
from the conclusions, addressing the issues identified.

11. Page 7 of 7