Criteria Fail (0-49.5 marks) Pass (50-64.5) Credit Distinction (65-74.5) (75-84.5) High Distinction (85-100 marks) 1. Introduction about the case study, topic it relates to and brief introduction about the organization (3 Marks) Introduction not given at all Brief introduction given but the topic to which it relates to not given along with no description about the organization Introduction given but just mentioned the topic to which it relates to without giving the meaning. But a brief introduction of the organization also given. Good introduction given and the meaning of topic to which it relates to also discussed along with a brief introduction about the organization Very good introduction given along with a very clear explanation of the topic to which it relates to along with a good description of the organization 2. Discussion about the case study (4 Marks) Just copied the case study-no effort has been made to write in his/her own words A brief discussion of the case study given in his/her own words A good discussion of the case study given in his/her own words A meaningful discussion of the case study given in his/her own words An outstanding discussion of the case study given in his/her own words 3. Conclusions & recommendations (4 Marks) No conclusions or recommendations given Simple conclusions attempted Both conclusions and recommendations discussed Conclusions and recommendations both discussed and well expressed Conclusions and recommendations very well expressed 4. Credible sources and referencing (2 marks) Research is not evident in submission. Harvard referencing is not attempted. . 5 or less sources used to support the report. Not from a credible source. Harvard More than 5 credible sources used to support the report. Harvard referencing is attempted in reference list and in text. Some At least 10 credible sources utilized in the report. Harvard referencing is applied correctly in both reference list and in-text Correctly formatted citations are included where appropriate, all citations are included in the reference list, all references are cited in the report and the reference list is correctly formatted. Many resources from reliable sources, e.g. journals, company websites, trustworthy articles are used. No errors in referencing is attempted in reference list or in text. Many referencing errors evident. referencing errors evident. citations. Minimal referencing errors evident. referencing evident. 5. Writing style (2 marks) Writing style is of poor quality. Lack of logic and flow. The report has significant .

1. Criteria Fail
(0-49.5 marks)
Pass
(50-64.5)
Credit Distinction
(65-74.5) (75-84.5)
High Distinction
(85-100 marks)
1. Introduction about
the case study, topic
it relates to and brief
introduction about
the organization
(3 Marks)
Introduction not

2. given at all
Brief
introduction
given but the
topic to which
it relates to
not given
along with no
description
about the
organization
Introduction
given but just
mentioned the
topic to which it
relates to without
giving the
meaning. But a

3. brief introduction
of the
organization also
given.
Good
introduction
given and the
meaning of topic
to which it relates
to also discussed
along with a brief
introduction
about the
organization
Very good introduction given along with
a very clear explanation of the topic to
which it relates to along with a good
description of the organization

4. 2. Discussion about the
case study
(4 Marks)
Just copied the
case study-no
effort has been
made to write in
his/her own
words
A brief
discussion of
the case study
given in
his/her own
words
A good
discussion of the
case study given

5. in his/her own
words
A meaningful
discussion of the
case study given
in his/her own
words
An outstanding discussion of the case
study given in his/her own words
3. Conclusions &
recommendations
(4 Marks)
No conclusions
or
recommendations
given
Simple
conclusions
attempted

6. Both conclusions
and
recommendations
discussed
Conclusions and
recommendations
both discussed
and well
expressed
Conclusions and recommendations very
well expressed
4. Credible sources and
referencing
(2 marks)
Research is not

7. evident in
submission.
Harvard
referencing is not
attempted.
.
5 or less
sources used
to support the
report. Not
from a
credible
source.
Harvard
More than 5
credible sources
used to support
the report.

8. Harvard
referencing is
attempted in
reference list and
in text. Some
At least 10
credible sources
utilized in the
report. Harvard
referencing is
applied correctly
in both reference
list and in-text
Correctly formatted citations are
included where appropriate, all citations
are included in the reference list, all
references are cited in the report and the
reference list is correctly formatted.

9. Many resources from reliable sources,
e.g. journals, company websites,
trustworthy articles are used. No errors in
referencing is
attempted in
reference list
or in text.
Many
referencing
errors evident.
referencing errors
evident.
citations.
Minimal

10. referencing errors
evident.
referencing evident.
5. Writing style (2
marks)
Writing style is
of poor quality.
Lack of logic and
flow. The report
has significant
grammar,
punctuation, or
spelling
mistakes.
A below
average
writing style
with some
lack of

11. attention to
detail. Some
logic and
flow. Some
understanding
of editing is
demonstrated.
Close to or
within word
count
An average
writing style.
Adequate
structure. Some
grammatical and
spelling errors
may be present.
An average

12. standard of
editing skill.
Within word
count.
Above average,
professional style
of presentation
and writing that is
well structured.
Above average
editing skills.
Well formatted
with relevant
images utilised to
complement text.
Presentation well
paced throughout.
Well-designed and

13. written presentation.
No grammar,
punctuation, or
spelling mistakes.
Excellent presentation design.
Exceptional
selection of images
that are appropriately
formatted.
Directions for improvement: Total Marks out
of 15
Unit Semester 3 , 2018 BUS3003/BUS303
Corporate Responsibility, Ethics and Governance

14. Assessment Type Report
Assessment Number 3
Assessment Name Group Report
Unit Learning Outcomes
Assessed
LO 1, LO 2, LO 3, LO 4, LO 5
Due Date and Time 25.01.2019
5:00PM (AEST)
Word Count: 2OOO
Weighting
15%
Submission In Turnitin
Assessment Description • Each group will find a case study
related to any topic of the
course.
• The case study must not be from the text book.
• The case study must be agreed to by the lecturer by week 7.
• Research the history, examples, causes, impacts and ethical
issues
surrounding.
• A minimum of 10 resources and at least 5 being academic in
nature

15. (journal articles, books, professional periodicals).
• Following Report Structure must be followed strictly.
• Executive summary
• Introduction-
o Hook: a sentence that grabs the reader's attention
History/background: What is the issue at hand?
Where is the issue prevalent? Why is it important?
• A brief history of the organization
• Discussion of the case
• Your Argument
• Ethical Decision Making Approaches & Theories
o Explain which ethical decision making approaches
and theories your relied upon to reach your
conclusions and why.
• Summary/Conclusion
o Restate the importance of the issue
o Paint the picture of the world if your plan is or not
implemented
Formatting Requirements • Font/Font size: Times New Roman
(preferred) /12, regular;
• Margin: (Left, right, top and bottom) 2.54 cm;
• Page numbers: yes;
• Line Spacing: 1.5;

16. • Paragraph Style: Justified