Criteria <35% 35%-39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% and greater 1. Environmental SustainabilityTheoretical Review (40%) Choice of Theory (14%) · Poor choice of concepts – nothing related to the environmental sustainability business issue. · Weak choice of concepts related to the environmental sustainability business issue. These may be mainly definitions rather than anything that can be applied to the organisation · Satisfactory choice of at least 1 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices. · Good choice of at least 2 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices. · Very Good choice of at least 3 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices. · Excellent choice of at least 3 course related concepts which can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the issue and the organisation’s practices. · At least one of these concepts should be unearthed by research and is not in the main course slides Critical Evaluation (14%) · Nothing of academic merit · No attempt at critical evaluation – any course concept is simply described · Only a limited attempt made at critical evaluation · Satisfactory critical evaluation of course concepts –strengths and maybe limitations considered · Good critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths and limitations considered · Excellent critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths and limitations considered and some comparisons with other course concepts made. Illustrative Examples (8%) · No examples found to support points. · A few examples found to support points but may not be referenced · A few examples found to support points but may not be fully relevant or contemporary · At least 1 Good contemporary example found to support points. Other examples given may be illustrative but not related to a specific company example (e.g. agile product development is suitable for a fast changing external environment) · At least 3 Good contemporary examples found to support points · At least 3 Excellent contemporary examples found to support points Journal references (4%) · No references from academic journals used. More reliance on internet sources and maybe a single text. · No references from academic journals used but some main textbooks used. More reliance on internet sources. · At Least 1 reference from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks. · More than 2 references from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks. · More than 3 references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to the main textbooks. · More than 5 references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to main textbooks. Criteria <35% 35%-39% 40% - 49% 50% .

1. Criteria
<35%
35%-39%
40% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% and greater
1. Environmental SustainabilityTheoretical Review (40%)
Choice of Theory (14%)
· Poor choice of concepts – nothing related to the environmental
sustainability business issue.
· Weak choice of concepts related to the environmental
sustainability business issue. These may be mainly definitions
rather than anything that can be applied to the organisation
· Satisfactory choice of at least 1 course related concepts which
can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the
issue and the organisation’s practices.
· Good choice of at least 2 course related concepts which can
actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the
issue and the organisation’s practices.
· Very Good choice of at least 3 course related concepts which
can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the
issue and the organisation’s practices.
· Excellent choice of at least 3 course related concepts which
can actually be applied to evaluate the strategic relevance of the
issue and the organisation’s practices.
· At least one of these concepts should be unearthed by research
and is not in the main course slides
Critical Evaluation (14%)
· Nothing of academic merit
· No attempt at critical evaluation – any course concept is
simply described
· Only a limited attempt made at critical evaluation
· Satisfactory critical evaluation of course concepts –strengths

2. and maybe limitations considered
· Good critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths and
limitations considered
· Excellent critical evaluation of course concepts – strengths
and limitations considered and some comparisons with other
course concepts made.
Illustrative Examples (8%)
· No examples found to support points.
· A few examples found to support points but may not be
referenced
· A few examples found to support points but may not be fully
relevant or contemporary
· At least 1 Good contemporary example found to support
points. Other examples given may be illustrative but not related
to a specific company example (e.g. agile product development
is suitable for a fast changing external environment)
· At least 3 Good contemporary examples found to support
points
· At least 3 Excellent contemporary examples found to support
points
Journal references (4%)
· No references from academic journals used. More reliance on
internet sources and maybe a single text.
· No references from academic journals used but some main
textbooks used. More reliance on internet sources.
· At Least 1 reference from academic journals used in addition
to the main textbooks.
· More than 2 references from academic journals used in
addition to the main textbooks.
· More than 3 references from academic journals published in
the last 5 years are used in addition to the main textbooks.
· More than 5 references from academic journals published in
the last 5 years are used in addition to main textbooks.
Criteria
<35%
35%-39%

3. 40% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% and greater
2. Evaluation of organisation’s environmental sustainability
practices (40%)
Evaluation of Strategic Relevance of Business Issue (10%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
Poor consideration of the strategic relevance of the business
issue to the organisation and how it could improve the
organisation’s brand and competitive situation.
Weak consideration of the strategic relevance of the business
issue to the organisation and how it could improve the
organisation’s brand and competitive situation.
The relevance of the business issue may be implicitly implied
rather being explicitly addressed.
Satisfactory consideration of the strategic relevance of the
business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the
organisation’s brand and competitive situation.
Good consideration of the strategic relevance of the business
issue to the organisation and how it could improve the
organisation’s brand and competitive situation.
Excellent consideration of the strategic relevance of the
business issue to the organisation and how it could improve the
organisation’s brand and competitive situation.
Supported by good research or course concepts
Critical Evaluation of Organisation's Practices (16%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
Poor analysis of the organisation’s current practices.
Descriptive rather than evaluative and even this is done weakly
reflecting limited research of the organisation’s practices.
Weak analysis of the organisation’s current practices. May just
describe what the organisation is doing linked to the business
issue OR may focus on evaluating the issue itself rather than the
organisation’s practices.

4. Satisfactory analysis of the organisation’s current
practices…but more descriptive than evaluative
Good analysis of the organisation’s management of its current
practices linked to the business issue.
Excellent critical analysis of the organisation’s management of
its current practices
Effective use of Theory to help evaluation of Practices (10%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
No use of relevant theory to analyse the problem and come up
with a solution.
Weak use of theory to analyse the problem but theory
considered in the review is mentioned.
Satisfactory but limited use of theory to analyse the
problem…may correctly identify what theory the issue is related
to but this is done in passing or almost as an afterthought – it
does not advance the analysis.
Good use of theory to analyse the problem.
Excellent use of theory to analyse the problem.
Effective use of Theory to identify or develop recommendations
(4%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
No use of theory/research to allow suggested solution/s.
Weak use of theory/research to allow suggested solution/s.
Weak recommendations which do not flow from previous
evaluation using theory but appear to be based on research of
the organisation.
Satisfactory use of theory/research to allow suggested
solution/s. Satisfactory recommendations which have some
connection to the previous evaluation using theory but appear to
be more based on research of the organisation.
Good use of theory/research to allow good suggested solution/s.
Excellent use of theory/research to allow excellent suggested
solution/s.

5. Criteria
<35%
35%-39%
40% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% and greater
3. Conclusions/ Recommendations – Environmental
Sustainability (10%)
Justified Conclusion/s on Strategic Relevance of Business Issue
for Organisation (2%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
No conclusion made in the conclusions section but an attempt
made to make a conclusion/s within the body of the report
Weak conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with no
justification
Satisfactory conclusion/s linked to previous analysis but only a
minimal attempt at justification
Good conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with a reasonable
attempt at justification
Excellent well justified conclusion/s linked to previous analysis
Justified Conclusion/s on Management of Business Issue
Practices (3%)
Work of no merit given for this part of the assignment
No conclusion made in the conclusions section but an attempt
made to make a conclusion/s within the body of the report, OR,
Poor conclusions which may not even be linked to previous
analysis.
Weak conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with no
justification
Satisfactory conclusion/s linked to previous analysis but only a
minimal attempt at justification
Good conclusion/s linked to previous analysis with a reasonable
attempt at justification
Excellent well justified conclusion/s linked to previous analysis
Worthwhile Recommendations (5%)

6. No recommendations
Limited attempt at recommendations but very poor.
Weak recommendations which are not detailed enough (they are
more like a conclusion) and do not consider any of the
following:
· potential costs and benefits
· Timescales and possible resources required
· Risks or potential barriers to implementation
Satisfactory recommendations which are worthwhile but may
not consider any of following in any detail:
• potential costs and benefits
• Timescales and possible resources required
• Risks or potential barriers to implementation
Good well thought out recommendations which are worthwhile
and consider at least one of the following:
• potential costs and benefits
• Timescales and possible resources required
• Risks or potential barriers to implementation
Excellent, well thought out recommendations which are
worthwhile and consider most of the following:
• potential costs and benefits
• Timescales and possible resources required
• Risks or potential barriers to implementation
Criteria
<35%
35%-39%
40% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% and greater
4. Business Report format (5%)
Executive Summary (3%)
No Executive Summary done whatsoever.
Poor Executive Summary…may be labelled thus but is actually
the Introduction for the report (i.e. No Executive Summary

7. actually done)
Weak Executive Summary (reads more like an Introduction and
with limited detail)
Satisfactory Executive Summary (Some detail but reads more
like an Introduction)
Good Executive Summary which attempts to report findings and
recommendations but may lack some detail.
Excellent Executive Summary which reports the key findings
and main conclusions/recommendations.
Other Business Report Format (2%)
Nearly non-existent business report format with many of the
following not done or done unsatisfactorily:
· Introduction,
· Conclusions/ Recommendations Section,
· Cover page,
· Separate contents page
· Logical flow to the report
Poor business report format with many of the following not
done or done unsatisfactorily:
· Introduction,
· Conclusions/ Recommendations Section,
· Cover page,
· Separate contents page
· Logical flow to the report
Weak business report format with several of the following not
done or done unsatisfactorily:
· Introduction,
· Conclusions/ Recommendations Section,
· Cover page,
· Separate contents page
· Logical flow to the report
Satisfactory business report format with most of the following
done satisfactorily:
· Introduction,
· Conclusions/ Recommendations Section,
· Cover page,

8. · Separate contents page
· Logical flow to the report
Good business report format with a good Introduction and
Conclusions/Recommendations Section.
There is a Cover page, a separate contents page and there is a
logical flow to the report
Excellent Introduction which covers the main objectives of the
report, report scope, methodology and gives some background
Excellent Conclusions/Recommendations section
There is a Cover page, a separate contents page and there is a
logical flow to the report
Criteria
<35%
35%-39%
40% - 49%
50% - 59%
60% - 69%
70% and greater
5. Report Presentation (5%)
Spelling and Grammar (2%)
Unacceptable grammar and spelling –difficult to understand
most of the report.
Unacceptable grammar and spelling –difficult to understand
some points being made.
Weakly expressed with frequent mistakes in grammar and
spelling.
Satisfactorily expressed but several mistakes in grammar and
spelling.
Well expressed with only a few mistakes in grammar and
spelling.
Excellently expressed with perfect grammar and spelling.

9. Readability (1%)
“Readability” absolutely poor.
“Readability” very weak with many long. paragraphs and
sentences + limited use of headings and diagrams or tables)
“Readability” weak with several long. paragraphs and sentences
+ limited use of headings and diagrams or tables)
Satisfactorily presented with Good “Readability” .(e.g. use of
short paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams
or tables) but one or two long paragraphs
Well presented with Good “Readability” .(e.g. use of short
paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams or
tables)
Excellently presented with excellent “Readability” .(e.g. use of
short paragraphs and sentences + use of headings and diagrams
or tables)
Referencing (1%)
Limited or no referencing within report.
Many points not referenced within report, or, many references
incorrectly Harvard references.
Referencing done within report and supported by reference list
at end but some references missing or incorrectly Harvard
referenced.
Satisfactory Harvard Referencing done mostly correctly within
report and supported by reference list at end but some
references missing (Either facts that should be referenced were
not, OR, a few references in report not in reference list or vice
versa).
Harvard Referencing done correctly within report and supported
by complete reference list at end with only minor errors or
omissions
Excellent Harvard Referencing done perfectly within report and
supported by complete reference list at end

10. Word Count and Turnitin (1%)
Turnitin score >40%
Any of the following are present:
Word count > +30%
Report too short (not within 10% limit)
Turnitin score >30%
Within +20% of word count
Turnitin score <30%
Within +15% of word count
Turnitin score <20%
Within +10% of word count
Turnitin score <20%
Within 10% of word count
Turnitin score <15%