You are required to write up to 2,000-word (±10% is allowed) case study to compare two companies to discuss their unethical behaviour/ethical issues in terms of their financial impact and the reaction of key stakeholders to the companies’ unethical behaviour? The two companies must be selected from the following list:
· Apple
|
· Zara
|
· Microsoft
|
· Primark
|
· PepsiCo
|
· Kraft Heinz
|
MODULE TITLEMODULE CODE Academic Knowledge for Accounting, Finance & Economics ML014 The overall assessment regime comprises of a 30% in-class test and a 70% individual case study. Task 1: 30% In-Class Test A test consisting of multiple-choice and objective test questions (LO3 & LO4). LO3: Identify the terminology of accounting, finance and economics LO4: Demonstrate an understanding of the business environment The test will be time-restricted (30 minutes – with additional time provided for students with an approved Learning Support Programme). This assessment is designed to test understanding and application of the first five topics of the module content. The multiple-choice and objective test questions will assess knowledge of the underlying principles and concepts relating to accounting, finance and economics, as well as basic technical proficiency in these topics. The assessment will take place during the weekly timetabled workshop in the week commencing 26th of April 2021 with practice materials made available to students prior to the Easter break. All students are required to undertake the assessment. Students unable to obtain a pass mark (40%) at the first attempt will be given another opportunity to retake the assessment through the university’s In-Year Module Retrieval (IYMR) scheme later in the semester - assessments taken through the IYMR scheme are, however, subject to a 40% cap on marks. Task 2: 70% An Individual Case Study Assignment Individual case study to evaluate the performance of an organisation in pursuit of responsible enterprise from the perspective of accounting and financial compliance (LO1, LO2, LO5). LO1: Show appropriate skills relevant to academic study: writing and referencing LO2: Define appropriate skills relevant to academic study: researching, reasoning and evaluation LO5: Define the context of accounting, finance and economics in society. You are required to write up to 2,000-word (±10% is allowed) case study to compare two companies to discuss their unethical behaviour/ethical issues in terms of their financial impact and the reaction of key stakeholders to the companies’ unethical behaviour? The two companies must be selected from the following list: · Apple · Zara · Microsoft · Primark · PepsiCo · Kraft Heinz You are required to follow the standard format for an academic writing, which means you need: Format Written Case Study: Word Limit Up to 2000 words – excludes title, table of contents, references, appendices Hand In By 10am on Tuesday 25th May 2021 (via Turnitin) % of module marks 70% Formatting Requirements: Use Arial, minimum 12 point with 1.5 spacing Include a title page that refers to module code, module name, submission date, word count, student name and number Use numbered headings and sub-headings for clarity. Introduction (20%) Explain what you are doing e.g. introducing the two companies compare their ethical issues, what are the overall similarities & differences in behaving unethically. In this section you also need to explain where you searched for the sources. Contextual review & Critical analysis (50%) What are the ethical issues of each company? What do academic authors and industry say? What is important? How are the companies impacted financially? What is their customer behaviour and how do they react to the companies’ unethical behaviour? Use some examples to support different arguments. Conclusions (20) What is the conclusion of this review? What is the summary of key insights? What new knowledge has been gained? References & citation (5%) An alphabetical (A-Z) list of authors and sources you used or referred to in your review, in-text citation and reference list must meet Harvard conventions (see your business school referencing guide in the module area for details). Title page and reference list are not included in the word count. Proofread your work before final submission please. Presentation and communication (5%) Clear, well-presented with consistent use of appropriate academic language and contains no spelling or grammar errors. All essential sections are completed. Marking criteria for assessment task 2 CRITERIA Outstanding 80-100% Excellent 70-79% Good/very good 60-69% Sound/competent 50-59% Adequate but weak 40-49% Marginal Fail 35-39% Weak Fail 30-34% Unsatisfactory 0-9%, 10-29% Introduction (15%) Engaging introduction to highly relevant companies and theories and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment A very thorough introduction to highly relevant theories and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment A good and useful introduction to relevant theories and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment A sound introduction to relevant theories and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment Some attempt to introduce relevant theory and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment Little/ weak attempt to introduce relevant theory and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment Very little/weak attempt to introduce theory and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment Little or no attempt to introduce theory and explaining the method and purpose of the assignment Contextual review & Critical analysis (50%) An outstanding salient, critical review of theories, with highly insightful and engaging contextual application An excellent, salient, critical review of theories, with insightful and interesting contextual application Good or very good critical review of theories, which are salient and well applied well to the context A competent critical review of theory, which is mainly salient and well applied to the context An adequate critical review of theory, with weak application to the context Weak attempt at critical review of theory, not well applied to the context Very poor attempt at critical review with little or no contextual application Little or no attempt at critical review with very poor contextual application Conclusion (15%) Outstanding understanding for reviewed topic, which summarises excellent analysis, and leads to highly insightful conclusions Excellent understanding for reviewed topic and very strong evidence base for assumptions, leading to insightful conclusions Very good understanding for reviewed topic, showing clear, relevant assumptions and analysis, and sound insight A sound understanding for topic, with some analysis leading to conclusions which are not always supported/lacks insight Reasonable but adequate attempt at review, leading to weak conclusions, with little insight Little understanding for topic, with little analysis leading to poor conclusions Weak attempt to analyse and draw conclusions which lacked depth and insight Very weak attempt at review leading to weak and unsupported conclusions References and citation (10%) Harvard citing and referencing is completely accurate Harvard citing and referencing almost completely accurate Majority of referencing and/or citation is accurate A good attempt at referencing and/or citation Adequate but weak attempt at using Harvard rules Weak attempt at using Harvard rules A very weak attempt at citation and referencing Little or no attempt to meet Harvard rules/ no list Reflection (5%) In-depth reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently. Comprehensive reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently. Good reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently. Some reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently Limited reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently Weak reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently Very weak reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently Littlee or no reflection on how the project was carried out, covering what went well and what could be done differently. Presentation and communication (5%) Very clear, well-presented with consistent use of appropriate academic language and contains no spelling or grammar errors. All essential sections are completed Clear, well-presented with largely consistent use of appropriate academic language and contains few spelling or grammar errors. All essential sections are completed Clear, well-presented with mostly consistent use of appropriate academic language. Contains numerous spelling or grammar errors. All essential sections are completed Somewhat clear and well-presented with good use of appropriate academic language. Contains numerous spelling or grammar errors. Not all essential sections are completed. Adequately presented with limited use of appropriate academic language. Contains some spelling or grammar errors. Not all essential sections are completed Weak presented with limited use of appropriate academic language. Contains some spelling or grammar errors. Not all essential sections are completed Very weak presented with limited use of appropriate academic language. Contains many spelling or grammar errors. Not all essential sections are completed Largely unclear and poorly presented with limited use of appropriate academic language. Contains numerous spelling or grammar errors. Not all essential sections are completed. All grades provided with feedback are subject to ratification by the examination board and are only provisional until confirmed following an Area Examination Board. All assessments operate under the University’s General Examination and Assessment Regulations (GEAR) available on Student Central. 1