Overview of the Task:
You are required to show your understanding of the (evolving) role of marketing in addressing current day’s societal needs. The assessment therefore requires you to apply the appropriate
theories relevant to sustainable marketing, to argue for and against the role of marketing in addressing the needs of today’s society. Your essay must include the following sections:
- COVER PAGE: Include a cover page with all the relevant identifying detail
- INTRODUCTION (25%): Discuss the evolving role of marketing, including for example why sustainable marketing has become more important, how marketing mixes, branding decisions have been modified to address the pillars of sustainability etc.
- EVOLVING SOCIETAL NEEDS AND ROLE OF MARKETING (55%): Include a discussion that demonstrates your understanding of what today’s societal needs are and how marketing is meeting/not meeting them. To do this, you will need to apply the triple bottom line concepts and relate them to the UN SDGS to help you highlight such needs in more depth, ensuring that you tie these to the role of marketing. Also provide some justification why marketing is/is not able to address these needs, rather than just listing the examples. Examples of how you could structure this section will be explored in more detail during the seminars.
- CONCLUSION (20%): Include a conclusion summarizing your view of the role of marketing in today’s society, based on your previous discussion
- EXAMPLES: You must use examples throughout the discussion
- LIST OF REFERENCES: Remember to reference within the text as well as provide a reference list at the end of the essay. Use Harvard referencing style. https://www.kent.ac.uk/search/?q=harvard+style+guide+
Required Readings
You must read and cite at least 8 academic peer reviewed journal articles. It is also expected that you will consult other sources of information including textbooks, market reports, reputable newspapers, among others. Please do not use non-academic resources like ‘Wikipedia’. Start off with journal articles such as these:
Gordon, R., Carrigan, M., & Hastings, G. (2011). A framework for Sustainable Marketing.
Marketing Theory, 11(2), 143-163.
Mitchell, R. W., Wooliscroft, B., & Higham, J. (2010). Sustainable Market Orientation: A New Approach to Managing Marketing Strategy. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(2), 160-170.
Peattie K. and Crane A (2005) Green Marketing: Legend, Myth, Farce or Prophesy? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8 (4): 357-370
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2005). A Dangerous Divergence: Marketing and Society. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (1), 160–162
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2012). Expanding Our Understanding of Marketing in Society.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 53-73.
P/S: The suggestions offered on what read are not exhaustive; you should use them as a starting point. However do note that these papers do discuss some of the key ideas and themes of discussion that contribute to getting a good grade in the essay.
Plagiarism
- Plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct. Plagiarism may be committed in a number of ways, including:
- Copying another person’s work or ideas. This includes copying from other students and from published or unpublished material such as books, internet sources, paper mills, computer code, designs or similar
- Submitting previously submitted or assessed work of your own without attribution
- Submitting work solicited from (or written by) others
- Failing to adequately reference your sources
- Also ensure that you reference appropriately. Every time you state an argument or information from a source in your own words you have to provide a reference. Current Harvard Reference Guidelines are available at: https://www.kent.ac.uk/search/?q=harvard+style+guide+
See more of these guidelines in Section 2 (pgs. 8-9) of the Module Guideline (Uploaded on Moodle)
Specific Assessment Guidelines on Presentation and Structure
- This is an individual assignment that counts towards 80% of the module assessment.
- Exceeding to the word count limit will be penalized.
- Please note that anything within the body of the essay (discussions, references, headings, subheadings, words in diagrams and tables) will be included in the word count.
- The essay should be written Times New Roman size 12 font, with 1.5 line spacing.
- Ensure that your paper is well structured; use numbered headings and subheadings; any diagrams/tables used must also be numbered and labelled. When you use diagrams ensure that the diagrams used are not just copied and pasted from other sources, they must be your own depictions of the ideas you discuss in the essay, and related to the case/context.
- Discussions must flow coherently and be grammatically correct, and sections interconnected logically. Avoid direct quotes; use your own words and provide a well- thought out argument. Poorly structured papers that do not flow coherently will score less than those that flow better and that have better structure.
| All readings should be clearly referenced in-text using the ‘Harvard Style. Unless you can provide sources for your data the basis on which you made your decisions and recommendations will be questioned.Furthermore a full reference list must be provided at the end of the document, with references alphabetically arranged and all relevant details provided of the resources used. (e.g. for a journal article: Gordon, R., Carrigan, M., & Hastings, G. (2011). A framework for Sustainable Marketing. Marketing Theory, 11(2): 143-163.) Poor referencing in-text and in the reference list will be penalized.DO NOT include any appendices section; your discussion must all be within the main body. |
APPENDICES
Categorical Marking Guideline for Presentations
| Category | Content | Analysis & Argument | Visual Skills | Oral Skills | Audience Skills | Timing |
| Weight/ Mark | 25% | 25% | 20% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
| 0 10 20 25 | Shows little or no understanding of topic area. | No analysis or argument. No conclusions. | Materials missing or used very badly. | Mostly incomprehensible. | Serious problems such as not facing audience or being offensive. | Panics shortly after starting and gives up. |
| 32 | Weak description of background. | Little analysis or argument. No conclusions. | Serious failures in design and use. | Mostly hard to hear or follow. | Tends to avoid audience. | Far too short. Completely loses control. |
| 35 38 | Weak description of background. Little evidence of work done. | Weak analysis. Little argument. Conclusions weak or absent. | Far too many/few slides. Poor design. Poor choice of font size style. | Hard to hear or follow in large parts. | Little attempt to use audience. | Serious overrun/underrun. Little awareness of timing. |
| 42 45 48 | Weak description of background. Weak description of work done. | Weak analysis. Weak argument. Conclusions don’t follow from work presented. | Too many/few slides. Hard to read. Weak design. Weak choice of font size style. Not well used. | Mostly audible. Some mumbling. Some lapses in performance. Clear nervousness. | Rather dull. Maintains minimal contact with audience. Reads directly from script. | Overrun or underrun. Some periods where control is lost. |
| 52 55 58 | Fair description of background. Fair description of work done. | Competent analysis. Competent argument. Conclusions follow logically. | Clear materials. Legible. Acceptable font size/style. Adequately used. However, unexciting, dull or lacking style. | Clear. Audible. Occasional lapses. Varied in tone and pace. | Some eye contact. Aware of audience. Keeps interest. | Good timing. Small overrun/underrun. No obvious loss of control. |
| 62 65 68 | Good description of background. Good description of work done. | Good analysis. Good argument. Conclusions follow convincingly. Evident structure to presentation. | Good materials. Easy to read. Good font size/style. Shows some creativity. Well used. | No problems. Tone and pace varied to suit material and audience. | Good eye contact. Engages audience. Able to answer questions. | Very good timing. Pace of presentation controlled. |
| 72 75 78 | Very good description of background. Very good description of work done. | Very good analysis. Very good argument. Very good structure. | Very good materials. Easy to read. Very good font size/style. Imaginative use of materials. | Polished performance with distinct control over voice. | Clear “sparkle”. Uses humour. Interacts with audience. Enjoys audience contact. Includes peroration. | Excellent timing with pace adjusted to audience. |
| 85 95 100 | Excellent description of background. Excellent description of work done. | Excellent analysis. Excellent argument. Excellent structure. | Exceptional slides with no flaws. | Excellent performance. | Excellent interaction with audience. Dynamic and entertaining with no appreciable flaws. | Excellent control of timing and pace. |
| Mark |
Final Mark
