Assignment 2 Details
Your assignment should consist of: (The Company is Mondi) IS Mondi plc is an international packaging and paper group.
- An introduction that summarises key company and contextual information from your first assignment (no more than 200 words)
- A critical evaluation of the environmental sustainability strategy and performance of your company. To do this you may wish to address questions such as
- How does the company use environmental management systems and performance measures?
- How well does the company apply the principles of resource savings (the 5Rs) to its operations, supply chain management and/or marketing management?
- How comprehensive and transparent does the company appear to be in dealing with sustainability issues?
- The use of appropriate concepts, frameworks and theories to support your analysis
- A conclusions section that sums up your evaluation and makes recommendations for improvements.
- Use graphs and models.
Assessment Criteria
The marking criteria are:
- Content and range (including evidence of original research, and coverage of the questions)
- Reflection/Evaluation
- Knowledge of theory
- Critical reasoning
- Conclusions + recommendations
- Presentation including referencing
See marking grid for a more detailed illustration of how these criteria will be assessed. Further guidance on the assessment criteria will be discussed in the seminars, where you will have the opportunity to look at sections of past assignments.
Use your Student Number and not your name in the name of your Word file
U51056 ASSIGNMENT 1 CRITERIA GRID
| CRITERION | A+ (75-100) A (70-74) | B+ (65-69) B (60-64) | C+ (55-59) C (50-54) | D+ (45-49) D (40-44) | REFER/FAIL (0-39) | |||||
| 1. Content and range | Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with areas of specialisation in depth and awareness of provisional nature of knowledge, covers each question fully | Reasonable knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas/contexts/frame-works, covers each question, but some answers stronger than others | Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge base and appropriate terminology, may give less well evidenced answers to some questions | Evidence of limited knowledge of topic and some use of appropriate terminology. Does not cover all the questions | Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology, does not answer questions | |||||
| 2. Reflection/ Evaluation | Can critically review evidence supporting conclusions/
| Can evaluate the relevance and significance of data collected. | Can evaluate the reliability of data using the given techniques . | Limited and only partially accurate evaluation of data using defined techniques and/or tutor guidance. | Fails to evaluate or use techniques of evaluation, or evaluations are totally invalid. | |||||
| 3. Knowledge of theory | Assignment demonstrates integration and innovation in the use of the frameworks | Insightful and appropriate use of frameworks | Frameworks are mostly use appropriately in straight forward manner | Framework sometimes used incorrectly | Inaccurate or inappropriate use of framework | |||||
| 4.Critical reasoning | Consistently demonstrates application of critical analysis well integrated in the text | Clear application of theory through critical analysis/critical thought of the topic area | Demonstrates application of framework through critical analysis of the topic area | Some evidence of critical thought/critical analysis and rationale for work | Lacks critical thought /analysis / reference to theory | |||||
| 5. Conclusions and recommendations | Analytical and clear conclusions well-grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts. Insightful, logical and feasible recommendations | Good development shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature. A range of justified recommendations developing logically from evaluation. | Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature. Some recommendations, variable quality | Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/lit. Limited recommendations, not well developed. | Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all. No or negligible recommendations. | |||||
| 6. Presentation of assignment | Shows a polished and imaginative approach to the topic. Faultless referencing. | Carefully and logically organised. Referencing of very high standard | Shows. organisation and coherence. Referencing mainly competent. | .Presentation of assignment poor. Many referencing errors. | Disorganised/ incoherent. Referencing unacceptable. | |||||
