2021/22 Assessment brief
Semester 1 individual assignment (70%)
Task
Your coursework essay will be an analysis of the strategy of an emerging market multinational.
Content
Using the case of Indian steel manufacturer Mittal Steel (Now ArcelorMittal), produce a report style essay that evaluates the following areas of the firm’s internationalisation activity through the theoretical perspectives covered in the module:
1. Examine the internationalisation strategy of Mittal Steel since its foundation. Using the I-R framework, discuss what strategy describes best the company’s internationalisation path.
2. Mittal Steels resources and capabilities. Reflect upon the nature of Mittal Steel’s resources and capabilities to evaluate whether or how the company was able to overcome disadvantages typically associated with the Emerging Market Multinationals (E-MNCs). To enable comparison, build upon cases of Mittal Steel’s operations in a developing and a developed host market to evaluate relative strengths/weaknesses of Mittal Steel’s proprietary resources and capabilities in these markets.
3. Consider the timing around foreign market entry mode decisions of Mittal Steel. Identify the key benefits Mittal Steel was able to realise as a result of these decisions. You should select two instances where you can evaluate and learn from Mittal Steel’s failure or success. Your narrative should provide answer to key questions about the firm’s chosen entry modes in relation to its goals and success/failure to enter foreign markets.
You should conclude your work with an overall assessment of the firm’s ability to develop and implement a coherent and effective internationalisation strategy and, going forward, identify key political, economic and societal challenges faced by Mittal Steel.
You should rely on the academic sources (both theoretical literature and the published articles and monographs on Mittal Steel, if any), but you MUST do additional research on the company (beyond its published material) by using relevant, high-quality business literature and industry reports.
Format
Your work should be presented in the form of a written essay conforming to the word count specified (2,500 words +/- 10%, excluding reference bibliography and any appendices). The assignment should be produced in WORD (not PDF) and use 1.5 spacing and a 12-point font in either Times New Roman. All pages should be numbered. Work that does not comply will not be marked.
Deadline
The assignment will be due for online submission by 4pm on Friday 14th of January 2022. Please submit ONLY an electronic copy via TurnitIn on Canvas by 4pm on that date.
Marking and feedback
The assignment will be marked according to the standard undergraduate assessment criteria (see below). Marks will also be based on coverage of all three areas specified in the brief as well as an overall conclusion containing your assessment of the firm’s ability to implement the strategy and an introduction. As a guide, you should spend appropriate amounts of time depending on the weighting of the essay topic elements:
| Assignment Element | Weight (%) |
| Introduction | 5 |
| Topic 1 (Internationalisation strategy, I-R framework) | 20 |
| Topic 2 (Resources and Capabilities, RBV discussion) | 30 |
| Topic 3 (Entry mode, timing, M&A discussion) | 30 |
| Conclusion (summary; key future challenges) | 15 |
We endeavour to provide you with your grade and a feedback via TurnitIn on Canvas.
Pre- and post-assessment support
There will be a live 2h sessions (in week 14) that will provide students with an opportunity to ask generic and more specific individual questions regarding this essay. Additionally, lecture 6 (in week 9) is dedicated to the task. Students will be provided with summative feedback within 20 working days from the submission deadline.
Referencing
Please use Harvard referencing style in putting together the citations in text and reference list at the end of your essay. Please see referencing guide from Newcastle University – http://libguides.ncl.ac.uk/referencing
Standard UG Assessment Criteria
| 70% + very good analysis all material that would be expected originality / extras | Extremely thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing evidence of significant independent research, reflective, perceptive, well-structured showing significant originality in ideas or argument, aptly focused and very well written. Few areas for improvement. Potentially worthy of publication. Outstanding demonstration of understanding and depth, drawing upon extensive reading. Using outstanding examples and plenty of illustrative data. Providing outstanding evidence of independent research and wider reading. In addition, providing outstanding original perspectives or insights, argued logically. | 90-100% | |
| Excellent execution of the brief, well-structured and clearly argued. Signs of originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by independent research, materials well utilised; well-focused and well written, displays mastery of the subject matter and of appropriate theories and concepts, but providing few original perspectives or insights. | 80-89% | ||
| Very good execution of the brief; well-focused, knowledgeable, some evidence of reading beyond the basic texts and displays a very good knowledge of the subject matter. Very good critical grasp of relevant theories and concepts. | 70-79% | ||
| 60%-69% good analysis all material that would be expected but nothing extra (a standard project) | Well-structured and well-focused answer. Comprehensive, although not complete. Showing understanding based on an ability to marshal information and to support arguments with appropriate examples. Some pieces of information or examples go beyond the lecture material in either depth or breadth. Sound grasp of relevant theories and concepts. Approach generally analytical. | 65-69% | |
| As above but either occasionally lacking accuracy or with few examples. | 60-64% | ||
| 50%-59% adequate analysis minor omissions minor errors | Concise but accurate. Based largely on lecture material. Information presented clearly but lacking any originality, tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. | 55-59% | |
| As above but with occasional lapses of accuracy or logic. | 50-54% | ||
| 40%-49% basic analysis omissions errors | Answer complete but tending to rely entirely on lecture materials. Almost entirely descriptive in approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter displayed; partial and/or containing errors, poorly structured. | 45-49% | |
| As above but with omissions or errors. Presentation poor. Examples inadequate. Some material relevant to the question. Evidence that the question has been understood in part at least. | 40-44% | ||
| <40% Insufficient focus on question Inadequate analysis Little evidence of knowledge and understanding | Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and or containing major errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant, poorly structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. May contain excessive use of quotations. Inadequate with no substance or scientific understanding but with vague general knowledge relevant to the question. | 30-39% | |
| Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the question, seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning, large sections irrelevant. Rudimentary knowledge of the subject area. Errors serious and fundamental. Excessive use of quotations. | 20-29% | ||
| Little hint of knowledge. May be an answer to a different question. | 0-19% |
