MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230902 1
ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title
MGT301A: Ethics and Sustainability
Assessment
Scenario Report
Individual/Group
Group and Individual
Length
2000 words (+/ 10%)
Peer review form
Learning Outcomes
a) Identify questions of ethics and sustainability and analyse
how they impact on one’s day-to-day work experience.
b) Apply a range of ethical frameworks and develop a
vocabulary for ethical issues.
c) Demonstrate the ability to apply the various frameworks
that underpin how individuals and organisations make
decisions on complex ethical issues.
d) Analyse the impact of economic, commercial, social and
environmental trends on organisation’s ethical and
sustainability behaviours.
e) Explore specific sustainability tools such as values based
management and stakeholder perspectives.
f) Evaluate the role of the individual as an agent of ethical
and sustainable behaviour in organisations.
Submission
Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of module 6.1 (week 11)
For Intensive (6 week) class by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of
Module 6.1 (Week 6)
Weighting
30%
Total Marks
100 marks
Context
This assessment allows students to develop writing skills in ethics and sustainability scenarios and to
explore the ways in which stakeholder theory and values management can be used by organisations
as tools in addressing economic, commercial, social and environmental problems.
Instructions
Group task
You will be allocated to a group of three students who, in module 5.1 (week 9) and module 5.2 (week
10) will prepare a short written scenario that describes one ethical or sustainability issue facing an
organisation of your choice within the last 6 months. A framework for writing the scenario will be
provided in class, and available as an online resource in Blackboard.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 2
Individual task
You will then use the group scenario to prepare an individual report.
The scenario report will take the form of a business case, made to the senior management of
the organisation, recommending how the issue should be dealt with. The report will employ
either stakeholder theory or values management as an analytical tool.
Structure
1. Executive summary (100 words)
2. Introduction (100 words)
3. Summary of scenario (200 words)
4. Description of theory used for analysis (stakeholder theory OR values management) (400
words)
5. Analysis (750 words)
6. Identification of 3 alternative solutions (250 words)
7. Recommendations (100 words)
8. Conclusion (100 words)
9. Reference list (excluded from word count)
Research and Referencing Requirements
1. At least six relevant reliable sources must be referenced and cited in your text.
2. Cited sources describing or discussing the issue must be published within 6 months of the
submission date of this assessment.
3. All in text citations MUST include the page number from which the information was taken.
4. A minimum of 50% of referenced sources must be from the MGT301A modules or include a URL
to the Torrens University online library.
Submissions which do not meet the above criteria will receive a 50% reduction in the grade.
This assessment task should include appropriate academic referencing following APA 7th edition style of
referencing. Please see the Academic Skills page on Blackboard for information on referencing :
https://torrens.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_20163_1&co
ntent_id=_2498849_1
The Learning Rubrics below are your guide to how your assessment will be marked. Please be sure to
check the rubrics very carefully before submission
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately
referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to
have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and
subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Peer review
Each member of the group will review the contribution of other group members, to the task, using
the Peer Review Form. You can find this form in the corresponding Assessment folder in Blackboard.
The Peer Review Form focuses on the ways each group member behaves, in relation to ethics,
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 3
throughout the activity. You will have to use one Peer Review Form, per group member, and
collate these in a single document for submission. Your mark for this assessment will be based,
equally, on the review provided by your peers.
The Learning Rubric is your guide to how your assessment will be marked. Please be sure to
check this rubric very carefully before submission.
Submission Instructions
Submit the Individual Scenario Report and Peer Review Form by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of
module 6.1 (week 11) via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in MGT301A: Ethics and
Sustainability. The learning facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal.
Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 4
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 Page 6 of 6
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3- Scenario Report
Assessment
Attributes
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49%
Pass
(Functional)
50-64%
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74%
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84%
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Explanation of
stakeholder theory
or values-based
management
10%
Fails to correctly explain
theory, or does not explain
specified theory
Basic explanation of
specified theory
Satisfactory explanation of
specified theory
Good explanation of specified
theory
Excellent explanation of
specified theory
Application of
theory to the
Analysis of the
ethical issue
25%
Inadequate application of
specified theory to analyse
the ethical issue
Adequate application of
specified theory to the
analysis of the ethical
issue
Proficient application of
theory to analyse the most
significant aspects of the
ethical issue
Excellent application of theory
to analyse the most significant
aspects of the ethical issue
Expert application of theory
to analyse all significant
aspects of the ethical issue
Identification of
solutions
20%
Requires a clearer
identification of
alternative solutions based
on analysis of
theoretical frameworks
and academic resources.
Alternative solutions
have been identified based
on a satisfactory level of
analysis and superficially
supported by evidence.
Alternative, feasible
solutions have been
proficiently identified
based on a good level of
analysis, and partially
supported by evidence.
Alternative feasible and
effective solutions
Have been effectively
identified based on in-depth
analysis, and well
supported by evidence.
Alternative, feasible, effective
and creative solutions have
been skilfully identified based
on critical, in-depth analysis,
and supported by
evidence thoroughly.
Recommendations
10%
Requires justification,
based on analysis of
theoretical frameworks
and academic resources,
as applied to the
organisation’s context
and ethical/ sustainability
issue.
A basic standard of
justification is
inconsistently based on a
satisfactory level of
analysis and superficially
supported by evidence
to address the
organisation’s
ethical/sustainability
issue.
A good standard of
justification, based on a
good level of analysis, and
partially supported by
evidence to address the
organisation’s
ethical/sustainability
issue.
A discerning and critical
standard of justification
based on in-depth
analysis, and well
supported by evidence to
address the organisation’s
ethical/sustainability
issue.
An expert standard of
justification based on
critical, in-depth analysis,
and supported by
evidence thoroughly, to
address the organisation’s
ethical/sustainability
issue.
MGT301A Assessment 3 Brief 230209 Page 6 of 6
Application of
credible research
15%
Report shows little/no
evidence of research.
Does not use sufficient
sources.
Report shows some
evidence of basic research.
Does not use sufficient
sources of good quality.
Report shows sufficient
evidence of research.
Includes in-text citations
and references from
suitable sources.
Report shows evidence of
substantial research.
Shows evidence of wide scope
for sourcing credible
evidence.
Report shows evidence of
extensive research and
serious contemplation of
sources.
Shows evidence of wide
scope for sourcing highly
credible evidence.
Correct application
of APA referencing
style
10%
Does not include correct
references or in- text
citations; does not use APA
7th style.
Uses APA 7th style,
however may contain
some citation or
referencing errors.
Uses APA 7th style,
however may contain
minor citation or
referencing errors.
Uses APA 7th style, containing
minimal and or no errors.
Uses APA 7th style perfectly.
Peer Review
10%
Did not behave in a
manner that resulted in
the most benefit to all
group members.
Treated group members
inequitably.
Behaved in ways that
were not consistent with
the common good.
Usually behaved in a
manner that benefitted all
group members.
Occasionally treated
group members
inequitably.
Occasionally behaved in
ways that were not
consistent with the
common good.
Almost always behaved in
a manner that benefitted
all group members.
Almost always treated
group members equitably.
Almost always behaved in
ways that were consistent
with the common good.
Always behaved in a
manner that benefitted all
group members.
Always treated group
members equitably.
Always behaved in ways
that were consistent with
the common good.
Always behaved in ways
that benefitted all group
members, at times to own
personal detriment.
Made extra effort to
ensure that group
members were treated
equitably.
Made extra effort to
behave in ways that were
consistent with the
common good.