Marking Rubric for MGT2IMG – Assessment 3
Case Study Particulars Excellent (Above 80)
Very Good
(70-79)
Good
(60-69)
Acceptable
(50-59)
Unacceptable
(Below 50)
Volkswagen
Diesel
Emissions
Scandal
(20 marks)
Q1
(10 marks)
Excellent
commentary and a
comprehensive
analysis of the
ethical
responsibilities
towards customers,
regulators and the
environment.
Very good
commentary and
analysis of the
ethical
responsibilities
towards customers,
regulators and the
environment.
Good commentary
and analysis of the
ethical
responsibilities
towards customers,
regulators and the
environment.
Satisfactory
commentary and
analysis of the
ethical
responsibilities
towards customers,
regulators and the
environment.
Weak commentary
and analysis of the
ethical
responsibilities
towards customers,
regulators and the
environment.
Q2
(5 marks)
Excellent and
pragmatic
recommendations to
make amends for
VW actions.
Comprehensive
recommendations to
make amends for
VW actions.
Good
recommendations to
make amends for
VW actions.
Satisfactory
recommendations to
make amends for
VW actions.
Weak and
impractical
recommendations to
make amends for
VW actions.
Q3
(5 marks)
Excellent and
pragmatic
recommendations
for future.
Comprehensive
recommendations
for future.
Good
recommendations
for future.
Satisfactory
recommendations
for future.
Weak and
impractical
recommendations
for future.
Facebook’s
Cambridge
Analytica
Scandal
(20 marks)
Q1
(5 marks)
Identifying and
justifying a
comprehensive list
of measures that
should have been
taken.
Identifying and
justifying most of the
measures that
should have been
taken.
Identifying and
justifying a good list
of measures that
should have been
taken.
Identifying and
justifying some of
the measures that
should have been
taken.
Weak identification
of the measures that
should have been
taken.
Q2
(5 marks)
A comprehensive
analysis of how the
scandal affected the
trust of users and
other stakeholders.
A very good analysis
of how the scandal
affected the trust of
users and other
stakeholders.
A decent analysis of
how the scandal
affected the trust of
users and other
stakeholders.
A satisfactory
analysis of how the
scandal affected the
trust of users and
other stakeholders.
A weak analysis of
how the scandal
affected the trust of
users and other
stakeholders.
Q3
(10 marks)
A comprehensive
analysis of FB’s
transparency about
the misuse of data
and its responsibility
in the scandal and
the ethical
implications of
access to a vast user
data.
A very good analysis
of FB’s transparency
about the misuse of
data and its
responsibility in the
scandal and the
ethical implications
of access to a vast
user data.
A decent analysis of
FB’s transparency
about the misuse of
data and its
responsibility in the
scandal and the
ethical implications
of access to a vast
user data.
A satisfactory
analysis of FB’s
transparency about
the misuse of data
and its responsibility
in the scandal and
the ethical
implications of
access to a vast user
data.
A weak analysis of
FB’s transparency
about the misuse of
data and its
responsibility in the
scandal and the
ethical implications
of access to a vast
user data.
Nike
Sweatshop
Scandal
(20 marks)
Q1
(5 marks)
A comprehensive
commentary and
analysis of ethical
responsibilities.
A very good
commentary and
analysis of ethical
responsibilities.
A good commentary
and analysis of
ethical
responsibilities.
A satisfactory
commentary and
analysis of ethical
responsibilities.
A weak commentary
and analysis of
ethical
responsibilities.
Q2
(5 marks)
Identifying and
justifying a
comprehensive list
of the measures that
should have been
taken.
Identifying and
justifying a detailed
list of the measures
that should have
been taken.
Identifying and
justifying most of the
measures that
should have been
taken.
Identifying and
justifying some of
the measures that
should have been
taken.
Weak identification
and analysis of the
measures that
should have been
taken.
Q3
(5 marks)
A comprehensive
commentary and
analysis of how the
scandal impacted
their brand image
and reputation.
A very good analysis
of how the scandal
impacted their brand
image and
reputation.
A good analysis of
how the scandal
impacted their brand
image and
reputation.
A satisfactory
analysis of how the
scandal impacted
their brand image
and reputation.
A weak and
incomplete analysis
of how the scandal
impacted their brand
image and
reputation.
Q4
(5 marks)
Identifying and
justifying a
comprehensive list
of the measures that
should be taken now
and in the future.
Identifying and
justifying a detailed
list of the measures
that should be taken
now and in the
future.
Identifying and
justifying a good list
of the measures that
should be taken now
and in the future.
Identifying and
justifying some of
the measures that
should be taken now
and in the future.
A weak and
incomplete
Identification and
analysis of the
measures that
should be taken now
and in the future.
Professional
presentation
And References
using Harvard style
(10 marks)
Excellent
presentation in a
professional report
format.
Excellent use of
language throughout
demonstrates
expressiveness,
precision, and clarity.
Spelling, grammar,
and punctuation are
all excellent, with no
errors.
Correct formatting of
in-text citations and
references following
Harvard style
throughout the
report.
More than 10 very
high-quality
academic sources
used to substantiate
claims, arguments,
and
recommendations.
Very good
presentation in a
professional report
format.
Language is generally
sound and clear
throughout. Spelling,
grammar, and
punctuation are
good with very few
and minor errors.
Most references are
correctly cited.
More than 10 high
quality academic
sources used to
substantiate claims,
arguments, and
recommendations.
Good presentation in
a professional report
format.
Clear enough to be
understood, minimal
confused or unclear
expression. Spelling,
punctuation, and
grammar are
acceptable but could
be improved.
References are cited
correctly, in-text and
the list of references.
More than 10
academic sources
used to substantiate
claims, arguments,
and
recommendations.
Acceptable
presentation in a
professional report
format.
Clear enough to be
understood. May
have some confused
or unclear
expression. May
have a few moderate
or several minor
issues with spelling,
punctuation,
grammar.
Some references are
cited correctly, in-
text and in the list.
Minimum 10
academic sources
used to substantiate
claims, arguments,
and
recommendations.
Poor and weak
presentation.
Mostly unclear or
confused expression.
Major errors with
spelling, grammar,
punctuation.
Substantial errors in
formatting in-text
citations and list of
references.
Less than 12
academic sources
used to substantiate
claims, arguments,
and
recommendations.