Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
1

Assessment Task 1: Sustainability Policy Brief

Assessment Type: Individual
Weight: 30%

Words: 1000 words (+/- 10%). Word limit includes all headings, sub-headings, and in-text
citations. Any submission which exceeds the (+/- 10%) allowance for the word count (i.e.,
~1100 words) will neither be read nor marked.

References: APA 7th style (excluded from the word count). Click here for more information
on the referencing style: APA 7th Style. Proper referencing is a Mandatory Submission
Requirement. Any decision to not reference in this paper will be regarded as a deliberate
request to be placed in the lower end of the available grades and actioned accordingly.

Submission: via Turnitin on Wattle.
Due Date: Friday, Week 4 (14.03.2025) @ 23:59

Late Submission: Late submission of the assessment task without a pre-approved extension
will be penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part
thereof. Assessment tasks submitted beyond 10 working days from the due date, or on or
after the specified return date in the Class Summary will not be accepted. All requests for
Assessment Adjustment (including Requests for Extension and for Consideration of
Extenuating Circumstances) should be submitted via ISIS.

Learning Objectives: LO1, LO3









Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
2

Assessment Description:
A new ministerial portfolio for Environment and Sustainability has been established in
Australia, and the Minister’s office has requested a briefing on a key sustainability issue to
inform the Minister’s speech at the opening of the Global Business Sustainability
Conference. Students will be tasked with critically analysing ONE of the three provided
sustainability issues and offering evidence-based recommendations to improve sustainability
outcomes. The briefing document should be grounded in academic literature, practical
examples, and key concepts from Weeks 1–3 of the course to ensure the Minister’s speech is
informed and persuasive to an audience of practitioners and academic sustainability
researchers.

Details:
A policy brief is a concise, well-structured document that presents a sustainability issue,
evaluates alternative approaches, and provides recommendations for action. Unlike
traditional essays or reports, a policy brief must be clear, practical, and persuasive to inform
an audience about a pressing problem and how to address it effectively. Your policy brief
should be structured clearly, supported by academic literature, concepts from the lecture
content, empirical sources (e.g., online news articles) and real-world examples, and
conclude with a practical, evidence-based recommendation.

Choice of Topics:
In this assessment, you will select ONE of the following topics to develop the policy brief:
• Combatting Greenwashing in the Food Industry: From Corporate Social
Irresponsibility to Corporate Social Responsibility
• E-Waste in the Consumer Electronics Industry: Moving from Social Marketing to
Sustainable Marketing for Waste Reduction
• Sustainable Tourism: Shifting from a Business-as-Usual (BAU) Model to a Triple
Bottom Line (TBL) Approach



Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
3

Policy Brief Structure:
The structure of the policy brief includes three components:

1. Purpose (~250–300 words)
Objective: Introduce the sustainability issue, establish its significance, and justify why
change is needed.

What to include:
Describe the issue clearly: What is the sustainability challenge? Provide a clear,
concise description so the reader understands the problem immediately.
Explain its broader impact: Discuss environmental, economic, or social implications.
Who is affected? How does this issue impact businesses, consumers, or
policymakers?
Use relevant data/statistics: Support your claims with evidence to highlight the
urgency. Cite data or statistics to show the scale of the problem.
Briefly outline the current approach: How is the current approach contributing to
this sustainability issue? (Hint: The topic specifies the current approach - refer to it
directly as the cause of the problem rather than a solution.)
Establish the need for change: Highlight why the alternative approach is needed,
leading into the next section. (Hint: The alternative approach is specified in the topic
- refer to it directly to create a clear transition into the next section.)

Avoid common mistakes:
Do not analyse the effectiveness of the current or alternative approach yet - just
introduce them.
Do not propose recommendations here - save them for the Recommendations
section.





Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
4

2. Critical Analysis (~450–500 words)
Objective: Compare the current approach and alternative approach, evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses to justify why the alternative approach is more effective.

What to include:
Provide a structured comparison:
• Describe the current approach in more depth: How does it work?
o Analyse its strengths: Are there any benefits?
o Analyse its weaknesses: Why is it ineffective or unsustainable?
• Introduce the alternative approach: Explain how it works.
o Analyse its strengths: How does it improve upon the current
approach? What makes it more effective in the long run?
o Address possible challenges: Are there limitations to the alternative
approach?
Use a real-life example:
• Find an industry example where the alternative approach has been
successfully implemented.
• Describe its impact and effectiveness with evidence (e.g., data/statistics).
Extract a key takeaway: What is the most important lesson from this comparison?
This should directly connect to your final recommendation.

Avoid common mistakes:
Do not simply describe the approaches - analyse them critically.

Do not introduce recommendations yet - focus on why the alternative approach is
better.






Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
5

3. Recommendations (~250–300 words)
Objective: Propose ONE specific, actionable, and evidence-based recommendation to
improve sustainability in the selected industry.

What to include:
Clearly state your recommendation:
• What specific change should be implemented? Ensure the change is aligned
with the alternative approach.
• How does it address the weaknesses of the current approach? Build on
insights from your critical analysis.
Identify responsible stakeholders:
• Who should take action? (e.g., businesses, government agencies, consumers,
NGOs)
• What role do they play in implementing the recommendation?
Explain the expected impact:
• How will this recommendation improve sustainability?
Provide a strong concluding statement:
• Reinforce the significance of your recommendation.
• Persuade the reader that taking action is necessary for long-term
sustainability.

Avoid common mistakes:
Do not repeat points from the analysis - focus on how to implement change.
Do not present vague or multiple recommendations - be specific and actionable.






Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
6

General Writing Tips:
• A policy brief is meant to be clear, evidence-based, and solution-focused. Avoid
excessive background information or vague language.
• Ensure logical flow: Purpose introduces the issue → Critical Analysis compares
approaches and justifies change → Recommendations propose actionable steps.
• Support your arguments with academic literature, lecture content, and empirical
sources (e.g., online news articles).
• Use headings (Purpose, Critical Analysis, Recommendations) to organize content
and improve readability.
• Maintain a professional presentation with appropriate fonts and formatting (Times
New Roman; 12 pt for body text, 14 pt for headings; 1.5 line spacing).
• Cite all sources using a consistent referencing style (APA 7th style).
• Carefully proofread your brief to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors.

Grading Scale (30-Mark Assessment):

Score Range (out of 30) Grade Performance Level
24–30 (≈ 80–100%) HD (High Distinction)
Outstanding performance. The work
demonstrates exceptional understanding,
critical analysis, and depth of insight with
strong supporting evidence and clear,
persuasive writing.
21–23 (≈ 70–79%) D (Distinction)
Strong performance. The work is well-
structured, well-reasoned, and demonstrates
strong analysis and use of evidence, with minor
areas for improvement.
18–20 (≈ 60–69%) CR (Credit)
Competent performance. The work meets
expectations with a good level of
understanding but lacks depth in analysis,
critical engagement, or evidence integration.
15–17 (≈ 50–59%) P (Pass)
Basic performance. The work demonstrates
minimal critical analysis, weak structure, and
limited use of evidence but meets the
minimum requirements.
0–14 (≈ 0–49%) N (Fail)
Unsatisfactory performance. The work does not
meet minimum expectations, lacks clarity,
critical engagement, and supporting evidence.
Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
7
Marking Rubric:
Criteria
Excellent
(6 points)
Good
(5 points)
Satisfactory
(4 points)
Needs Improvement
(3 points)
Limited
(2 points)
Unsatisfactory
(1 point)
Purpose
(Description, Impact
& Urgency)
The issue is clearly and
concisely defined, with a
strong justification
supported by highly
relevant data and real-
world context. The
current approach is
clearly linked to the
problem, demonstrating
deep understanding.
The issue is well-defined,
with good justification
and relevant data. The
current approach is
explained well, but the
link to the problem could
be stronger.
The issue is identified, but
explanation lacks depth
or strong data support.
Some relevant
implications are
discussed, but the
urgency is not strongly
justified. The current
approach is mentioned,
but its link to the problem
could be clearer.
The issue is not clearly
explained, or
justification is weak or
missing. The discussion
lacks clarity, with
limited supporting data.
The current approach is
mentioned, but its role
in causing the problem
is unclear.
The issue is barely
addressed or not
clearly linked to
sustainability. The
current approach is
either missing or
inaccurately
described. There is
little to no supporting
data or justification.
The issue is
incorrect, unclear,
or missing entirely.
No relevant
justification or
supporting data is
provided.
Critical Analysis
(Comparison,
Evidence &
Evaluation)
A thorough, well-
structured comparison
with strong critical
analysis. Both approaches
are clearly evaluated with
highly relevant academic
support. The real-world
example is well-
integrated, compelling,
and effectively
demonstrates the
superiority of the
alternative approach.
A clear, well-reasoned
comparison with good
analysis of both
approaches. The real-
world example is
relevant but could be
analyzed more deeply.
A basic comparison of the
current and alternative
approaches is presented,
but some analysis lacks
depth. Some strengths
and weaknesses are
discussed, but
connections to
sustainability outcomes
need more development.
The real-world example is
present but not fully
analyzed.
The comparison is
weak, lacking a clear
discussion of strengths
and weaknesses. There
is minimal critical
analysis, and the real-
world example is
unclear or poorly
applied. Some sources
are used, but they are
not well-integrated.
Minimal analysis with
little to no meaningful
comparison between
approaches. The real-
world example is
missing, unclear, or
not relevant. There is
little to no evidence
used to support
claims.
No meaningful
comparison or
critical analysis is
provided. The real-
world example is
absent or
completely
irrelevant. There is
no supporting
evidence.
Recommendations
(Clarity, Feasibility
& Justification)
The recommendation is
clear, specific, and highly
feasible. It is directly
The recommendation is
strong, with good
justification.
A recommendation is
present, but it lacks
depth, feasibility, or
The recommendation is
vague, overly broad, or
only loosely connected
The recommendation
is unclear, unrealistic,
or does not align with
No
recommendation
is provided, or the
Assessment Task 1
MKTG2002: Semester 1, 2025
8
Criteria
Excellent
(6 points)
Good
(5 points)
Satisfactory
(4 points)
Needs Improvement
(3 points)
Limited
(2 points)
Unsatisfactory
(1 point)
linked to the analysis,
with well-developed
implementation steps and
clearly assigned
responsibilities. The
conclusion is highly
persuasive and impactful.
Responsibilities and
implementation are
clearly outlined, but
some areas could be
more detailed. The
conclusion is effective
but not as impactful.
strong justification. The
implementation steps and
responsible stakeholders
are mentioned, but their
roles are not fully
developed. The
conclusion is persuasive
but could be stronger.
to the analysis. The
responsibility for
implementation is
unclear, and
justification is weak.
The conclusion lacks
impact.
the critical analysis.
No clear
implementation steps
or responsible
stakeholders are
provided. The
conclusion is weak or
missing.
recommendation
is completely
disconnected from
the analysis. No
stakeholders or
implementation
steps are
mentioned.
Evidence
(Sources, Integration
& Relevance)

Excellent use of academic
literature, lecture
content, and empirical
sources. Evidence is
highly relevant, well-
integrated, and
effectively supports
arguments. Sources are
properly cited and
demonstrate critical
engagement.
Good use of academic
and practical sources.
Evidence is relevant, but
some sources could be
more effectively
integrated. Minor gaps
in analysis.
Adequate use of sources
but lacks strong
integration. Some sources
are weakly analyzed. The
connection between
evidence and argument
could be stronger.
Minimal use of sources,
or sources are not
properly connected to
the argument. Some
evidence is outdated or
weakly applied.
Arguments are not well-
supported.
Poor use of sources.
Little connection
between evidence
and claims. Few
relevant citations.
Many claims lack
proper justification.
No use of relevant
sources or
evidence.
Arguments are
opinion-based and
unsupported. No
citations are
present.
Quality
(Clarity, Structure
& Writing)
Exceptionally clear, well-
structured, and concise
writing. The argument
flows logically and
persuasively. No grammar
or formatting issues.
Professional and engaging
tone.
Well-written and well-
organized. Minor clarity
or tone issues. Few
grammar or structural
problems. The argument
is coherent and easy to
follow.
Writing is generally clear
but may have some
awkward phrasing or
structural issues. Some
transitions could be
smoother, and minor
grammar issues may be
present.
Writing lacks clarity, is
disorganized, or has
frequent grammar
issues. The argument
structure is weak,
making it difficult to
follow.
Writing is unclear,
poorly structured,
and difficult to follow.
There are major
grammar or
formatting issues. The
argument lacks logical
flow.
Writing is
incoherent and
highly
disorganized.
Significant
grammar errors
make the work
very difficult to
understand. Ideas
lack logical
connection.

学霸联盟