INSTRUCTIONS

ASSESSMENT 1: CASE SUBMISSION
Case 1: BMW’s Electric Vehicle Supply
Chain: Risk and Human Rights (BMW)
Value: 10% (900 words, +/-10%)




Learning Outcomes
• Introduce the social pillar within the ESG framework
• Describe the key components of the social pillar: workforce and human
capital, value chain (suppliers and customers) and society and
communities
• Understand how social issues affect firm performance
• Discuss a framework to improve "social" performance
• Applying the technical knowledge to analyse how BMW can best deal
with the challenges relating to social factor risks, in particular, human
rights violations
• Understand how a trade-off can arise when companies need to balance
social and environmental challenges as markets grow.

Purpose

The report submission for Case 1 is based on two cases (Case 1A and Case 1B). The
first case (Case 1A) conceptualizes and investigates the inherent paradox between
social justice versus environmental sustainability in the procurement and production of
electric vehicles; and the second case (Case 1B) looks at how a specific electric vehicle
manufacturer, BMW, deals with such challenges.

Both cases introduces student to the social and environmental challenges that may arise
as markets grow, and how these can be manifested even in what is intended to be a
lean technology.

The first case (Case 1A) is intended as background material to help you gain an
understanding into the challenges facing an electric vehicle manufacturer. You
are then asked to answer the questions relating to the second case (Case 1B i.e.
the BMW case).

Synopsis for Case 1A:

In this case, we meet Peter, a Sustainable Procurement Manager in a fictional German
car manufacturer that is launching a new mass-market electric car. Peter has been
tasked with researching and recommending one of the two possible batteries for the new
car. One of these batteries has the major advantage of being considerably cheaper,
which would greatly reduce the price and increase the mass appeal of the new car, in
turn leading to lower transport emissions. However, Peter discovers that the company
supplying this cheaper battery is not transparent about their sources of cobalt and the
working conditions of miners, including the possible use of child labour.
The more Peter learns about the controversial social and environmental factors involved
in this procurement decision, the more he finds himself in a insoluble dilemma. On the
one hand, opting for the cheaper battery would help accelerate the transition to electric
mobility and more sustainable transport. On the other hand, going down this route
increases the risk of human rights violations in the sourcing of raw materials for the
batteries, especially in the extraction of cobalt.

Synopsis for Case 1B:
This case focuses on BMW, a German car manufacturer who is aggressively expanding
its electric vehicle line-up. The case illustrates the complexity of competing in a market
that is growing rapidly and in which a company can be exposed to new risks as it
engages with new suppliers in potentially troubling institutional environments.

Students are asked to consider what risks BMW faces as it expands its electric vehicle
lineup, how best to mitigate those risks, and how to deal with potential backlash from
stakeholders due to human rights violations that appear to be endemic to a key input for
electric vehicles.

Instructions

Your case submission must respond to the following questions:

1. What are some key facts about the industry, technology, or company that might be
important for understanding what BMW should (can) do?

2. What are the biggest risks BMW is facing as it tries to expand its electric vehicle line-
up?

3. How does the problem that BMW faces constitute a paradox? Explain this paradox in
your own words.

4. What are BMW’s options at this point? Which option is best to ensure BMW can
secure a reliable cobalt supply for its electric cars and maintain its commitment to
transparency?

5. What does the BMW case suggest about the challenges of balancing environmental,
social and governance (ESG) performance?

This case report should consolidate insights from both cases and incorporate your
responses to the points above. At a minimum, the discussion in your submitted case
study must be based on the resources you have been provided on Moodle (such as the
case studies and additional reading). You are also encouraged to back your arguments
with evidence/research, and must include a reference list of the sources in which any of
the content discussed is based on.

The following resource can be used as a template for referencing style, font, size,
graph, etc.:

● Case: Deforestation in Brazil (available at the end of this document)



Presentation requirements

• Word count: 900 words (+-10%)

• The Case report must be submitted on Moodle in a PDF document. It must be
logically organised and clearly structured.

• Double-space the text of your paper, and use Times New Roman or Arial. The font
size should be 12 pt. (you can follow the structure of the example provided below).

• Include page numbers (you can follow the structure of the example provided below).

• Save the file with the following title: Surname_Firstname_Case name (for example,
Smith_Jane_Apple Case.pdf). Five per cent (5%) will be deducted from the final
mark for the assessment if your file is not saved as a PDF, or with the correct
title format (refer to your rubric for details).

• All written components should be thoroughly proofread and edited.


Referencing requirements

• You are required to cite a minimum of 3 resources. You must fully reference any
material that you use.

• For this assignment you will use either the latest Chicago (Notes) or APA referencing
style. For guidance on how to reference and the different referencing styles, please
refer to this link .

• Your citations and Reference list DO NOT count towards your word limit.
Marking Criteria

Understand – This component assesses your understanding on the
social pillar of ESG and the major issues presented in the case studies.
This is assessed in Q1 and Q2 of this assessment.

/20
Synthesis – This component assesses your application of finance
concepts and theories related to the social/environment trade-off in the
case study, and is assessed in Q2 and Q3 of this assessment.

/20
Evaluation – This component assesses the evaluation of complex
problems and options, as well as interpretation of outcomes, and is
assessed in Q4 and Q5 of this assessment.

/30
Presentation – Case Study Analysis Format
Guideline on how to write a case study report
(Please note Title Page, Table of Content and Executive Summary are
not required)
/20
Presentation – Referencing

/10
Initial Mark /100
Penalties:


Assessment not saved as a PDF file (-5% penalty)


Assessment not saved with correct file name (-5% penalty)


Presentation requirements not followed to the extent they make the
assignment difficult to read (-5% penalty)


• Late submission of assessment (-5% penalty per day)
• Assessments submitted after 7 calendar days will not be marked.
• Chief examiners can waive a late penalty for up to 1 hour after the
assessment has been submitted if the student has experienced
technical difficulties.

Final Mark /100
Learning Objectives
& Criteria
HD
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at
an exceptional level, showing
fluency, originality and integration
of concepts

DN
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at a
superior level, showing fluency and
emerging originality and integration
of concepts.
CR
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and attributes
at a proficient level, showing
fluency in concepts.

P
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
attributes at a satisfactory
level.

Fail
Lack of satisfactory
demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
expected attributes.


Understand:
This component
assesses your
understanding on the
social pillar of ESG
and the major issues
presented in the case
studies. This is
assessed in Q1 and
Q2 of this assessment.

20 marks
Demonstrates insightful and
comprehensive understanding of
the main concepts and the case
study, and be able to accurately
identify all the issues arise in the
case study.

Mark: 16 – 20
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding of the main concepts
and the case study, and be able to
identify most of the issues arise in
the case study.

Mark: 14 – 15
Demonstrates developed
understanding of the main
concepts and the case study,
and be able to identify some of
the issues arise in the case
study.

Mark: 12 – 13
Demonstrates understanding
of the main concepts and the
case study, and be able to
identify some of the issues
arise in the case study.

Mark: 10 – 11
Demonstrates superficial
understanding of the main
concepts and the case study,
and fails to identify the issues
arise in the case study.

Mark: 0 – 9
Synthesis:
This component
assesses your
application of finance
concepts and theories
related to the
social/environment
trade-off in the case
study, and is assessed
in Q2 and Q3 of this
assessment.

Exceptional understanding and
application of relevant finance
concepts and theories to the case
studies. Demonstrates deep insight
and analysis of the case study,
revealing a comprehensive
articulation of the subject matter.

Mark: 16 – 20
Strong understanding and
application of relevant finance
concepts and theories to the case
studies. Demonstrates thorough
analysis of the case study,
revealing a solid articulation of the
subject matter.

Mark: 14 – 15
Good understanding and
application of relevant finance
concepts and theories to the
case studies. Demonstrates
competent analysis of the case
study, revealing a satisfactory
articulation of the subject
matter.

Mark: 12 – 13
Basic understanding and
application of relevant finance
concepts and theories to the
case studies. Demonstrates
basic analysis of the case
study, revealing a minimal
articulation of the subject
matter.

Mark: 10 – 11
Poor or no understanding and
application of relevant finance
concepts and theories to the
case studies. Demonstrates
little to no analysis of the case
study, revealing a lack of
articulation of the subject
matter.

Mark: 0 – 9
Learning Objectives
& Criteria
HD
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at
an exceptional level, showing
fluency, originality and integration
of concepts

DN
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at a
superior level, showing fluency and
emerging originality and integration
of concepts.
CR
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and attributes
at a proficient level, showing
fluency in concepts.

P
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
attributes at a satisfactory
level.

Fail
Lack of satisfactory
demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
expected attributes.

20 marks

Evaluation:
This component
assesses the
evaluation of complex
problems and options,
as well as
interpretation of
outcomes, and is
assessed in Q4 and
Q5 of this assessment.

30 marks
Exceptional evaluation of complex
problems and outcome
interpretation, justified by and
assumptions used in the evaluation
process. Excellent comprehension
on the implications for the case
study, demonstrating a deep
understanding of the subject
matter. Excellent research skills.

Mark: 24 – 30
Strong evaluation of complex
problems and outcome
interpretation, with most
assumptions stated. Strong
comprehension on the implications
for the case study, demonstrating a
solid understanding of the subject
matter. Strong research skills.

Mark: 21 – 23
Good evaluation of complex
problems and outcome
interpretation, with some
assumptions identified. Good
comprehension on the
implications for the case study,
demonstrating a basic
understanding of the subject
matter. Good research skills.

Mark: 18 - 20
Basic evaluation of complex
problems and outcome
interpretation, with minimal
identification of assumptions
and their implications for the
case study, demonstrating a
rudimentary understanding of
the subject matter. Basic
research skills.

Mark: 15 - 17
Poor or no evaluation of
complex problems and
outcome interpretation,
lacking identification or
analysis of underlying issues
and their implications for the
case study, demonstrating
little to no understanding of
the subject matter. Poor
research skills.

Mark: 0 - 14
Presentation

20 marks


The report clearly and consistently
explains the students' point of
view/opinion. Written expression
skillfully communicates meaning to
readers with clarity and fluency.
Within word limit.

Mark: 16 – 20
The report explains the student's
point of view/opinion with
considerable clarity and
consistence. Within word limit.

Mark: 14 – 15
The report attempts to explain
the student's point of
view/opinion, but this is not
always clear. Within word limit.

Mark 12 – 13
The report attempts to explain
the student's point of
view/opinion, but this is not
always clear. Response may
be significantly under or over
prescribed word limit.

Mark: 10 – 11
The student's point of view in
relation to their chosen
challenge is not present, or it
is unclear to the point that it is
incomprehensible. Response
may be significantly under or
over prescribed word limit.

Mark: 0 – 9

Learning Objectives
& Criteria
HD
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at
an exceptional level, showing
fluency, originality and integration
of concepts

DN
Demonstration of extended
knowledge, skills and attributes at a
superior level, showing fluency and
emerging originality and integration
of concepts.
CR
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and attributes
at a proficient level, showing
fluency in concepts.

P
Demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
attributes at a satisfactory
level.

Fail
Lack of satisfactory
demonstration of fundamental
knowledge, skills and
expected attributes.

Presentation –
Referencing

10 marks
A minimum of three resources (academic and grey literature) have been
used and referencing style is consistent.

Mark: 5 – 10
Fewer than three resources (academic and grey literature) used and referencing style is
inconsistent.

Mark: 0 – 4





Student name:
Monash ID:



Case : Deforestation in Brazil

Word count: ?


Deforestation in Brazil has risen dramatically over the past decade. Although I was
aware of some of the global impacts of deforestation, reading the article by Rausch
& Gibbs1 has enhanced my knowledge and understanding of this issue in Brazil. The
rapid expansion of soybean agriculture is one of the major factors contributing to
deforestation there. The reason behind this increase in production is a desire to
expedite development, however this has led to the destruction of vast natural areas
for the sole purpose of soybean cultivation.

This mode of development is contributing to the erosion of Brazil's fragile
ecosystems. Soybean production is threatening biodiversity hotspots, such as the
savannas and rainforests, and vulnerable local species are at risk of extinction.
Soybean production is also associated with high rates of soil erosion, compaction
and degradation. In addition to environmental harms, Indigenous populations are
being forced to relocate deeper into the rainforests to preserve their traditional
practices, and subsistence farmers are being pushed off the land to make way for
large-scale producers.2

There are multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that relate to this matter,
with the most important being, Goal 15 'Life on Land'. The UN estimates that almost
90 percent of global deforestation is due to agricultural expansion, which reflects the
situation of soybean production in Brazil today. By addressing this SDG several other
goals can be tackled by reducing poverty and inequalities (SDG 1), improving health
and well-being (SDG 3), and providing greater employment opportunities (SDG 10).





1 Rausch, Lisa L., and Holly K. Gibbs. 2016. "Property Arrangements and Soy Governance in the
Brazilian State of Mato Grosso: Implications for Deforestation-Free Production" Land, vol.5, no.2, 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020007
2 Fearnside, Philip 2017, "Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon"
Yale Environment 360, April 18, Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the
Brazilian
Amazon - Yale
E360;
Milhorance, Flavia 2022, "An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling
soy" Dialogo Chino, May 11, An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling soy
(dialogochino.net).
Doing this requires understanding the various stakeholders involved in the soybean
industry and the factors influencing production.

The intersection between soybean agriculture, deforestation and climate change is
complex. There are many different factors that are driving this issue and multiple
different stakeholders involved.3 The socio-ecological model is a conceptual
framework that shows how soybean cultivation contributes to deforestation, the
impact on different groups of people and the ecosystem.





As the socio-ecological model highlights, there are diverse economic, political and
social stakeholders and factors related to or affected by the soybean industry in
Brazil. Many subsistence farmers have lost their land and livelihoods to ranchers and
illegal land grabbers, or to local drug traffickers who control certain areas and
facilitate deforestation to fund their illegal activities. Without stronger legislation
around land claim titles and opportunities to gain employment in alternative
industries, small-scale farmers and landless migrants are pushed into further poverty

and heightened risk of exploitation.4



3 Fearnside, Philip. M. 2008, "The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of Brazilian
Amazonia", Ecology and Society, vol.13, no.1, 7-9.
4 Fearnside, "Roles and Movements", 15; Rausch & Gibbs "Property Arrangements", 6.
This conceptual framework also highlights how global food chains fuel the production
of soybeans which increases the price of soybeans and, consequently, their value to
institutions such as the Ministry of Agriculture who is not compelled to tighten the
Brazil Forest Code which strengthens measures to protect Brazil's natural
environment. However, some have noted that tightening the Brazil Forest Code may
force ranchers and landowners to curb their farmland expansion, but may also
negatively impact small-scale farmers and landless migrants by reducing labour and
agricultural opportunities.5

Recognising that factors and stakeholders at each level of the social ecology are
interconnected and have different consequences for diverse groups is therefore
critical to developing a holistic understanding of deforestation in Brazil and crafting
meaningful responses to this challenge.










































5 Rausch & Gibbs "Property Arrangements", 3.
Reference list

Fearnside, Philip. M. 2008, "The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation
of Brazilian Amazonia", Ecology and Society, vol.13, no.1, p1- 23.

Fearnside, Philip 2017, "Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the

Brazilian Amazon" Yale Environment 360, April 18, Business as Usual: A

Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon - Yale E360.

Milhorance, Flavia 2022, "An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling soy"

Dialogo Chino, May 11, An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling
soy

(dialogochino.net).

Rausch, Lisa L., and Holly K. Gibbs. 2016. "Property Arrangements and Soy
Governance in the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso: Implications for
Deforestation-Free Production" Land, vol.5, no.2, p.1-7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020007


学霸联盟