MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0

Page 1 of 2
Criteria Unsatisfactory Below
expectation
Pass Credit Distinction High distinction
Demonstrates
knowledge of
Tractor Supply
and the selected
critical issue using
the 5W framework
Demonstrates little or
no knowledge of
Tractor Supply and
the selected critical
issue.
Lacks details and
context.
No use of the 5W
framework.
Knowledge of Tractor
Supply and the critical
issue is weak and
super@cial.
Limited or incorrect use
of the 5W framework.
May include factual
inaccuracies.
Shows basic knowledge of
Tractor Supply and the
critical issue, though the
analysis is generic.
Evidence is correct with no
major mistakes, but
application of the 5W
framework may be limited.
Shows solid understanding of
the facts surrounding Tractor
Supply and the critical issue,
with appropriate and accurate
evidence. The 5W framework is
adequately applied.
Demonstrates a thorough grasp
of Tractor Supply and the
critical issue, showcasing a
comprehensive understanding
of the topic’s complexities.
The 5W framework is applied
effectively, and evidence
presented is both appropriate
and extensive.
Develops an insightful and
comprehensive discussion of
Tractor Supply and the critical
issue, fully integrating the 5W
framework.
Evidence is not only
appropriate and extensive but
also demonstrates original
insights, showing a deep
understanding of the issue’s
nuances.
Mark: 0 Mark: 3 Mark: 5 Mark: 7 Mark: 8 Mark: 10
PESTEL analysis
and summary of
the selected
critical issue
PESTEL analysis is
missing.
PESTEL analysis is
incorrectly or poorly
applied. It is applied
generically without
focus on the critical
issue. Summary is
generic
PESTEL analysis is largely
applied correctly but may
be generic. Summary
shows some understanding
but lacks depth.
PESTEL analysis is correctly
applied. Summary
demonstrates some depth of
understanding of the critical
issue.
Uses the PESTEL analysis in an
appropriate manner. Summary
shows critical thinking about the
critical issue.
Uses the PESTEL analysis in
an appropriate manner.
Summary shows critical
thinking of the critical issue,
creating deep insights.
Mark: 0 Mark: 3 Mark: 5 Mark: 7 Mark: 8 Mark: 10
Analysis of key
ethical/
sustainability
concerns
Fails to incorporate
SDGs, ethical
framework(s) and
other course
concepts in the
analysis of the ethical
issue.

Incorporates SDGs,
ethical framework(s),
or course concepts,
but the connection to
the ethical issue is
unclear,
underdeveloped, or
lacks critical insight.
The analysis remains
super@cial, and
additional sources are
minimal, offering little
to support the
argument.
Incorporates relevant
SDGs, ethical framework(s),
or other course concepts in
the analysis, though the
discussion may be
somewhat surface-level or
lacking complexity.
The analysis shows an
understanding of the issue
but may not be well-
integrated.
Uses fewer than three
additional academic
sources to support the
analysis.
Demonstrates a clear and
competent use of SDGs, ethical
framework(s), and other course
concepts to analyse the ethical
issue.
Draws on course concepts and
at least 3 additional academic
sources.
The analysis is mostly well-
developed, though some
aspects could bene@t from
further depth or complexity.
Provides a detailed and
insightful analysis of the ethical
issue, with a strong integration
of SDGs, ethical framework(s),
and other course concepts.
Draws on at least 3 additional
academic sources which
effectively strengthen the
analysis.
The analysis demonstrates a
good understanding of
complexity and nuance related
to the critical issue.
Offers a sophisticated and in-
depth analysis that fully
integrates SDGs, ethical
framework(s), and other
course concepts to explore the
ethical issue.
The analysis demonstrates a
deep understanding of the
issue’s complexity, with critical
insights and originality.
At least 3 academic sources
are expertly used and
seamlessly support the
analysis.
Mark: 0 Mark: 9 Mark: 15 Mark: 21 Mark: 24 Mark: 30
MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0

Page 2 of 2
Recommendation
s
No recommendations
proposed.
Proposes
recommendations, but
they are minimal, vague,
impractical, or irrelevant
to the critical issue.
Provides 2-3 reasonable
recommendations that
address the critical issue.
Risks related to the
recommendations are
identi@ed but may not be
fully explored. Mitigation
strategies are proposed but
lack detail or are somewhat
generic. OR only provides a
single, well-developed
recommendation.
Offers 2-3 clear and relevant
recommendations that are well-
aligned with the critical issue.
Risks are identi@ed and
discussed with some depth,
and feasible mitigation
strategies are provided, though
there may be room for further
elaboration.
Proposes 2-3 strong, well-
justi@ed recommendations that
thoroughly address the critical
issue. Risks are clearly
identi@ed and discussed in
detail, with thoughtful and
practical mitigation strategies
provided.

Provides 2-3 insightful,
innovative, and highly relevant
recommendations that not only
address the critical issue but
also demonstrate a deep
understanding of the broader
context. Risks are
comprehensively identi@ed and
critically analysed, with
creative and highly effective
mitigation strategies proposed.
Mark: 0 Mark: 5 Mark: 8 Mark: 11 Mark: 12 Mark: 15
Reflection on
learning

Reflection is absent,
generic, or unrelated
to the course and
assignment. Lacks
personal insight or
meaningful
engagement with the
material.
Provides minimal self-
disclosure with
super@cial connections
to personal
experiences. Lacks
depth in reflection,
failing to engage with
assessment experience
or course material. May
contain factually
incorrect information.
Attempts to connect
personal experiences to
course concepts, but
reflection may be limited or
cautious. Some links to the
assessment are made, but
analysis lacks depth or a
critical approach.
Reflection connects course
concepts to personal growth.
Engages in honest self-
appraisal with some concrete
examples from the course,
though some aspects may still
lack depth.
Demonstrates an open,
reflective, and non-defensive
self-appraisal. Thoughtfully
considers opportunities for
growth, using concrete
examples to show integration of
learning and personal
development.
Provides a deep, insightful
reflection with a strong ability
to self-appraise. Engages
critically with personal
experiences, exploring both
growth and challenges.
Effectively integrates course
concepts and personal
learning, asking and answering
probing questions about self.
Mark: 0 Mark: 6 Mark: 10 Mark: 14 Mark: 16 Mark: 20
Structures text
logically and
coherently and
communicates
clearly, concisely,
and professionally
Poor structure with
inappropriate use of
lists and excessive
quotes. Section
requirements not
followed. Frequent
grammar errors make
meaning unclear.
Unprofessional
presentation. Outside
word limit.
Weak structure with
poorly developed
paragraphs and weak
transitions. Frequent
grammar errors make
meaning unclear.
Follows section
requirements but lacks
professionalism. Meets
word limit.
Adequately structured with
some weak transitions
between paragraphs
and/sections. Minor spelling
mistakes but meaning is
clear. Sections contain
sentence structure or word
choice issues which
impacts readability.

Well-organised sections that
mostly engage the reader.
Clear, mostly error-free
language appropriate for the
audience. Some complex ideas
explained well. Few spelling or
grammar mistakes that do not
impede understanding.
Sections are well-sequenced,
easy to follow, and effectively
engage the reader. Well-
constructed paragraphs with
effective transitions. Expresses
complex ideas, arguments and
information using clear, concise
language. Minimal errors, with
no impact on understanding.
Sections are of publishable
quality, consistently engaging.
Ideas are presented with clarity
and depth. Fluent, accurate
expression with no grammar or
spelling mistakes. Professional
tone throughout.

Mark: 0 Mark: 3 Mark: 5 Mark: 7 Mark: 8 Mark: 10
References sources
using Harvard
referencing system.
Inaccurate or no
references.
This &eld has been left
intentionally blank.
This &eld has been left
intentionally blank.
Demonstrates some referencing
pro@ciency.
This &eld has been left
intentionally blank.
Error free use of Harvard
referencing system.
Mark: 0 Mark: 3 Mark: 5


学霸联盟