MGMT5050 Case Study Assignment seven steps of ethical decision making – Marking Rubric T1 2023
MGMT5050 – Case Study Assignment applyimg seven steps of ethical decision making Marking Rubric
T1 2023
Criteria Unacceptable
Unsatisfactory
Pass
Credit
Distinction
High Distinction
Demonstrates knowledge of the
company in context of the course
10 Marks
Demonstrates little or no knowledge
of the company
Marks: 0
Knowledge of the company is weak,
and superficial.
There are discrepancies in the level
of analysis of the selected issue and
the evidence presented.
No real application of models to
identify issues. There are multiple
inaccuracies in the facts, names of
important individuals, events and/or
relationships.
Marks: 4
This field has been intentionally left
blank
Shows solid understanding of the
facts of the company with
appropriate Evidence presented for
the issue selected as the theme of
the report.
Marks: 7
Demonstrates a thorough grasp of
the company in context to ethical
issues and SDGs, appropriate for the
issue selected as the theme of the
case study.
Evidence presented is appropriate
and extensive for the issue and level
of analysis.
Marks: 8
Develops a well-integrated statement
of the complexity of the company in
relation to the issue selected.
Evidence presented is appropriate and
extensive for the issue and level of
analysis.
Marks:10
Applies 5 Ws and PESTEL to the
company with insight
15 Marks
PESTEL or 5 Ws missing
Marks 0
PESTEL or 5 Ws used but generic
and lacks links to actual organisation
in context of the course
Marks 5
This field has been intentionally left
blank
PESTEL and 5 Ws are generally used.
There are no inaccuracies in the
names of important individuals,
events and/or relationships.
Marks 10.5
Solid and applied use of PESTEL and
5 Ws. There are no inaccuracies in
the names of important individuals,
events and/or relationships.
Marks 12
Solid and applied use of PESTEL and 5
Ws to gain insight. There are no
inaccuracies in the names of important
individuals, events and/or
relationships
Marks 15
Critically analyses the company
actions with SDGs and Ethical
frameworks
20 Marks
Ethical frameworks and or SDGs are
incorrectly or poorly applied or
lacking
Marks 0
Ethical frameworks and SDGs are
applied in a literal sense lacking
depth of understanding
Marks 6
This field has been intentionally left
blank
Uses the appropriate ethical
academic frameworks linked to
SDGs
Marks 14
Uses the appropriate ethical
academic frameworks ilinked with
SDGs n a critical manner
Marks 16
Uses the appropriate ethical academic
frameworks linked with SDGs in a
critical manner with depth of
understanding
Marks 20
Applies 7 steps of ethical decision
making with links to other
appropriate academic concepts,
theories and research
20 Marks
No academic sources used
Marks: 0
Fails to apply the 7 step model and
or Uses less than the required
compulsory sources and/or too few
additional sources to critically
analyse the case study.
Marks: 6
Uses 7 steps and Identifies and
describes concepts and theories
appropriate for the issues identified
in the company by drawing on
appropriate course resources and
the 3 additional researched
academic sources. There is little
acknowledgement of alternative
courses of action.
Marks: 12
Applies 7 steps and Engages in some
critical analysis of the problem (s)
drawing on appropriate course
resources and the 3 additional
researched academic sources.
The report presents a discussion of
possible alternative courses of
action.
Marks 14
Applies the 7 steps to engage in
critical analysis of the problem
drawing at least 3 additional
academic sources and course
resources.
Demonstrates a thorough grasp of
the company and of complex
theoretical and conceptual models
and identifies and supports a
number of possible and realistic
alternatives. The integration of
concept to case study may on
occasion be cumbersome.
Marks 16
Applies the 7 steps to present a
sophisticated critical analysis of the
problem incorporating at least the 3
additional academic sources to course
resources leading to a sophisticated
and complex analysis of the problem,
as well as to the identification and
discussion of realistic alternatives.
Marks: 20
MGMT5050 Case Study Assignment seven steps of ethical decision making – Marking Rubric T1 2023
Highlights SDG or ethical problem
with recommendations/solution
(s) to the problem(s) based on
sound evidence and concepts /
theories
15 Marks
No SDG or ethical problem
recommendations/solution
proposed in the report.
Marks: 0
Describes SDG or ethical problem
makes recommendations/ solution
to the case study. There is little
evidence to link the proposed
solution to the analysis of the
problem or alternatives.
Not attempt to identify any
problems or risks with the proposed
solution.
Marks:5
Proposed SDG or ethical problem
recommendations/solution is based
on solid evidence from the case
study with descriptive support of
appropriate theories and concepts.

There may be some attempt at
identifying potential risks, although
these may be cursory at best.
Marks: 9
Proposed SDG or ethical problem
recommendations/ solution clearly
drawn from an analysis of
alternative courses of action. There
is evidence that this process has
been supported by appropriate
theories and concepts.
The report describes potential risks
with the selected solution.
Marks: 10.5
Proposed SDG or ethical problem
recommendations/ solution clearly
drawn from an analysis of
alternative courses of action. The
proposed solution clearly addresses
the identified issue(s) and is
supported by a detailed analysis of
appropriate academic theories and
concepts.
The report identifies and analyses
potential risks with the selected
solution.
Marks: 12
Proposed SDG or ethical problem is
addressed with a sophisticated
recommendation/ solution clearly
drawn from an analysis of alternative
courses of action. The proposed
solution clearly addresses the
identified issue(s) and is supported by
a thorough and complex analysis of
appropriate academic theories and
concepts.
The report provides a well-developed
discussion of the possible risks with
the selected solution, risk mitigation
strategies and appropriate evaluation
techniques.
Marks: 15
Poses discussion question
5 marks
Does not include a discussion
question or question that is
irrelevant or generic without course
links.
Marks 0
Poses a relvant discussion question
to stimulate course linkages – may
lack full alignment with the report
submitted.
Marks 3.5
Poses a deeply considered question to
stimulate course linkagaes clearly
aligned to the report submitted.
Marks: 5
Structures text logically and
coherently and communicates
clearly and concisely
10 Marks
The report is poorly structured;
primarily a list/ bullet points.
Excessive reliance on quotes
The document may include exhibits,
tables or appendices, however their
presence is not explained and their
relevance to the case study is
tenuous.
Does not express (or explain where
necessary) complex ideas and
information clearly in language
appropriate for the intended
audience and purpose (using own
words where possible).
Excessive use of informal/
inappropriate language (eg ‘txt’
language, contractions, slang) poor
sentence construction (incomplete
sentences),
Poor paragraph structure (ie 1 or 2
sentence paragraphs)
Uses inaccurate
expression/grammar which often
makes meaning unclear.
Marks: 1
The report is poorly structured;
introduction and/or conclusion not
clear or effective; body not clearly
structured; paragraphs/sections not
well-developed; ineffective
transitions between paragraphs
and/or sections.
The report includes exhibits, tables
or appendices, the inclusion of some
may not be clear. They are
consistently labeled although the
reader may not be directed to them
in the text.
Does not express (or explain where
necessary) complex ideas and
information clearly in language
appropriate for the intended
audience and purpose (using own
words where possible).
Excessive use of informal/
inappropriate language (eg ‘txt’
language, contractions, slang) Poor
sentence construction (incomplete
sentences),
Poor paragraph structure (ie 1 or 2
sentence paragraphs)
Uses inaccurate
expression/grammar which often
makes meaning unclear.
Marks: 2.5
The report is structured with an
appropriate introduction and
conclusion. Transition between
paragraphs could be improved.
The exhibits, tables and appendices
are for the most part appropriate
and contribute to the reader’s
understanding of the case study and
issue. They are consistently labeled
and the reader is directed to each of
them at appropriate points
throughout the text.
Generally, but not consistently,
expresses (and explains where
necessary) complex ideas and
information clearly in language
appropriate for the intended
audience and purpose (using own
words as much as possible).
Some spelling mistakes, use of
contractions, poor sentence
construction (incomplete
sentences), inappropriate / informal
word choice, such as “text”
language, spelling, or slang
Poor paragraph structure (ie 1 or 2
sentence paragraphs)
Marks: 5
The report is effectively organised
and for the most part engages the
reader’s interest. The sequence/
structure supports the central
theme and argument. The text
spends appropriate amount of
words on details
The exhibits, tables and appendices
are for the most part appropriate
and contribute to the readers
understanding of the case study and
issue. They are consistently labeled
and the reader is directed to each of
them at appropriate points
throughout the text.
Generally, but not consistently,
expresses (and explains where
necessary) complex ideas and
information clearly in language
appropriate for the intended
audience and purpose (using own
words as much as possible).
Some spelling mistakes and rare use
of contractions, no informal word
choice, such as “text” language,
spelling, or slang; mainly paragraph
structure
Marks: 7
The report is well sequenced, easy to
follow and for the most part engages
the reader’s interest. The
arrangement of ideas enhances the
reader’s understanding. There are
unified paragraphs and graceful
transitions.
The exhibits, tables and appendices
are appropriate and contribute to
the readers understanding of the
case study and issue. They are
consistently labeled and the reader
is directed to each of them at
appropriate points throughout the
text.
Expresses (and explains where
necessary) complex ideas,
arguments and information clearly
and concisely in language
appropriate for the intended
audience and purpose (using own
words as appropriate).
No spelling mistakes and rare use of
contractions, no informal word
choice, such as “text” language,
spelling, or slang; well constructed
paragraphs
Marks: 8
The report is of publishable quality,
and consistently engages the reader’s
interest. The arrangement of ideas
enhances the reader’s understanding
of the case study and demonstrates
depth of knowledge. There are unified
paragraphs and graceful transitions.

The exhibits, tables and appendices
are appropriate and contribute to the
readers understanding of the case
study and issue. They are
consistently labeled and the reader is
directed to each of them at
appropriate points throughout the
text.
Consistently expresses (and explains
where necessary) complex ideas,
arguments and information clearly and
concisely in language appropriate for
the intended audience and purpose
(using own words as appropriate).
Uses fluent, accurate
expression/grammar
No spelling mistakes, absence of
contractions, appropriate tone, well
constructed paragraphs
Marks: 10
MGMT5050 Case Study Assignment seven steps of ethical decision making – Marking Rubric T1 2023
Presents text professionally and
references sources accurately
5Marks
Does not present document at a
professional standard, e.g.
- No evidence of editing
(frequent spelling/
punctuation errors)
- Document does not follow
formatting requirements
- Style is not appropriate or
sufficiently formal for the
specific business/academic
context
No sources cited.
And/or
Report is outside the word limit
boundaries (ie too short or too long)
Mark: 0
Does not present document at a
professional standard, e.g.
- Little evidence of editing
(numerous spelling/
punctuation errors)
- Document does not follow
formatting requirements
- Style is not appropriate or
sufficiently formal for the
specific business/academic
context
Does not reference sources
appropriately/ accurately in-text, or
in reference list using Harvard (in
text) style).

Report conforms to word limit
boundaries
Mark: 1
This field has been intentionally left
blank
Presents document at a satisfactory
professional standard, e.g.:
- Some evidence of editing (only
minor spelling/ punctuation
errors)
- conforms to all but 2-3
formatting requirements
- Style and presentation are
appropriate and sufficiently
formal for the specific
business/ academic context
References sources in-text and in
reference list mainly accurately
using Harvard (in text) style).
Report conforms to word limit
boundaries
Mark: 3.5
This field has been intentionally left
blank
Professional presentation, e.g.:
- Evidence of thorough editing
(e.g., no or negligible spelling
/punctuation errors)
- conforms to all formatting
requirements
- Style and presentation are
highly appropriate for the
specific business/academic
context
References all sources in-text and in
reference list accurately using Harvard
(in-text) Style.
Report conforms to word limit
boundaries.
Mark: 5