Fast Moving Consumer Goods: FMCG Unethical Practices Report: Avoid Common
3 min read
Fast Moving Consumer Goods: ASSIGNMENT DETAILS
Please refer to the marking criteria (below) for a breakdown of how the tasks will be marked.
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS
|
Assessment Method |
LO’s Met |
|
Weighting |
|
Individual written report of 2,500 words |
All Los of the module are met |
100% |
|
Students are required to choose a FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) brand that fulfils the below criteria:
– The brand has been involved in unethical practices between 2000 – 2023.
– The brand can originate or operate anywhere in the world.
– The brand can still be operating or have ceased to operate.
– The brand is chosen after the student has verified that enough information from the prospective company and their external environment is available.
Assessment Criteria
| MARKING CRITERIA | MARK WEIGHT | FAIL (0–49%) | PASS (50–59%) | COMMENDATION (60–69%) | DISTINCTION (70–100%) |
|
Introductory section including business ethics, unethical business practices and referencing
|
15 | Exhibits an unsatisfactory grasp of the issues. Primarily descriptive and lacking in independent critical thought. Weak or no attempt at analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Little evidence of ability to tackle the issues. Poor structure/grammar. | Satisfactory grasp of the issues, with limited independent critical thought appropriate to the tasks. Material is largely relevant to the tasks. Some evidence of analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Work is presented in acceptable manner, with some minor errors. | Good/very good understanding of the issue with some independent critical thought and approach to the tasks. Good attempt at analysis, synthesis and critical reflection, with evidence of some ability to tackle issues. Work is clearly presented in a fairly well-organised manner. | Excellent level of understanding. All requirements are dealt with to a high standard. Excellent analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Evidence of independent and original judgement in relation to resolution of problems. Excellently presented. |
|
Analysis 1: Moral Philosophical Bases Choose three of the moral philosophical bases and critically evaluate how the company followed (or not) the three bases you have chosen, that led to the identified unethical behaviours/scandal. (Around 900 words, LO1 and LO5). |
30 | ||||
|
Analysis 2: Ethical Decision-Making or Social Accounting Explain the theoretical aspect of the ethical decision making or social accounting. Then critically apply the ethical decision making or social accounting theories on the chosen brand’s unethical practices. (Around 500 words, LO1 and LO5). |
20 | ||||
|
Analysis 3: Leadership • Critically evaluate the leadership style of the company. |
15 | ||||
|
Recommendations and Conclusions • Identify three recommendations that are concrete and derived from the unethical practices that have been analysed in the report. (Around 300 words). |
20 |
For further reading, see this external resource.
You can also explore more resources on our website.
