32264 – Business Management Suite


University of Birmingham



Module Code

Business Management Suite


Thisassignmentprovidesanopportunitytothinkcriticallyabouttherolebusinessesplay within society and their responsibilities to different groups (i.e., stakeholders) within it.

Assignment Task:



Critically analyse the arguments for and against the view that the social responsibility of a businessshouldonlybetoitsownersanddeterminewhetherthisviewiscompatiblewith the world we live in today.

Assignment Instructions:

Forthisassignment,you needtodothe following:

  1. RefamiliariseyourselfwiththelecturecontentofWeek3,alongwiththerelated seminar. This session covers the learning most relevant to answering this question (though you may draw on other weeks to support your analysis). You should also be prepared to further research the topic, in particular, via the readings provided in ResourceList.
  2. Using the information gathered in (1), critically analyse the topic set out in the above question. Here, we are looking for you to develop a well-supported and logical conclusion based on the description, analysis, and evaluation of relevant conceptual theories and perspectives.


Tip: While you are not required to apply module content to a case in this assignment, you may find it helpful to support your analysis with some empirical (“realworld”)application.Forinstance,youcouldidentifyillustrativeexamplesor consider the significance of changes over time in the social, economic, and environmental contexts in which businesses exist and upon which theories were developed.

  1. Building on your analytical work in (2), craft an essay that presents your findings, along with a reasoned conclusion. It doesn’t matter which side you are on (or to whatextentyoudecideabsolutelyeitherway),justthatyoubaseyourconclusion on an informed and balanced critical analysis.
  2. Remember:Agoodessayisbasedonawell-supportedanalysis,not unsupported opinions:
    • Be sure to draw on (and explicitly make reference to and cite) the conceptsandtheorieswe’vecoveredinclasstoguideyouranalysisand underpin your argument.
    • Youshouldalsosupport (i.e.,properlyreferenceandcite)anyempirical (“real world”) claims or facts you provide, for instance, by citing reputable media outlets (e.g., Financial Times), civil society organisations(e.g.,Greenpeace)orcompanyandgovernmentwebsites.



  • 2000-wordlimit(excludingthereference list)
  • Personalinformationshouldbeavoidedtoaidanonymisedmarking
  • Anacademic essaystructure shouldbe used(guidancehere)
  • Aneasilyreadable font(e.g.,Arial) shouldbeused throughout
  • Thefont sizeshould be11 or 12
  • Double-linespacing shouldbe used throughout
  • Referencesshouldbe citedusingin-text citations(i.e.,Harvard Referencing)
  • Pagesshould be numbered

NB- Failureto followthese guidelineswill affectyour performancein this assignment.


CoverSheetand Submissions

  • You must download the Cover Sheet and use this as the first page of your assignment.Youmaywanttousethisfromthestartoryoucanpastethewhole page into the document afterwards.
  • Saveyourdocument-donotincludeyournameinthefilenameoranywhereelse in the document.
  • YouneedtouploadaWordorPDFDocumentasyourmainassignment(including the cover sheet page) unless otherwise instructed.
  • Appendicesandothersupportingdocumentsshouldbeuploadedto the same submission by using the [+] Add another file
  • DonotuseGoogleDocsforsubmittingyourassignmentasitwillnotbepossiblefor it to be marked.


  • Ifyouarehavingtechnicalproblemssubmittingpleaseseeourhelppage:SubmittingYour Assignment.
  • Foradviceonviewingyourgradeandfeedbackpleasesee:ViewingyourMarksandFeedback FAQ



Module Learning Outcomes:



  • Demonstrateatheoreticallyinformedanalysisofthereasonswhybusinesses may choose to act irresponsibly.
  • Evaluatedifferentbusinessprocessesandpracticesfromaresponsible business perspective.
  • Articulatetherisksandopportunitiesassociatedwithresponsibleand irresponsible businesses.


Pleasesee themarking rubricprovided below.



BothSummativeandFormativefeedbackisgiventoencouragestudentstoreflectontheir learning that feed forward into following assessment tasks. The preparation for all assessment tasks will be supported by formative feedback within the tutorials/seminars.

Writtenfeedbackisprovidedasappropriate.Pleasebeawaretousethebrowserandnot the Canvas App as you may not be able to view all comments.


Itisyourresponsibilitytoensurethatyouunderstandcorrectreferencingpractices.Youare expected to use appropriate references and keep carefully detailed notes of all your information sources, including any material downloaded from the Internet. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are not vulnerable to any alleged breaches of the assessment regulations. More information is available at https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx.

Useof Generative AI:

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, students should assume that the use of generative AI withinanassessmentorassignmentisnotpermitted.Anyassessmentsubmittedthatisnot a student’s own work, including that written by generative AI tools, are in breach of the University’s Code of Practice on Academic Integrity (https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx


The process for Extenuating Circumstances is to support students who have experienced unforeseen issues that have impacted their ability to engage with their studies and/or completeassessments.StudentsshouldnotifyWellbeingofanyextenuatingcircumstances as soon as possible via the online form, following the guidance provided.




Marking Rubric:


Criteria Excellent Good Proficient Developing Poor
Response to the brief – the extent and proficiency to which the specifics of the assignmenttaskhavebeen attempted and completed


Provides an exceptionally high-quality response to the specifics of the brief, which is both comprehensiveandnovel. Instructions have been followed completely. Provides a complete and effective response to the brief.Taskinstructionshave been accurately followed, albeitwithsomeminorgaps or errors. Provides a broadly appropriateresponsetothe brief, which delivers the core elements of the task. Some elements are better than others, and there may be some gaps or errors. Providesapartialresponse tothebrief,withdeviation and/or omission from the task instructions. May contain apparent misunderstanding or oversimplification of the


Doesnotaddressthebrief in any meaningful way.

Content provided is not at allrelevant,andinstructions have not been followed.

Suggestion of material misunderstandingofthe required task.

Conceptual themes – the extent to which relevant theoretical concepts and practice-basedframeworks (e.g., UN SDGs) are accurately recalled, critically discussed and applied – 25% Shows comprehensive understandingofrelevant conceptual themes.

Demonstrates a very thoroughgraspofacademic and practice-based ideas.

Shows attention to detail and a highly developed ability to engage in critical discussionandapplication.

Conceptualthemesarewell developed and applied.

Showsadetailedandvaried understanding of core and related themes.

Demonstrates a very good grasp of key academic and practice-basedideas.Shows an ability to engage in critical discussion.

Demonstrates a mostly accurateknowledgeofcore module themes. Draws explicitly on key academic and practice-based ideas. Shows an awareness of concepts and related literatures introduced within the module. May containing some attempts at critical discussion Shows some basic awareness of relevant conceptual themes, albeit limited bymisunderstandingorgapsin knowledge. Generally descriptive with anapparent absence of critical thinking or application. Nomeaningfulengagement with concepts and theory from relevant literature.

Similarly,noengagement with relevant practice- based frameworks.

Suggestive of material misunderstandingorgapsin knowledge.

Analytical fluency – the extent to which a submissiondemonstratesa critical and informed examination of a given topic – 25% An extremely well- developed, coherent analyticalargumentwhich systematically draws on conceptual themes.

Excellent integration of appropriatecontemporary, real-world contexts and relevant theory.

Argumentationdisplays novelty, critique, and balance.

Shows an ability to go beyonddescriptionand engage in analytical discussion of a topic.

Analyticalconclusionsare clearly informed by conceptual themes.

Argumentationdisplays levels of critical and evaluative thinking.

Shows an ability to bring together and describe information relevant to a topic. Conclusions havelinks to conceptual themes, though these may be vague orimplicitattimes.Thinking appears broadly logical but is not always fully explained or evidenced. Shows an ability to discuss details relevant to a topic butwithlittleornoexplicit connection to specific conceptual themes or empirical support.

Discussioniseitherbased on description or unsupportedopinion,and the logic may be unclear.

No attempt to integrate conceptual themes into the discussion. Discussion entirelydescriptiveorbased on unsupported assertions. Suggests material issues in terms of balance and/or accuracy.



– the extent to which a submissionisclearlyand appropriatelystructured and presented – 15%

Structured and presented in a highly effective way. Displaysexceptionallyclear thought. Fluency, overall comprehension, and linkages between points are extremely well developed. Consistently tidy, well organised, and in line with task instructions. Uses appropriate formatting (e.g., paragraphs) to structure and present the submission in an effective manner.Consistentlygood grammar and


Structuredandpresentedin a broadly coherent manner and in line with the key requirements of the task.

Occasional issues with formatting (e.g., paragraphs), grammar, and/orcomprehension.

Generally untidy and disorganised,withsome areas hard to follow.

Regular issues with formatting (e.g., paragraphs),grammar, and/orcomprehension hinder clarity.

Untidyanddisorganised,to the point where it is consistently difficult to follow. Extremely poor presentation or deviates materially from the instructions provided.
Referencing practice – the accurate and consistentuse of correct (Harvard- style)referencingpractice- 10% Near flawless referencing using the Harvard-style method. Conceptual and empiricalclaimsarereliably referenced from high- quality and varied sources. Extensive and consistent referencing of relevant support. Conceptual and empirical claims are consistently supported. Harvard-style in-text referencing is used accuratelyandeffectively. A reasonable effort has been made to reference relevant support. Main conceptualandempirical claims are supported.

Harvard-stylereferencingis used, albeit with some formatting errors or omissions.

Generallypoorreferencing, with significant gaps, formatting errors, and/or weaksourceusage.Correct referencing conventions have not been followed.

Missingeitherreferencelist or in-text references.

No meaningful attempt made to reference academic or empirical sources, irrespective of specificconventions.No reference list or in-text referencesareprovided.