UMED4L-15-M The Sustainable Organisation: Vision into Practice 2020-21

GET ANSWERS FOR ALL ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment brief

Choose an organisation, part of an organisation, or a significant project which you wish to study for this assignment. It may be your own workplace or another organisation which you are familiar with or interested in. Drawing on the concepts, models and practices covered in the module, and on your own, module-informed position and understanding of sustainable organising, you are required to :

Consider and describe available evidence of the chosen organisation’s current approach to sustainability and their response to sustainability challenges.(~400-500 words)

Critically evaluate the organisation’s approach, including the effectiveness of their currently implemented measures and practices.(~ 800-1000 words)
Suggest and justify up to 2 key sustainability concerns the organisation should prioritise in the future, and recommend effective solutions (tools, practices, organising and leadership principles) (~ 1000-1200 words)
Include a brief personal reflection on your learning from the module (up to 500 words)

The word-count of your report: 3000 (+/- 10%)

Deadline: 6 May 2021

In researching for, and writing your assignment you are expected to: draw on the course materials and recommended reading for a range of concepts and analytical techniques; make use of desk based research (secondary sources such as books, journals, government publications and company reports in the public domain) and/or your own primary data (e.g. a questionnaire or interviews); show ability to conceive imaginative proposals which reflect the complexity of the organisation’s environment. The assessment will reflect the UWE PG Assessment Criteria and Grading Scheme below.

The word count includes tables, citations, diagrams and footnotes; it does not include references, tables, diagrams, and appendices. Appendices should include such things as contextual details/information about the chosen organisation and collected primary data, where appropriate.

	Mark (%)	Knowledge and understanding	Academic underpinnings	Analytical and critical thinking	Communication and presentation
DISTINCTION	>85% Exceptional	Exceptional depth of knowledge and understanding. Exceptional application of this knowledge to the brief. Exceptional level of independent and innovative thought.	Extremely comprehensive up-to-date range of relevant literature considered. Outstanding use of highly relevant and exceptionally wide range of academic and grey literature to support statements, arguments, recommendations and conclusions throughout the submission. Referencing of literature and other sources is faultless and conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.	Exceptional critical and analytical thinking. Response to all aspects of the brief convincingly underpinned by outstanding, in-depth analysis and highly sophisticated synthesis of learning resources and key issues. Extremely logical approach and argumentation throughout submission. All arguments, ideas, recommendations and conclusions within the submission are substantiated in an exceptionally convincing manner.	Mastery of clarity in argument and communication. Exceptionally persuasive style. Highly creative and extremely professional standard of presentation with no typographical or formatting errors.
DISTINCTION	70 – 84% Excellent	Excellent depth of knowledge and understanding. Excellent application of this knowledge to the brief. Advanced level of independent and innovative thought.	Excellent range of relevant literature considered. Advanced use of very wide range of academic and grey literature to underpin all elements of the submission. Excellent standard of referencing throughout, which is virtually faultless and conforms to UWE Harvard requirements.	Advanced standard of critical and analytical thinking. Excellent analysis and synthesis of learning resources and key issues. Excellent logical approach and argumentation throughout. All arguments, ideas, recommendations and conclusions within the submission are substantiated in a very convincing manner.	Consistently excellent standard of communication and presentation throughout.
MERIT	65 – 69% Very good 60 – 64% Good	Good / very good depth of knowledge and understanding. Good / very good application of this knowledge to the brief. Independent / innovative thought is strongly in evidence.	Good / very good range of relevant literature considered. Use of both academic and grey literature is strong and used effectively to support most of the main elements of the submission. Referencing is to a very high standard, largely conforming to UWE Harvard requirements.	Critical and analytical thinking strongly in evidence. Good / very good analysis and synthesis of learning resources and most of the key issues relevant to the brief. Logical approach and argumentation is good / very good throughout. Most arguments, ideas, recommendations and conclusions are substantiated convincingly.	Clarity of communication is good / very good overall. Standard of presentation is high / very high although there may be occasional typographical errors.
PASS	55 – 59% Competent 50 – 54% Adequate	Adequate / competent depth of knowledge and understanding. Adequate / competent application of this knowledge to the brief. Some evidence of independent / innovative thought.	Adequate / competent range of relevant literature considered, but confined mainly to taught material. Use of literature to support main elements of the submission is generally adequate / competent, but overly relies on limited range of sources and/or some elements of submission not underpinned sufficiently by an evidence base. Referencing is generally accurate and appropriate, but with minor omissions or inaccuracies.	Some elements of critical and analytical thinking, but approaches to the literature and key issues are largely descriptive. Logic is generally sound, but not consistent throughout. Synthesis is generally adequate / competent, but lacking in depth. Approach to substantiating ideas, recommendations and conclusions is generally adequate / competent, but some elements are not convincing or neglected altogether.	Communication is generally adequate / competent. Standard of presentation is adequate / competent, but there are inconsistencies and occasional faults such as errors in syntax, spelling and punctuation and minor formatting errors.
MARGINAL FAIL	45 – 49% Weak 40 – 44% Poor	Weak / poor depth of knowledge and understanding. Limited or inappropriate application to the brief.	Very limited range of literature considered. Use of literature to support presentation statements, arguments, recommendations and conclusions is patchy with over-reliance on non-academic or otherwise weak sources. Standard of referencing is weak / poor with many inaccuracies and omissions.	Critical and analytical thinking is very limited, superficial or unconvincing. Logical approach is largely absent. Attempt to synthesise key aspects of presentation is very limited or unconvincing. Very little or unconvincing attempt to substantiate key ideas/recommendations/ conclusions.	Weak / poor standard of communication and presentation in places or throughout.
FAIL	<40% Very poor	Knowledge and understanding is extremely superficial or absent altogether. There are many factual errors, inaccuracies, misconceptions and omissions. Attempt to apply knowledge to the brief is extremely limited, non-existent or highly inappropriate.	Consideration of relevant literature is extremely limited or non-existent. Little or no attempt to adopt UWE Harvard system.	Critical and analytical thinking, logical approach and synthesis are absent. No attempt to substantiate ideas or recommendations.	Extremely poor standard of communication and presentation in places or throughout.