联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981
MN4238 Sustainable Development and Management
Assessment 1: Individual Essay (25%)
.
Sustainability has become one of the defining issues shaping the decisions of organisations,
governments, and societies. Nevertheless, there remain discussions and debates in scholarship and
practice as to the perspectives of sustainability that matter and the implications for management.
For the first assessment for MN4238, you are required to write a 1,500-word essay answering this
question:
“With reference to academic literature, critically discuss two differing sustainability worldviews (such
as weak/strong, technocentric, ecocentric, or regenerative perspectives) and explain how they might
influence management’s role in addressing contemporary sustainability issues.”
Marking Criteria
Engagement with academic literature
Understanding and critical discussion of two sustainability worldviews
Understanding of influence of worldviews on management theory/practice
Structure, argumentation and coherence
Academic writing, presentation and referencing
Quality of argument
Use of Generative AI
For this assessment, you can use Generative AI to support your reading of relevant literature in
accordance with Level 2: AI Assisted Idea Generation and Structuring. A copy of the AI Chart is
available on Moodle.
You are expected to add an Appendix to the Assessment with the following details:
Name and version of the generative AI system used
Publisher
URL of the AI system
Prompts used
A short description and reflection on you used the tool.
Marking Rubric
Assessment
Criteria
Exceptional (17-20) Very Good (14-16) Good (11-13) Satisfactory (10-8) Pass (7) Fail (0-6)
Engagement with
academic literature
Extensive use of high-quality
academic sources; strong
integration into argument;
demonstrates deep
understanding of relevant
literature
Comprehensive range of
relevant sources; mostly
analytical; demonstrates
strong understanding of
key literature.
Reasonably good
range of relevant
sources; mostly
analytical; sound
understanding of
relevant literature
Adequate sources but
limited depth; tends
toward description;
basic grasp of
relevant literature.
Understandable but
contains errors;
referencing
inconsistent.
Little or no
academic
literature; major
inaccuracies; no
meaningful
engagement.
Understanding and
Critical Discussion
of Two
Sustainability
Worldviews
Exceptionally clear,
accurate, and theoretically
rich explanation of two
contrasting worldviews;
excellent critical
comparison; deep
understanding of underlying
assumptions; strong
illustrative examples.
Clear, well-informed
explanation of two
worldviews; good critical
comparison;
demonstrates sound
understanding of
assumptions and
tensions.
Reasonable
understanding of two
worldviews; some
comparison, though
limited in depth or
precision.
Basic explanation of
two worldviews but
lacking detail or
balance; limited
comparison.
Incomplete or
unclear worldview
explanation; weak or
incorrect
comparison.
Only one worldview
discussed, or major
conceptual errors;
no comparison.
Understanding of
influence of
worldviews on
management
theory/practice
Excellent insight into how
worldviews shape
management theory and
practice; strong links
between theory and
real-world implications.
Clear and accurate
explanation of how
worldviews influence
management; links are
well-made and relevant.
Some good points
about influence on
management; links
present but may be
general or uneven.
Basic discussion of
relevance to
management; links
may be
underdeveloped or
generic.
Very weak or unclear
links between
worldview and
management;
relevance poorly
explained.
No meaningful
discussion of
management
implications;
irrelevant,
incorrect, or absent
content.
Structure,
argumentation and
coherence
Excellent structure;
argument is coherent,
logical, and highly
persuasive; excellent
signposting.
Well-structured and
coherent argument;
minor lapses in flow.
Generally clear
structure but with
some issues in flow or
logic.
Structure is present
but somewhat
unclear or disjointed.
Poorly organised;
argument difficult to
follow.
Structure absent or
incoherent;
argument missing.
Academic writing,
presentation and
referencing
Clear, fluent academic
writing; accurate and
consistent referencing.
Mostly clear writing;
referencing generally
accurate.
Writing
understandable but
with stylistic or
grammatical issues;
referencing contains
inconsistencies.
Writing sometimes
unclear; noticeable
errors; referencing
incomplete or
inconsistently
applied.
Writing unclear in
places; frequent
errors; referencing
weak or incomplete.
Writing unclear or
inappropriate for
academic work;
referencing
incorrect,
inconsistent, or
absent.
MN4238 Sustainable Development and Management
Assessment 1: Individual Essay (25%)最先出现在KJESSAY历史案例。