代做BE439 Course Work 2 – Essay代写Processing

BE439 Business Ethics Essay Marking Criteria

 Criteria

 Excellent (70%+)

 Very good (60-70%)

 Good (50-60%)

 Weak (40-50%)

 Weakest (below 40%)

Understanding and application of Rhodes' (2023) and other theoretical frameworks

(30 points)

Demonstrates exceptional understanding of Rhodes' (2023) key arguments and their implications. Critically applies the theoretical frameworks from Rhodes and 3 other chosen articles/chapters with originality and insight. Provides a nuanced analysis of the tensions between formal organizational ethics and individual ethical experiences.

Very good understanding of Rhodes' (2023) arguments and other theoretical frameworks. Applies theories effectively to analyse organizational ethics. Shows good critical engagement with the material.

Good understanding of Rhodes' (2023) and other theoretical frameworks. Applies theories to discuss organizational ethics but may lack depth in critical analysis.

Basic understanding of Rhodes' (2023) and other theories but limited ability to apply them to organizational ethics. Analysis tends to be descriptive rather than critical.

Minimal understanding of Rhodes' (2023) and other theoretical frameworks. Unable to apply theories effectively to organizational ethics.

Quality of research and analysis of chosen company examples

(25 points)

Provides in-depth, critical analysis of two real companies and their approaches to organizational ethics. Effectively integrates specific incidents or cases to illustrate ethical challenges. Demonstrates excellent research skills, using a wide range of relevant and credible sources.

Very good analysis of two companies and their ethical approaches. Good use of specific incidents to illustrate challenges. Demonstrates good research skills with a range of relevant sources.

Good analysis of companies and their ethical approaches may lack depth in some areas. Some use of specific incidents. Adequate research with mostly relevant sources.

Limited analysis of companies and their ethical approaches. Few specific incidents were used. Limited research with some irrelevant or unreliable sources.

Superficial or no analysis of companies. No specific incidents were used. Poor research with few or no relevant sources.

Critical thinking and originality of insights

(20 points)

Demonstrates exceptional critical thinking skills, offering original insights on the implications of Rhodes' (2023) arguments for improving ethical practices in organizations. Provides thoughtful reflection on fostering authentic and empowering approaches to ethics.

Very good critical analysis of implications for ethical practices. Offers some original insights and well-supported arguments for improving organizational ethics.

Good attempt at critically analysing implications but may lack depth or originality in some areas. Some suggestions for improving ethical practices.

Limited critical analysis of implications. Few original insights. Weak or superficial suggestions for improving ethical practices.

Minimal evidence of critical thinking. No original insights offered. Unable to suggest improvements for ethical practices.

Essay structure, clarity of expression, and academic writing style.

(15 points)

Excellent structure, a clear introduction (including a thesis statement), well-organized body paragraphs (using headings), and a strong conclusion. Exceptional clarity in writing, with sophisticated use of academic language. Demonstrates mastery of academic writing conventions.

Very well-structured essay with clear sections. Very good clarity in writing and appropriate use of academic language. Minor issues in academic writing conventions.

Good overall structure, but some sections may lack clear organization. Generally clear writing style. with mostly appropriate use of academic language. Some issues with academic writing conventions.

Basic structure present but lacks clear organization in some areas. Writing style. is sometimes unclear or informal. Inconsistent use of academic language and conventions.

Poor structure with little logical flow of ideas. Writing is unclear and informal. Inappropriate use of language for academic writing. Many errors in academic conventions.

Proper referencing and adherence to the guidelines

(10 points)

Impeccable use of Harvard referencing style. throughout. Adheres precisely to all the guidelines.

Very good use of Harvard referencing with minor errors. It follows most guidelines.

Good use of Harvard referencing with some inconsistencies. It follows the main guidelines with some minor oversights.

Inconsistent use of Harvard referencing with several errors. Several guidelines were not followed.

Poor or no use of Harvard referencing. Most of the guidelines were not followed.