7EC502: International Business: (Theory and Strategy)
Table of Contents
Module Team.. 2
Key dates and details. 2
Description of the assessment. 3
Feedback. 5
Regulatory Information. 5
Mark Descriptors. 6
Key dates and details
Table 1: Key dates and details
| Assessment Type: | Individual report |
| Assessment weighting: | 40% |
| Word Count | 2500 |
| Learning Outcomes: | 1 and 2 |
| Submission Method: | Turnitin |
| Submission Date: | Thursday 23rd March 2023 12 noon |
| Provisional Feedback Release Date: | 3 working weeks from final submission |
Description of the assessment
Coursework 1 (40%):
- The organisation of your choice is planning to expand its footprint in a new country/region (new region, such as EU). You are required to critically evaluate the activities of this multinational company using appropriate international business theories.
- The organisation should be chosen from the list provided in the Coursework 1 folder on the Blackboard module area. When you have chosen this company, i) examine the internationalisation of its business operations in relation to the theories of international business, and ii) explain the need/benefit for internationalisation to the country/region you are proposing.
- This organisation will be used for both coursework 1 and coursework 2.
- The report should be submitted using the Turnitin link on the Assessments page of Course Resources no later than Thursday 23rd March 2023 12 noon.
- Written feedback on the assessment will be available in the Course Resources through Turnitin normally within 3 working weeks of the submission.
Assignment Criteria:
- Maximum word limit of 2,500 words
- An up–to–date information on the chosen organisation
- A clear identification of the main ideas and issues involved
- The development of those ideas and associated arguments
- The discussion of the theories of economic globalisation in the context of the operations of the chosen company
- Clearly defined introduction and conclusion
- Logically structured and concisely written text
- Use of relevant and up-to-date information on the chosen company
- Correctly and appropriately referenced
- Evidence of wider reading
- Word processed using 1.5 line spacing. Font 12 Times New Roman.
Report Preparation
The report should include following key sections:
- Give a brief introduction stating the aim of the report
- Give a brief background discussion of your chosen company
(Introduction and background should comprise of approx. 250 words)
- Analyse the pattern of internationalisation activities of your chosen company using relevant International Business theories (approx. 2000 words). This includes addressing “why”, “what”, “where” and “how” questions:
- Why – why did the firm internationalise?
- What – what part of business was internationalised?
- Where – country/region of choice and why
- How – mode of internationalisation (FDI and non–FDI modes)
Not all the theories studied may prove to be relevant to the analysis of one particular company (remember, more is NOT always better!)– therefore, you may dismiss some theories during your preparation for the assignment.
- This will be followed by the new internationalisation initiative you are proposing (approx. 150-200 words).
- Concluding remarks (approx. 50-100 words)
Suggested Structure:
Title page – CW1, module title, tutor name, student ID number, word count
Introduction – outline the overall aim of the report and brief background to the company
Critical evaluation with application of IB theories – outline international activities of the company and critically evaluate these activities using appropriate international business theories (not all theories you have covered in the module will be relevant to your chosen company)
New internationalisation initiative proposed
Conclusion – Summarise the key arguments from your report. Have you addressed your initial aim?
References Section – use Harvard referencing style
The criteria for marking:
The following table shows the criteria and weighting used to award the final grade for your report.
Table 2: Criteria for marking
| Criteria | % of total grade |
| Introduction & Background | 10% |
| Conclusion | 5% |
| Quality of Communication & Presentation | 5% |
| Identification of appropriate/relevant theories | 20% |
| Application of theories and critical evaluation | 40% |
| New initiative segment | 10% |
| References | 10% |
Feedback
You are expected to discuss your CW1 progress (which theories you are planning to apply, for example) with your tutor during your seminar time in Week 5. Immediate feedback will be provided which will help you write up the final report.
Please note that your submission should be anonymous. In other words, you should not include your name anywhere on the report. Mention your Student I.D. number on the cover page of the report.
Regulatory Information
Plagiarism and Academic Offences
An academic offence could include plagiarism or improper conduct in exams.
The University has a public duty to ensure that the highest standards are maintained in the conduct of assessment. It is, therefore absolutely essential that all students learn how to avoid committing an academic offence. Academic offences apply to coursework and examinations. Committing an academic offence is regarded very seriously.
Plagiarism: A student is liable to be found guilty of plagiarism if any work presented for individual assessment is found to contain the unacknowledged work of some other person(s). If this involves deliberate misrepresentation of material as the student’s own in an attempt to deceive the examiners then the offence is very grave indeed.
All sources should be cited and all quotations from the works of other authors clearly identified as such.
If a student’s work is found to contain verbatim (or near verbatim) quotations from the work of other authors (including other students past or present) without clear acknowledgement, then plagiarism has been committed whether or not the student intended to deceive the examiners.
Collusion: Where there is a requirement for the submitted work to be solely that of an individual student, collaboration is not permitted. Students who improperly work together in these circumstances are guilty of collusion.
Please read up the information following link to familiarise yourself with the university’s academic offence regulations.
Mark Descriptors
Table 3: Grade descriptors
| % mark | Grade Descriptors These are typical characteristics of the quality of work associated with each grade. The descriptors are illustrative only and for guidance only. They are not comprehensive, and will need contextualisation within individual courses to reflect the academic discipline concerned. | Category |
| 90-100% | Excellent Meets all criteria in 80-89% range below, plus demonstrates exceptional ability and insight, indicating the highest level of technical competence; work is virtually flawless and has potential to influence the forefront of the subject and may be of publishable/exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at the highest possible standard. Exceptional achievement distinguishable even amongst the best quality work and deserving of the highest possible marks within the Distinction grade. | Distinction |
| 80-89% | Excellent High to very high standard work with most of the following features: authoritative subject knowledge; a high level of critical analysis and evaluation; incisive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally well researched, with a very high level of technical competence; high quality presentation; impressive clarity of ideas; excellent coherence and logic. Work is close to the forefront of the subject and may be close to publishable or exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very high level. Referencing is consistently used, complete and accurate. Only trivial or very minor errors. Very high quality work worthy of a high Distinction grade mark. | Distinction |
| 70-79% | Excellent Authoritative, current subject knowledge; excellent critical analysis and evaluation – including dealing with ambiguity in the data; significant originality; well researched with a high level of technical competence – work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence; excellent presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very strong sense of coherence and logic; relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a high level; referencing is excellent– consistently used, complete and accurate; a small number of misunderstandings/minor errors only. High quality work deserving of a Distinction grade. | Distinction |
| 60-69% | Very good Work is well-developed and coherent; demonstrates sound, current subject knowledge; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; well researched; no significant errors in the application of concepts or appropriate techniques; a very good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent; relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a very good level; referencing is very good; minor errors and misunderstandings only, possibly with some deficiencies in presentation. Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade. | Merit |
| 50-59% | Good/Satisfactory Has achieved intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; the work is generally sound but tends towards the factual or derivative, and there may be minimal evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings, possibly shown by conceptual gaps or limited use of appropriate techniques; relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level; referencing is generally accurate; some weakness in style or presentation. Satisfactory overall – a clear pass | Pass |
| 40-49% | Unsatisfactory Has narrowly failed to achieve intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent; some sound aspects but some of the following weaknesses are evident: factual errors; conceptual gaps; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched – limited use of appropriate techniques; presentation does not meet the standard required; ideas unclear and/or incoherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings; relevant generic skills unsatisfactory to some extent; referencing may be inadequate. Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed. – Marginal fail | Marginal Fail |
| 5-39% | Very Poor Has failed to achieve intended learning outcomes in several critical respects. Will have some or all of the following features to varying extent: inadequate subject knowledge; factual errors; conceptual gaps; minimal/no awareness of relevant issues and theory; limited/no use of appropriate techniques; standard of presentation unacceptable; ideas confused and/or incoherent – work lacks sound development; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; no evidence of originality; inadequately researched; some serious misunderstandings and errors; quality of relevant generic skills does not meet the requirements of the task. A clear fail well short of the pass standard | Fail |