Fail 0 – 39 Major flaws in understanding the company context Lack of reference to wider materials: academic literature and/or policy documents. Inadequate referencing. Poorly written or difficult to understand. Poorly structured or unstructured. Incomplete answer such as having missed one part of the question, or generally weak. The work fails to achieve the standard required for a pass. The writing style may be extremely poor or, at the very low grades, incomprehensible. There will be no reference to the wider literature and either no list of references provided or just a limited and inaccurate list. The answer fails to demonstrate the required analytical skills. At the very low grades, the work will be very poorly organised and fail to answer the questions in any meaningful way.

Marginal Pass 40 – 49 There is a credible, if poor, attempt at all components of the question. Acceptable evidence of having read and understood the company context but reference to wider material such as the academic literature is limited. The structure of the answer may be weak and referencing of variable quality. The work demonstrates only a limited degree of competence in the subject. Reference to the literature is poor. Some parts of the question may not be adequately answered or incomplete. Referencing may be limited and/or the writing style poor. However, the assignment shows that the student has understood the company context in sufficient depth, and has made enough efforts to link the case study to wider reading, to warrant a pass mark.

Pass 50 – 59 Generally satisfactory understanding of the company context, but there may be some gaps in knowledge. Clearly written and presented. Good analysis of the company overall, but possibly with some weaknesses. Efforts to link to the relevant literature but these may be limited and/or focused solely on practitioner sources. All questions answered. Accurately referenced. The assignment shows that the student has read and understood most if not all the relevant factors in the company context and made efforts to link the company with relevant academic and/or policy sources. The answers are generally well-argued and complete, with accurate referencing, although there may be some gaps in some areas of the answers. Overall, work achieving a grade in this band is satisfactory.

Merit 60 – 69 Good understanding of the company context. Clear writing style and presentation. Thoughtful and thorough analysis. Some critical engagement with the relevant literature. Each question answered fully. Accurately referenced using primarily high-quality peer-reviewed sources and relevant policy/practitioner sources such as the CIPD. Well-argued. The assignment shows that the student has read and understood the company context and made efforts to link the company’s situation with relevant academic and/or policy sources. The answers are all well-argued and complete, with accurate referencing.

Distinction 70 – 84 Advanced understanding of the case study. Very clear writing style and presentation. Insightful analysis. Critical engagement with the relevant literature. Each question answered fully. Accurately referenced using primarily high-quality peer-reviewed sources and relevant policy/practitioner sources such as the CIPD. A very coherent and cogent line of argument. The work demonstrates excellent understanding of the company context through careful reading and analysis. High level of engagement with the relevant academic literature. The argument presented is well developed, complete and coherent, and is written and presented in a compelling manner.

This exercise is worth 70% of the total marks for the module. The overall word limit is 2,000 words excluding references.Marking Criteria The Business &Management general UG marking criteria will be used in marking this exercise: Category Mark Check List Description High Distinction 85 + Very advanced understanding of the case study. Exceptionally clear writing and presentation style. Very insightful analysis of the company scenario. Critical engagement with the relevant literature. Each question answered fully. Accurately referenced using primarily high-quality peer-reviewed sources and relevant policy/practitioner sources such as the CIPD. An exceptionally coherent and cogent line of argument. The work demonstrates a mastery of the subject that goes well beyond basic reading to critically evaluate the focal company in relation to the relevant academic literature. The argument presented is well developed, complete and coherent, and is written and presented in a compelling manner. Perhaps most importantly, an 80+ piece of work is characterised by a spark of creativity, or by new ideas and insights that emerge from the student’s reading.