Faculty of Business and Law

Assignment Brief Mode E and R Regulations

Module Title:	The Geopolitical, Economic and Legal Environment		Assignment Number	2
Module Code:	7010SSL		Assignment Title	Macro Analysis Report
Module Leader:	Dr. Bentil Oduro		Assignment Credits	10
Release Date:	15/05/23
Submission Date/Time:	10/08/2023 at 18:00
Submission Time and Place:	Submission through Turnitin ONLY

Assessment Information

This assignment is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.

Please select a company from one of the industries listed below.

This assignment requires you to write a 2500-word Macro Analysis report that must include:

• A critical evaluation of the focus of the business and its main market(s)
• Critical analysis of some of the key global geopolitical, economic and legal environmental aspects of the industry as a whole
• Critical analysis of the global geopolitical, economic and legal environments challenges specific to the chosen company
• Critical analysis of the geopolitical, economic and legal environments challenges of the chosen company in a country of your choice
• A set of well-argued and developed recommendations on how the company can address some of these identified challenges

Industries: Oil and Gas, Automotive, Consulting, Pharmaceutical.

Criteria for Assessment

Category	Mark
Introduction and context setting, knowledge of business focus and market	20%
Knowledge and analysis of macro environmental challenges	30%
Application of theory	20%
Recommendations	10%
Evidence of research and referencing	10%
Overall structure and presentation	10%
Total	100%

This assignment is designed to assess the following learning outcomes:

3.    Evaluate and critically analyse key debates in the fields of geopolitical, economic and legal environment and explain how the market system affects the competitive environment.

4.    Analyse the global business environment in different industrial sectors and evaluate the strategies corporations deploy to manage them.

5.    Critically analyse the global business environment by communicating, both verbally and in writing, complex ideas and arguments about the evolution and dynamics of the world economy.

6.     Identify, synthesise and present a critical evaluation of complex ideas and arguments.

Word Count

The word count is 2500.

There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the word limit by 10% or more.

The word limit includes quotations and citations but excludes the references list.

How to submit your assessment

The assessment must be submitted by 18:00 on 10/08/2023. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.

• Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
• Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. The Faculty accepts Microsoft Office and PDF documents, unless otherwise advised by the module leader.
• All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.
• The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict.  If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to FIVE WORKING DAYS, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.
• You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx
• Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
• Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.

GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT

Plagiarism

As part of your study, you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work.  Doing so is known as plagiarism.  It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw.  You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz.

Self-plagiarism or reuse of work previously submitted:

You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this and any other university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted; you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is unacceptable because you cannot gain credit for the same work twice.

The University VLE includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. If you are a business student and joined Coventry University in September 2020 or later, please use APA 7th edition referencing, if you joined prior to this date you may use APA or the existing Harvard Reference Style (Coventry version) that you are familiar with. Law students should use OSCOLA. Please be consistent in the referencing style that you use and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. If you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Progress Coach or a member of the course team.

Return of Marked Work

You can expect to have marked work returned to you in 10 working days. If for any reason there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.

Marking Rubric

Module Title:	The Geopolitical, Economic and Legal Environment		Assignment Number	2
Module Code:	7010SSL		Assignment Title	Macro-Analysis Report
Module Leader:	Dr. Bentil Oduro		Assignment Weighting	10 credits

	Grade Boundary
Assessment Criteria or Element	0-19%	20-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-100%
Introduction and context setting, knowledge of business focus and market (20%)	Very poor/No evidence. Shows little or no knowledge of the chosen topic	Poor/Inadequate. Shows very limited knowledge of the chosen topic with basic omissions and superficial misunderstandings.	Satisfactory. Shows some basic knowledge of the chosen topic but many basic omissions and limited understanding. Several important aspects of the topic ignored or misunderstood.	Good. A sound grasp of knowledge relevant to the topic and the accompanying literature. Most key relevant factors are identified but uneven understanding and more advanced material omitted.	Very good. Essay demonstrates a very good grasp of the topic and accompanying literature. All essential topics covered and well understood. Some uneven understanding, especially of more advanced material.	Excellent. Essay demonstrates an excellent grasp of the topic and the accompanying literature. Excellent understanding of basic material and very god understanding of more advanced material.	Outstanding. Sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the topic at hand. Factors relevant to the topic outlined succinctly and accurately with a degree of original insight.
Knowledge and analysis of macro environmental challenges (30%)	Very poor/No evidence. Total or almost total absence of argument and analysis of the chosen topic. Unsound approach to handling the problem.	Poor/Inadequate. Unclear, unfocussed or illogical argument/analysis. Highly descriptive with little attempt at relevant analysis of the topic.	Satisfactory. Unclear, ill focused, inconsistent or illogical argument and analysis. Approach to handling the problem superficial and marred by limited understanding. Emphasis tends to be on description rather than analysis of the topic. Tendency for the analysis to be somewhat superficial and contradictory. Tendency not to explain how the points being raised are relevant to the question.	Good. Reasonably clear, fairly well focused and generally coherent analysis of the topic.  Approach to the topic or compromised by uneven understanding. Quality of analysis is not sustained and is inconsistent in places. Does not always explain the relevance of the narrative to the question.	Very good. Clear, well focused analysis of the topic. Adopts a thoughtful approach to analyzing the topic. Minor inconsistencies in the argument/analysis. Quality of analysis sustained throughout the piece and the relevance of the points being raised clearly explained.	Excellent. Clear, focused and logical analysis of the topic. Very high-quality analysis that is sustained throughout the majority of the piece.	Outstanding. Exceptionally clear, sharply focused and incisive analysis of the topic. Demonstrates originality in handling the topic with a degree of independent thought and ability to integrate this approach within the wider literature.
Application of theory (20%)	No evidence of any understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework.	Poor/Inadequate levels of understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Poor/inadequate contextualisation.	Satisfactory understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Satisfactory contextualisation. Application lacks focus and critical analysis.	Good understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Good contextualisation. Application somewhat lacks focus and critical analysis.	Very good understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Very good contextualisation. Application generally supported by critical analysis, but there are some unsubstantiated assertions/weak sources.	Excellent understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Excellent contextualisation. Application supported by critical analysis. Some evidence of originality.	Outstanding understanding of any relevant theory/model/framework. Excellent contextualisation. Application supported by critical analysis. High in originality
Recommendations (10%)	Very poor/No evidence of understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. The recommendations read imposed and lack any kind of specificity and critical analysis.	Poor/Inadequate understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. The recommendations read somewhat imposed and lack specificity and critical analysis.	Satisfactory understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. The recommendations read imposed and lack specificity and critical analysis to some extent. Not supported by strong research.	Good understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. The recommendations can lack specificity and critical analysis to some extent. Supported by weak research.	Very good understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. The recommendations can lack critical analysis and unsupported by strong research.	Excellent understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. Supported by strong research. Could have had more originality.	Outstanding understanding of the topic and connection with the preceding sections. Supported by strong critical analysis research. Strong in originality.
Evidence of research and referencing (10%)	Very poor/No evidence of references and bibliography. Essay is largely (or totally) devoid of references and bibliography.	Poor/Inadequate referencing and bibliography. Minimal understanding of professional referencing conventions. Bibliography incomplete and inconsistent.	Satisfactory referencing and bibliography. Uneven understanding or professional referencing. Bibliography and references inconsistent, incomplete and incoherent.	Good referencing and bibliography. Uneven understanding of professional referencing conventions. Inconsistencies in bibliographic entries/use of references.	Very good referencing and bibliography. Most academic conventions applied but some misunderstanding of professional referencing conventions.	Excellent referencing and bibliography. A few minor errors that would not appear in professional publications.	Outstanding referencing and bibliography in line with current professional standards.
Overall structure and presentation (10%)	Very poorly organised content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are missing completely. Almost impossible to follow the content. Unnecessary figures, diagrams and tables without any apparent reason/difficult to read	Poorly/ inadequately organised content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are missing. Quite difficult to follow the content. Unnecessary figures, diagrams and tables without any apparent reason/difficult to read	Satisfactorily organised content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are missing in some sections. Can be difficult to follow the content at times. These can be some unnecessary figures, diagrams and tables without any apparent reason/difficult to read	Overall, a well–organised content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features can lack uniformity. Some sections can be difficult to follow. There can be some unnecessary figures, diagrams and tables without any apparent reason/difficult to read	Overall, a very well–organised content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are generally uniformity. Some sections can be difficult to follow. Most of the figures, diagrams and tables are relevant but lacks explanation at times	Overall, an excellent content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are professionally organised. Most of the sections are easy to follow and well–connected. Most of the figures, diagrams and tables are relevant.	Overall, an outstanding content. Font, formatting, and other essential structural features are professionally organised. All the sections are easy to follow and well–connected. All the figures, diagrams and tables are relevant and explained well

Get expert help for The Geopolitical, Economic and Legal Environment   and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!