MGF5691 Assignment 2.2

Paper requirements

  1. Format: this is a report in APA format. The format of the Report include: exclusive the summary, introduce, body, Recommendation and conclusion. And you need to do to directory. I can add the Title page. Must be applied to whether TBL or SDG theory knowledge, can be something else. In which a recommendation or part must be combined with theory analysis.
  2. Advice to Stakeholder: first I part1 selected challenge is how to reduce the waste on online shopping, this part of the challenge is also one of the. Don’t change. About Barriers part1 is primarily for me, is how I created these Barriers resulting in no way to reduce the waste on online shopping. My point is: 1. COVID – 19 during online contact can be avoided. 2. The goods online shopping platform more comprehensive, wide coverage. 3. There are often cheaper.

And part1 recommendation is also on my own, so this has nothing to do with part2. Part2 mainly is for all the stakeholders are also proposed.

I took three relevant stakeholder: 1 is the young, because young people are the main customers of online shopping, and at this stage it is hard to let young people give up online shopping. 2 is amazon, because amazon as foreign traffic’s largest online electric business platform, it is difficult to reduce waste in packaging. 3 is an organization that provides sustainable packaging CO, first make sure a creating biggest barriers of stakeholders. Can be I mentioned part is what they want. A week to write a diary or something can be, no words. This major is to record your suggestion how to implement, because we want to see our teachers in the classroom implementation, is to record your every day this week about what he did to you selected the stakeholder, what did you do try to let them go to implementation, so as to achieve the purpose of reducing waste of online shopping brings. No matter failure or success can, so may be trouble writers give me a rough process, a week before give me a size 5.2, and then give me a before 5.10. This also will be discussed in the paper. Diary should be placed in the appendix.

Note: each stakeholders need to advice. Part1 and part2 mentioned you may want to write an individual. Each write of what, to give advice. This point I ask the teacher. The teacher’s reply in the back.

3.Conclusion

  1. The Reference list: APA format
  2. Appendix: here is the writing daily dairy.

 

 

老师的instruction:

instruction: of the teacher

Details of Task: Students, individually, as consumers, identify a personal sustainability challenge (such as household food habits, electricity usage, packaging use/recycling, use of private car vs. public transport, use of excessive clothings etc.). They interrogate the potential barriers and solutions to address the challenge (Part 1). Across the semester they monitor their implementation and addressing of the challenge. Toward the end of the semester, students should undertake a detailed reflection to identify and overcome persistent barriers and implement a revised plan to also get other stakeholders (outside the class) to address the sustainability challenge with them (such as household members or friends). Further, students should evaluate the success of the implementation plan and present recommendations that would enhance its success in the future (Part 2).

Part 2 (25%): submission in Week 10 (16th May by 5pm)

Students should maintain a weekly log or diary to show how they try to implement the solutions. The diary should reflect their experiences, succcess and failures in implementing the solutions. Students should identify the stakeholder/s (business, other family members, NGOs, governments or consumers) creating biggest barriers and supporting them in handling the challenge. Finally, students should provide recommendations to others to make the plans successful. The recommendations should be provided to each stakeholders identified in the Part 1 and 2 and include discussions about the relevant SDG’s and TBL impact.

Each week after the submission of part 1, the diary/log should be shown to the lecturer in class to explain the progress in implementation, success/failures etc (till submission of the Part 2). 

Both Part 1 and 2 should include theoretical insights/frameworks (beyond TBL/SDG) from the unit. Further, peer reviewed articles from high quality journals should be used in both Part 1& 2.

关于日记:重点-要给每一位stakeholder建议字数不限

About Diary: Focus – No limit on the number of words suggested for each stakeholder

There is no ‘standard’ format for the diary because it depends on your individual daily routine. You may have a lot to write one day and just a dot point in the next day. It just regularly keep a record on your achievements or failure in implementing them.

If you find that you have a lot in the diary that’s going to take a lot of words in the Part 2 report, can place the actual diary in the Appendix and have the summary in the discussion section

In your report you can include the whole diary in your discussions or just take the summary in your discussions and have the complete one in the Appendix.

You need to include information (in the diary) about every stakeholder that is supporting or creating barriers for you to implement the solutions. Then you can provide recommendations for every stakeholder

It could be the same stakeholders as you identified in Part 1 and could be someone new you identified when you’re implementing the solutions. You should include both stakeholders in Part 2

You need to provide recommendations to every stakeholder that is identified in Part 1 and 2.

 

MGF5691 Assignment 2.2 Marking Criteria (2500 words)

Score >80% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% (or lower)
Key issues The diary/log updated weekly and added information about the implementation plan and challenges (and signed/approved by the lecturer).

 

Has identified and explained the main stakeholders and their influence on the selected product/service exceptionally well.

 

The role of the specific stakeholders is very clear.

 

Strong recommendations are provided to all identified stakeholders.

The diary/log updated weekly and added information about the implementation plan and challenges (and signed/approved by the lecturer).

 

 

Has defined the challenges challenges/contributions very well. Strives to persuade the reader.

 

The role of the specific stakeholder is clear.

 

Very good recommendations are provided to all identified stakeholders.

The diary/log added information about the implementation plan and challenges (and signed/approved by the lecturer).

 

The challenges/contributions are clearly explained with good arguments.

 

The role of the specific stakeholder is clear.

 

The recommendations are satisfactory, however not specific to specific stakeholders.

The dairy/log either not maintained regularly or not signed/approved by the lecturer.

 

The challenges/contributions are not explained or left somewhat vague. The argument shows signs of promise. The role of the specific stakeholder is not clear.

Depth of analysis The analysis demonstrates a clear link between the experiences evident in the diary and the recommendations.

 

In-depth analysis is provided of the challenges/contributions specified in the questions.

 

Focused on the specific product/service during the analysis.

 

The analysis is based on the current facts and data from the industry and highlights the balance between triple bottom line.

 

Final decision (or recommendations) is made based on data/theory and relevant for the specific product/service and whole industry.

The analysis demonstrates a clear link between the experiences evident in the diary and the recommendations.

 

Has used very good arguments to analyse the challenges/contributions with good focus on the specific product/service.

 

 

Final decision (or recommendations) is based on good arguments and full support from the data available.

The arguments should be satisfactory and based on the experiences revealed during implementation.

 

All essential facts are provided.

 

Data and figures are comparatively recent but not touched all three aspects of triple bottom line.

 

Final decision (or recommendations) is based on good arguments and some support from the data available.

Much more arguments are needed. No clear link established between weekly experiences and recommendations.

 

Also, focus has been on the overall industry (not the specific products) without any supporting arguments.

 

Superficial data analysis and final decision is based on ad hoc points. Lack of analysis. Lack of recommendations.

 

No clear explanations about triple bottom line.

Proper use of theory and data from secondary sources The paper is well informed, synthesises the relevant literature, theories and concepts in a logical way from the specific stakeholder perspective.

 

Excellent use of information collected from secondary sources.

The paper is well informed, demonstrates awareness of the relevant literature, theories and concepts developed in the course  from the specific stakeholder perspective.

 

Use of secondary sources is very good.

The paper applied the literature superficially, not properly integrated or used consistently throughout the answers. Further, the specific stakeholder perspective is not clear.

 

Used information from the secondary sources but lacking the proper integration.

Missing literature or inappropriate literature. The logical integration is missing. No identifications of the stakeholder perspectives.

 

Missing data from the secondary sources.

Writing style (and referencing) Is error free and maintained the academic style. Some ambiguities are there but mostly error-free. The paper is readable, but the level of error is high or shows signs of general and repeated carelessness. Higher degree of error, making the paper difficult to follow.

 

*** High quality, peer reviewed journal articles are expected. Both in-text references and reference list are mandatory.