Individual report 75% of module marks Students must select one company and prepare an examination of the Ethical Marketing Problems facing this company with proof of why this is an issue. You should then analyse Ethical Marketing Solutions available to the company, with evidence of how this is an appropriate solution. Finally you must prepare an Ethical Marketing Audit of this company and make recommendations as to how they could improve their Ethical Marketing credentials. The portfolio must be referenced appropriately. The report should be no more than 3000 words plus the ethical marketing audit as an appendix – this is the only appendix permitted, all other material in the appendices (if included) will be ignored for the purpose of marking. There is an example of a past attempt here on Blackboard. A Proforma for an Ethical Marketing Audit will be provided. There is no presentation of your final portfolio. Your portfolio must be submitted via Turnitin on May 2, 2017 with the usual deadline. Please submit as Word file and do not use pdf format. Marking criteria are shown overleaf:Individual report Criterion Weighting % Introduction and background to the selected organisation 10 Ethical marketing audit and identification of issues 20 Personal critique and justification of what needs to change 20 Use of academic literature to underpin argument 25 Conclusions and recommendations are they relevant and appropriately justified? 15 Quality of document – structure, presentation, proof-reading, does the work look professional? 10 Assessment General Threshold Criteria The descriptions below are indicative of what is needed to merit a mark at a given level: General criteria Leve l4 % Leve l5 % Leve l6 % No evidence to suggest that any learning has taken place beyond the most basic principles. 1-9 0 (0) Makes no serious attempt to answer the question, and has little or no coherence. What little evidence that learning has taken place is interspersed with nonsense. 10- 19 1-9 0 Makes a limited attempt to answer the question but demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the issues concerned. Misunderstandings and errors of fact are likely to outweigh correct or meaningful statements. There is unlikely to be any referencing. The poor quality of the writing may make it difficult to read. 20- 29 10- 19 1-9 Attempts to answer the question but is only partly successful in doing so, with much irrelevant material included and much relevant material left out. Referencing is likely to be limited. It should show at least an emerging understanding of the issues, but is likely to include some fundamental misunderstandings 30- 39 20- 29 10- 19and/or errors of fact. It may well lack structure and be poorly written. Makes a clear attempt to answer the question, but is likely to include material of doubtful relevance. It may well be based largely on a single text-book, or on lecture notes, but shows at least a basic understanding of the issues. There may be some significant misunderstandings or errors of fact. Structure may be confused and language clumsy. 40- 49 30- 39 20- 29 Is clearly focussed on the question and demonstrates a general understanding of the major issues without significant misunderstandings or errors of fact. It may well demonstrate a degree of naivety and is likely to be largely descriptive in nature. It should be properly referenced, but may be based on a limited number of sources, principally text-books. It should have a coherent structure, but may have some clumsy expression. 50- 59 40- 49 30- 39 Demonstrates a detailed understanding of the major issues and at least a general awareness of problems and conflicting viewpoints. Reading is likely to go beyond basic textbooks, and should show at least an emerging ability to compare and contrast the arguments in different sources. It should be well-structured and wellwritten. 60- 69 50- 59 40- 49 Demonstrates a full understanding of the major issues and a full awareness of problems and conflicting viewpoints. It should include references to secondary as well as tertiary sources (journal articles, monographs etc.) and should demonstrate at least an emerging ability to evaluate and criticise sources. The quality of argument should show some sophistication & elegance. 70- 79 60- 69 50- 59 Demonstrates a clear ability to evaluate and criticise sources and at least an emerging ability to apply original insight and thought to the issues under discussion. There should be at least a limited understanding of theoretical issues. If the analysis of primary data is included this should be conducted with at least a basic 80- 89 70- 79 60- 69degree of competence. Demonstrates a clear ability to apply original insight and critical thought to the issues under discussion, and a clear understanding of the problems and limitations of the approaches developed. It should demonstrate a degree of sophistication in the way in which theory and practice are integrated. If the analysis of primary data is included this should be conducted with complete competence and with a degree of sophistication. 90- 99 80- 89 70- 79 Theoretically informed, with a high degree of originality and an effective integration of secondary and primary data. It should be capable of adaptation with a limited amount of effort either for publication (though not necessarily in a peer-reviewed journal) or for effective professional use (e.g. a marketing strategy that could actually be presented to the Board). 100 90- 99 80- 89 Suitable for publication or effective professional use, as above, in its submitted form, without significant adaptation. (100) 100 90- 99