See the Extended Reading List for relevant references, and also consult the following: Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946-967. Carroll, A.B. (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34(42):39-48. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105. Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G. & Riesenberger, J. (2013) International Business: The New Realities. Global Edition. 4th Edition. Harlow: Essex: Pearson. Chapter 5 Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hill, C. W. (2014) International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace”, 10th Ed, McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York. Chapter 5 Johnson, G., Whittington, R. & Scholes, K. (2011) Exploring Strategy: Text & Cases. 9th Edition. Prentice-Hall: London. Chapter 4 Morrison, J. (2011) “The Global Business Environment: Meeting the Challenges”, 3rd ed, Palgrave: Basingstoke. Chapter 13
See the Extended Reading List for relevant references, and also consult the following: Cavusgil, S.T., Knight, G, and Riesenberger, J. (2017) International Business: The New Realities, 4th Edition, Global Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (Chapter 2) Ghemawat, P., & Altman, S. (2013). Depth index of globalization 2013: and the big shift to emerging economies. IESE Business School, University of Navarra. https://www.ghemawat.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Depth-Index-ofGlobalization_2013-1.pdf Hill, C. W. and Hult, T. (2018) “Global Business Today”, 10th Ed, McGraw-Hill Irwin: Singapore (Chapter 1) Hill, C. W. (2017) “International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace”, 11th Ed, McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York (Chapter 1) Morrison, J. (2011) “The Global Business Environment: Meeting the Challenges”. 3rd ed. Palgrave: Basingstoke. (Chapter 1) Peng, M. and Meyer, K. (2016) “International Business”, 2nd Ed, Cengage Learning: London (Chapter 1)
Introduction – (approximately 200 words) – Brief background to the topic – Address definition of keywords and issues – State your Idea: (what you are writing about & what your ideas are about the topic) – Essay structure
Main Body – (approximately 900 words) – Provide a topic sentence which says what the main point of each paragraph is – Provide supporting details for your topic sentence (based on your research) – Synthesise what you have read; that is, show what different people think about the same point – Show some critical reflection; that is, tell the readers what you think of what you have read
Conclusion – (approximately 400 words) – Recap your main points – Reiterate your view, and – Give your final word, if any.
Reference List – List the references for each of your in-text citations.
– For further guidance refer to University’s Skills Hub http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=355
General Instructions: 1. The word limit for the essay is 1500 (+ or – 10% rule applies), this excludes the title page and references list. We will only read the essay up to the allowed word limit, if we suspect that the essay is over the word count we will estimate the average number of words per line for the first five lines of the essay and then divide the maximum word count allowed by this value to determine the cut-off point up to which we read. For further information, please refer to the university examination and assessment regulations handbook 2017/2018: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/adqe/standards/examsandassessment
Appendix 1: Regulations Governing Originality and Administrative Aspects of Assessment
Writing Well and Avoiding Academic Misconduct
Plagiarism, collusion and fabrication are all forms of academic misconduct which the University takes very seriously. Every year, some students commit academic misconduct unintentionally because they did not know what was expected of them. Plagiarism generally takes one of three forms (though other forms may occur)
– Copying work from a fellow student – Using ideas from published work which you do not acknowledge – Copying work from books, articles or internet sources and failing to acknowledge the sources.
The consequences for committing academic misconduct can be severe, so it is important that you familiarise yourself with what it is and how to avoid it. The University’s Skills Hub www.Sussex.ac.UK/skills hub gives advice on writing well, including hints and tips on how to avoid making serious mistakes. You will also find helpful guides to referencing properly and improving your critical writing skills. Make use of the resources there.
If you are dealing with difficult circumstances, such as illness or bereavement, do not try to rush your work or hand in something which may be in breach of the rules. Instead, you should seek confidential advice from the Student Life Centre. The full University rules on academic misconduct are set out in the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook.
Appendix 2: ASSIGNMENT, GLOBAL BUSINESS, 734N1
CRITERION Above 70 60-69 50-59 Below 50 – Fail 1 Attention to purpose Has addressed the purpose of the assignment comprehensively and imaginatively Has addressed the purpose of the assignment coherently and with some attempt to demonstrate imagination Has addressed the main purpose of the assignment. Some of the work is focused on the aims and themes of the assignment Fails to address the task set 2 Content and range Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with areas of specialization is depth and awareness of provisional nature of knowledge Reasonable knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas/contexts/frameworks Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge base and appropriate terminology Evidence of limited knowledge of topic and some use of appropriate terminology Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology 3 Use of literature/ evidence of reading Has developed and justified using own ideas based on a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed Able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from variety of sources, developing own ideas in the process Some evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified Literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive way Either no evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment set 4 Critical reasoning Consistently demonstrates application of critical analysis well integrated in the text Clear application of theory through critical analysis/critical thought of the topic area Some evidence of critical thought/critical analysis and rationale for work Lacks critical thought /analysis / reference to theory
An Executive Summary is optional, given the shortness of the Report (1500 words).
5 Conclusions Analytical and clear conclusions well-grounded in theory and literature showing the development of new concepts
Good development is shown in the summary of arguments based on theory/ literature
Limited evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature
Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all
6 Referencing Referencing is consistently accurate
Referencing is mainly accurate Referencing is absent or unsystematic
7 Clarity of expression (incl. accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation)
Fluent writing style appropriate to document. Grammar and spelling are accurate.
Grammar and spelling accurate
Language mainly fluent Grammar and spelling may contain mistakes
Meaning unclear and/or grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors
Referencing is something with which you may or may not be familiar. However, it is an essential skill to master in academic work. When you are carrying out your reading for essays, it is expected that you read several sources in order to get a rounded perspective on the subject. Thus, your information for the essay comes from these sources. It is expected (and essential) that you acknowledge the sources of this information in your work. Many students (mistakenly) believe that the essays should be “their own thoughts”. Essays should contain heavy elements of synthesising established work in the area, thus the more you refer, the wider you demonstrate that your reading is. Below is a quick introduction to get you started, please also consider the more detailed document from the Learning and Teaching Unit at Southern Australia, which I passed to you with this document and available via the module’s study direct site.
A STUDENT WHO DOES NOT PROVIDE REFEENCES CAN TECHNICALLY BE GUILTY OF PLAGIARISM
Within the management subject area, the Harvard referencing system is the one generally followed. Please see the paragraph below for examples of referencing and how it works and consult the university’s skills hub website: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=375.
Integrative bargaining contains many of the elements of deliberative democracy, particularly those of problem-solving and positive-sum game. However, deliberative theorists argue that deliberation must be classed as different to bargaining, as bargaining necessarily involves reciprocal actions whereas deliberation does not: parties do not necessarily try to gain vis-à-vis each other from a decision under a deliberative framework; the decision taken is the one which is felt best in the prevailing circumstances (Elster, 1998; Sabel, 1994; Bessette, 1994; O’Donnell, 2000). Baccaro (2002) also differentiates deliberation from integrative bargaining in arguing that, even though in integrative bargaining, parties may seek the same solution, they do so for different underlying reasons, in contrast to deliberation which produces a consensus on both the action to take and why the action needs to be taken. Baccaro (2002:28) also argues that deliberation, unlike integrative bargaining, involves setting aside partisan positions and acting for “what is good for the group as a whole”.
Where the author cites the ideas/thoughts of other authors without quoting them directly, the sources are placed at the end of the sentence in the form of (Author, Year). Alternatively, you can say something like “Author (year) argues that”
Where you quote directly from a source, the part that is quoted directly should be included in inverted commas (eg. “quote” ). As this writer included the author’s name in the sentence, the quote is referenced as Author (year: page). Alternatively, if the author had not included the Author’s name in the main sentence, this reference would have been written as (Author name, year: page). Where something is written by two authors you write it as, for example, Donaghey and Teague (2005). If there are more than 2 authors it is written as the first Author’s name et al. eg Bloisi et al (2005).
Once you have written your essay with the references, you need to produce a reference list (sometimes mistakenly called a bibliography) at the end. This should be a list of sources cited in the text, arranged in alphabetical order. It is not simply a case of the author’s name and year. The following format should be used:
For a book Author Surname, Initial (year) Title City: Publisher
Eg Bessette, J. (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government Chicago: University of Chicago Press
For books that have had more than one edition: Author Surname, Initial (year) Title Edition City: Publisher
Eg Mullins, L (2005) “Management and Organisation Behaviour” 6th Edition, Prentice-Hall, London
For a Chapter in an Edited Book Author Surname, Initial (Year) “chapter title” in Editors names Title of book City: Publisher
Eg O’Donnell, R. (2000) “Public Policy and Social Partnership” in Dunne, Ingram and Litton Questioning Ireland Dublin: IPA
For a Journal article Author Surname, Initial (year) “article title” Journal name volume number, volume part, pages
Eg Baccaro, L. (2003) “What is Alive and What is Dead in the Theory of Corporatism British Journal of Industrial Relations 41 (4): 683-706
For a working paper Author surname, initial (year) “working Paper title” Name of series number (if any) city
Eg Baccaro, L. (2002) “Civil society meets the state: a model of associational democracy” International Institute for Labour Studies Discussion paper Working Paper No. DP/138/2002, Geneva
NB – WHEN TWO AUTHORS APPEAR, YOU GIVE BOTH NAMES. WHERE YOU USE ET AL IN THE TEXT (IE 3 OR MORE) YOU GIVE ALL NAMES IN THE REFERENCE LIST.
The list is then arranged alphabetically, by the author’s names. For example, for the above paragraph, this would be the reference list:
Baccaro, L. (2002) “Civil society meets the state: a model of associational democracy” International Institute for Labour Studies Discussion paper Working Paper No. DP/138/2002, Geneva
Bessette, J. (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government Chicago: University of Chicago
Elster, J. (ed), (1998), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
O’Donnell, R. (2000) “Public Policy and Social Partnership” in Dunne, Ingram and Litton Questioning Ireland Dublin:IPA
Sabel, C. (1996) Local Partnerships and Social Innovation: Ireland. Dublin: OECD.Order Now