Attached the guideline for this assessement.Do not forgete the referencees must to be in Harvard Guide.Cheers.

Assessment 2 Information
Subject Code: MAN202
Subject Name: Business Ethics
Assessment Title: Assessment 2
Assessment Type: Individual report
Choose an 1,500 Words
item.: (+/-10%)
Weighting: 40 %
Total Marks: 40
Submission: via Turnitin
Due Date: Week 10
Your Task
Write a report on the sustainability claims made by one of the three companies listed below.
Assessment Description
In a world where reputation is determined by social media, many leading companies and multi-national corporations (MNCs) use their webpages to advertise their sustainability record. How much of this information is PR and ‘hype’? How much of this information shows deep commitment to protecting people and planet (or social and environmental sustainability)?
This assessment task challenges you to research and then critically comment upon the online sustainability claims made by ONE of these companies:
Coca Cola
https://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/17377964/coca-cola-water-sustainability-recycling
controversy-investigation
Nike
https://sustainability.nike.com/
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-raises-issues-of-workers
rights.html
Cotton On
https://cottonongroup.com.au/sustainability/
https://goodonyou.eco/how-ethical-is-cotton-2/

Learning Outcomes for Assessment 1
LO1: Demonstrate understanding of concepts related to corporate social responsibility and business ethics and their application to practice
LO2: Critically evaluate the ethical practices of organisations
LO4: Demonstrate understanding of and be able to deploy the ethical dimensions of business and management
Assessment Instructions
Based upon your research, you will write a report of 1,200 – 1,500 words that critically evaluates the sustainability claims made by your chosen company.
Your report should focus upon either the environmental sustainability record or the social sustainability record of the company (but not both).
Your report should contain the following sections:
Executive Summary Optional
Introduction Providing Background on the concept of sustainability; plus describing the Method used (literature review and analysis, using information from general web sources, plus information sourced from the KBS library databases).
Analysis and Discussion (Body) Describe the claims made by the company online. Present any conflicting information you have discovered through other sources.
Conclusion Describes the true sustainability record of the company, based upon the previous discussion.
Recommendations Suggest measures your report reader should take, to accurately interpret company self-reports of sustainability.
References Should list all the online sources used, plus at least 5 academic sources (book chapters and journal articles) discovered through the KBS library databases.
Neither the Executive Summary nor the References and Appendices (where used) count against your word limit.
Please refer to the assessment marking guide to assist you in completing all the assessment criteria.

Important Study Information Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties? How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions:
http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Word Limits for Written Assessments
Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.

Assessment Marking Guide: Assessment 2 Individual Report
Criteria NN (Fail)
0 – 49% P (Pass)
50% - 64% CR (Credit)
65% - 74% DN (Distinction)
75% - 84% HD (High Distinction)
85% - 100% Score
Introduction (Background plus
Method) EITHER little or no background discussion of environmental (or social) sustainability OR lack of appropriately academic sources leads to a discussion with little depth or insight. Method hardly mentioned or missing altogether. Basic discussion of environmental (or social) sustainability, drawing upon fewer than TWO academic sources. Report Method briefly mentioned. Competent discussion of environmental (or social) sustainability, drawing upon reliable information including at least TWO academic sources. Method laid out. Strong discussion of environmental (or social) sustainability, drawing upon a range of current and reputable informational sources (academic and online). Method accurately laid out. Succinct yet insightful discussion of environmental (or social) sustainability, drawing upon a range of current and reputable informational sources (academic and online). Method accurately laid out. /8
Body (Analysis plus Discussion) EITHER weak account of company’s self- reported sustainability claims OR accurate summary of company’s self-reported claims, but without challenge from external informational sources
Where outside sources are consulted, no evidence of critical thinking skills: e.g. fails to distinguish between opinion expressed through websites, and research-based data. Provides incomplete summary of company’s claims. Generally uncritical use of external sources to interrogate truth of company’s self- reported sustainability claims.
Fails to distinguish between opinion expressed through websites, and research-based data. Summarises company’s claims. Basic display of Critical Thinking in the use of online plus academic sources to interrogate truth of company’s self- reported sustainability claims.
Does not always distinguish between opinion expressed through websites, and research-based data. Detailed summary of company’s claims. Critical Thinking skills evident in the use of online plus academic sources to interrogate truth of company’s self-reported sustainability claims.
Distinguishes between opinion expressed through websites, and research-based data. Succinctly yet accurately summarises company’s claims. Strong Critical Thinking skills evident in the use of online plus academic sources to interrogate truth of company’s self-reported sustainability claims.
Shows strong awareness of the differing reliability of a range of informational sources. /16
Page 4 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Conclusion
and
Reommendations Conclusion does not logically follow from the preceding discussion OR Conclusion contains new information not previously appearing in the report Body.
Recommendations fail to acknowledge that company self-report cannot be accepted in the absence of corroborating evidence. Conclusion provides a mainly competent summary of preceding discussion.
Recommendations
acknowledge that company self-report cannot be accepted inresearch the absence of corroborating evidence. Conclusion logically follows from and provides a competent summary of preceding discussion.
Recommendations
translate findings into a set of practical
techniques that partly resemble those adopted in the report Body. Conclusion logically follows from and provides a highly competent summary of preceding discussion.
Recommendations
plausibly translate findings into research techniques resembling those displayed in the report Body. Conclusion logically follows from and provides a masterly summary of preceding discussion.
Recommendations
translate findings into a well-considered set of research techniques, mirroring techniques displayed in the report Body. /10
Referencing Very limited or no use of in-text citations.
Final References list is missing or contains many inaccuracies (e.g. URLS in place of full citations). Many points made are not supported by in- text citations.
Final References list follows KBS house style for Harvard Referencing, with many exceptions. Many key evidential claims backed up using in-text citations. Use of in-text citation could be more frequent.
Final References list follows KBS house style for Harvard Referencing, with some exceptions. Use of in-text citations provides backing for most evidential claims made.
Final References list follows KBS house style for Harvard Referencing, with minor inaccuracies. Strong and frequent use of in-text citations throughout, to support evidential claims as these are made.
Final References list accurately follows KBS house style for Harvard Referencing /6
Total /40