Recent Question/Assignment

ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title SRM301 Sustainability and Resource Management
Assessment Business Proposal
Individual/Group Individual
Length 1000 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes d) Demonstrate knowledge of the skills and abilities needed by managers of sustainable tourism organisations.
e) Develop and justify strategies and plans necessary for sustainable tourism.
Submission Due by 11:55pm AEST Sunday Module 6 (Week 11).
Weighting 25%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context
As sustainability requirements within a destination evolve, ethical tourism organisations review and adapt their corporate social responsibility practices to respond to new challenges. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000) emphasises that corporate social responsibility ‘is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large’ (p. 8). Given this, tourism operators need to align their business strategies to the triple bottom line (social, economic and environmental) to ensure continued sustainability of both the tourism organisation and the destination. This assessment will allow students to consider the operations of a tourism organisation and develop future social corporate responsibility strategies in line with the sustainability priorities of the relevant tourism destination.
Instructions
Using the tourism organisation selected for Assessment 2, you will assume the role of a consultant that has been contracted by the organisation to enhance the existing corporate social responsibility plan. You are required to develop a suite of corporate social responsibility strategies to support the future sustainability of the organisation and destination as a whole. You will need to compile your recommendations into a report to present to the tourism organisation’s management team.
Within the report you are required to:
• Provide an overview of the current sustainability status of the tourism organisation in which you consider the key findings from Assessment 2. This will constitute the report introduction.
SRM301_Assessment 3 Business Proposal_ 01042019 Page 1 of 5
• Propose three (3) new corporate social responsibility strategies that the organisation could implement to complement its operations.
• Justify how these strategies support all elements of the organisation’s triple bottom line and the overall sustainability of the destination.
Referencing
You should make significant references to the subject material and substantial wider reading. A minimum of three (3) academic (scholarly books and peer-reviewed journal articles) and three (3) other sources (newspaper articles, trade publications, websites, etc.) must be used. These should be referenced in the APA style, both in-text and in a reference list. References to ‘Wikipedia’ or similar unsubstantiated sources will not be accepted.
You must recognise all sources of information; including images that you include in your work. Reference your work according to the APA 6th edition guidelines. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Submission Instructions
Submit your Case Study Report in the Assessment 3 Business Proposal submission link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site. A rubric will be attached to the assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the learning portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Extensions cannot be granted by the lecturer after the submission date. In the event of serious illness or unusual circumstances, a student may apply for Special Consideration in accordance with the rules and regulations governing this application, but it is important that such requests be made as soon as the circumstance is known.
SRM301_Assessment 3 Business Proposal_ 01042019 Page 2 of 5
Assessment 3 Rubric
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Below minimum standard)
0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Demonstrates knowledge and
understanding of
sustainability theory and principles of sustainability
25% Limited and inadequate understanding of required concepts and knowledge. Adequate knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.
Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity
to explain and apply relevant concepts. A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Mastery of concepts and application to new situations and further learning.
Presents an analysis of the factors contributing to concerns over
sustainability in the case study and
examines progress that has been made in
achieving sustainability in the case study industry
25% Limited and inadequate analysis of factors – does not present an adequate account of initiatives taken by the case study industry. Adequately demonstrated analysis - presents an adequate account of initiatives taken by the case study industry. Well-developed analysis - presents a satisfactory account of initiatives taken by the case study industry. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis - presents a thorough and advanced account of initiatives taken by the case study industry. Highly sophisticated and creative analysis - presents a thorough and exceptional account of initiatives taken by the case study industry.
Collection and evaluation of relevant
information to support
the business proposal
25% Inadequate understanding of key concepts required to support the business proposal.
Appears to confuse logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning. Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the business proposal.
Often conflates/confuses personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Viewpoints of experts are questioned. Analysis and evaluation of the viewpoints of experts is limited and basic.
There is limited intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability. Satisfactory understanding of key concepts required to support the business proposal.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts to articulate recommendation for the case study industry
Viewpoints of experts are questioned and tested. Analysis and evaluation of the viewpoints of experts is satisfactory
Demonstrates intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability in this testing.
Identifies logical flaws. Demonstrates an advanced understanding of key concepts required to support the business proposal.
Demonstrates an advanced explanation and analysis of concepts to articulate a wide range of recommendations for the case study industry.
Questions and tests viewpoints of experts. Analysis and evaluation of expert viewpoints is advanced and reflects growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigour and adaptability.
Information is substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Systematically and critically discriminates between key concepts required to support the business proposal
Demonstrates an exceptional explanation and analysis of concepts to articulate a wide range of recommendations for the case study industry. .
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Identifies gaps in knowledge. Exhibits intellectual independence, rigour, good judgement and adaptability.
Effective communication
15% No logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is adequate, but not always clear and logical. Information, arguments and
evidence are well presented, mostly clear Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the work is Expertly presented; the work is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a
The line of reasoning is very difficult to follow.
Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. flow of ideas and arguments.
Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
logical, clear and well supported by evidence. clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
10%
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Referencing resembles APA, with frequent or repeated errors. Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas.
Referencing resembles APA, with occasional errors. Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
Show evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence.
APA referencing is free from errors. Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.
Show evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence.
APA referencing is free from errors.