Authorised: Dean of School Owner: Dean of School Approved by: SQC Date: 28th June 2004 Revised: 17th

July 2006 Ref: UWBS038a

UWBS038g Assessment Briefing for Students

Academic Year: 2012/2013 Module code: Subject Area: 6IB003 Module title: Dynamics of Multinational enterprises Dr. Mark Cook Element Weighting: 50% Semester 1

International Business

Module Leader:

Assessment brief number (and title where applicable): 1. Individual Essay (first part of portfolio)

Assessment Brief/ Task

Critically evaluate the extent to which institutional factors influence inward and outward FDI.

Important requirements
(Delete where appropriate, if other please provide detail) Mode of Working: individual Presentation Format: Grade required to pass: Assessment limits (words and presentation timings): (in accordance with assessment tariffs) Insert the following detail: th Hand in date: 14 December 2012, 12.00pm Assessment should be marked for the attention of: Dr. Mark Cook Preferred hand in location: City Campus Note: Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers of written submissions are not required in most instances. (Refer to guidelines however in the case of dissertations) Always submit an electronic copy of your written work as well as a paper copy. Always keep a copy of your work. Always keep a file of working papers (e.g. photocopied articles) that support the sources used in your work. essay D5 no more than 1500 words

UWBS038g

The following detail is important when:

Preparing for your assessment Checking your work before submission When interpreting your grade and feedback after marking. (Note that your work will not be returned to you so always keep a copy of your work for this purpose.)

Learning Outcomes Tested

(Insert detail)

A critical appraisal of the impact of the global regulatory environment and governance on the strategic behaviour of multinational enterprise

Assessment Criteria (Insert

detail)

Level of understanding, analysis and evaluation Conclusion The use of academic literature to underpin the analysis Structure and presentation of the assignment, including the use of the Harvard referencing system
A grade

Performance descriptors (by grade) (Insert detail)

Excellent analysis and evaluation demonstrating high levels of understanding. Excellent ability to synthesise arguments and communicate these in a coherent and effective manner; excellent evidence of sound familiarity with key writings on the subject. An excellent conclusion fully supported by the discussion and evidence. Excellent essay structure and presentation; correct use of Harvard referencing system. Very good analysis and evaluation demonstrating very good levels of understanding. Very good ability to synthesise arguments and communicate these in a coherent and effective manner; very good evidence of sound familiarity with key writings on the subject. A very good conclusion largely supported by the discussion and evidence. Very good essay structure and presentation; correct use of Harvard referencing system. Good analysis and evaluation demonstrating sound levels of understanding. Good ability to synthesise arguments and communicate these in a coherent and effective manner; good evidence of sound familiarity with key writings on the subject. A good conclusion supported by the discussion and evidence. Good essay structure and presentation; correct use of Harvard referencing system. Satisfactory analysis and evaluation demonstrating reasonable levels of understanding. Reasonable ability to synthesise arguments and communicate these in a coherent and effective manner; some evidence of sound familiarity with key writings on the subject. A fair conclusion partly supported by the discussion and evidence. Reasonable essay structure and presentation; correct use of Harvard referencing system. Weak analysis and evaluation demonstrating limited/weak levels of understanding. Limited/weak ability to synthesise arguments and communicate these in a coherent and effective manner; limited evidence of sound familiarity with key writings on the subject. A limited/weak conclusion weakly supported by the discussion and evidence. Limited/weak essay structure and presentation; correct use of Harvard referencing system. Inadequate in all aspects.

To help you further:

Refer to module guide for contact details of module leader and Departmental Administrator
2

UWBS038g

Resit details will be posted on WOLF Weeks 3 -11 Abdi, M and Aulakh, P. S (2012), Do Country-level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relationships, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol 43, 477-497 . Alpey, G., Budur, M., Ener, H., & Talug, C. (2005) Comparing board-level governance at MNEs and local firms: lessons from Turkey, Journal of International Management, 11(1), 67-86 Bauwhede, H.V. (2009) On the relation between corporate governance compliance and operating performance, Accounting and Business Research, 39(5), 497-513 Denis, D.K. and McConnell, J.J. (2003) International corporate governance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1), 1-36 Globerman, S and Shapiro, S (2002) national Political Infrastructure and Foreign Direct Investment, Industry Canada Research Publications program, Working paper Number 37. Kim, B., Prescott, J.E., & Kim, S.M. (2005) Differentiated governance of foreign subsidiaries in transnational corporations: an agency theory perspective, Journal of International Management, 11(1), 43-66 Luo, Y. (2005) Corporate governance and accountability in multinational enterprises: Concepts and agenda, Journal of International Management, 11(1), 1-18 Trevino, L.J., Thomas, D.E. and Cullen, J. (2008) The three Pillars of Institutional Theory and FDI in Latin America: An institutional process, International Business Review, Vol 17, 118-133 Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N.S. (2009) The end of the opportunism v trust debate: Bounded rationality as a new envelope in research on MNE governance, Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1471-1495 A. General: (Completeness, word length, special requirements, etc) Construction: Structure, presentation, etc. introduction, conclusion, visual

Detail of tutorial inputs, etc. Recommended reading and other sources (Where different from module guide listing)

If available insert checklist of issues for student to consider before submission.

Have you provided an introduction for each item? Have you concluded by summarising your argument at the end of each item?

Is the work well presented visually in terms of layout, fonts, and spacing, etc? Intellectual Argument: (Evidence used, clarity and structure of argument, etc.) Intellectual argument Have you supported your statements with appropriate "evidence"?

Is the argument clear and structured? Source Materials: (Please refer to guidance you have received in Module Guide and Induction. Proper acknowledgment, correct identification of authors, etc, complete references or bibliography, use of Harvard system standards) Are the materials you have used properly acknowledged in your work? Does the main body of your work correctly identify authors and other detail (dates and where appropriate page references) as specified in the Harvard system standards? Can all your references be traced to your bibliography? Has the bibliography been prepared to Harvard system
UWBS038g 3

standards? B. Overall Review: (Re-read, assess impact, etc.) Self-assessment briefing checklist: worked example Re-read the assignment brief. Have you answered the brief set? Have you addressed every aspect of it? Refer to the previously issued grade descriptors and decide (realistically) the grade you want to achieve. (Honestly now) do the descriptions associated with that grade correspond with your work? If not what adjustments do you need to make?

UWBS038g

Avoiding Academic Misconduct

Warning Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The business school has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages. Avoid Collusion The business school encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own in order to complete your individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work before it is submitted and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance. Avoid Plagiarism You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly. You should therefore always use of the Harvard style referencing system in all cases. (For further guidance go to www.wlv.ac.uk/lib and from the menu that then appears, make these choices in turn: Study skills, referencing, Harvard Citation). Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else's work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because: It represents a poor writing style that is unlikely to meet the pass grade marking criteria, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally. Maximising the benefits of team working Individual assessment must represent an effort prepared and submitted by you. It will contain your solutions to exercises set during the delivery of the module. (Your submission may reflect some contributions arising from group working and classroom presentations). Always: Maintain a file of evident (e.g. academic papers used in preparing your assignment) Submit an electronic copy (e.g. a disk or CD) of all written assessments in addition to paper copies.

UWBS038g