COLUMBAN COLLEGE, INC

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY

No. 1 1st Street, East Tapinac, Olongapo City, Philippines

MGT 220- GOOD GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Subject Teacher: Dolly Vinluan-Abasta, CPA, MBA, DBM (IP)

CASE STUDY RUBICS

Group No. _______

CASE STUDY COMPONENT AREAS
NAME OF STUDENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Each of the case analysis component areas are identified below. These rubrics will be used to assess the student’s
work by specifying a score based on the performance ratings using the following:

1. Identification of the Issues: This section should describe the ethical and social responsibility/sustainability
issues relevant to the case. This section should also include a background of the study that provides an
overview of the key issues and problems that are central to the case.
2. Stakeholder Perspective. This section should identify the key stakeholders in the case and describe and
evaluate their differing perspective and interests.
3. Analysis and Evaluation. This section should present an analysis of the central issues and problems in
the case. This analysis should be informed by relevant theories applying to business ethics, good
governance and CSR and should lead to a set of conclusion that is supported by appropriate evidence.
4. Courses of Action: these section present plans of action for dealing with the central issues and problems in
the case. These should flow from previous analysis and evaluation and should be appropriately justified.
5. Recommendation: This section should provide a description and analysis of the pros and cons of the
courses actions starting off with the least recommended courses of action to the best recommended
courses of action.
6. Ability to work as a TEAM: This section should provide evidence that each team member is able to work
harmoniously with each other with outmost professionalism. Students must be able to demonstrate mastery
of the case study and ability to answer questions during presentation.

CASE STUDY COMPONENT AREAS – GRADING CRITERIA

Evaluation Very Good Good Poor
Dimensions (10 – 8) ( 7 - 5) (4 - 1)
Presents accurate and detailed With a few exceptions, identifies Does not recognize the
descriptions of the problems and and outlines the principal problems or issues of the
issues central to the case; problems and issues in the case, or identifies problems
(1) provides a well focused case; demonstrates an and issues that are not based
Identification of the diagnosis of strategic issues and acceptable understanding of the on facts of the case; displays
Issues key problems that demonstrates company’s issues, current little understanding of the
an excellent grasp of the situation and strategic issues, key problems, and the
company’s present situation and challenges; executive summary company’s present situation
strategic challenge; descriptions provides an adequate overview and strategic challenges;
are compelling and insightful. of the case issues and executive summary does not
problems; summary is missing a present a clear overview of
few minor points but meets the case issues; main points
expectation are not outlined or cannot be
understood
Clearly and accurately describes With few minor exceptions, Does not identify or explain
the unique perspectives of adequately identifies and the perspectives of any
 multiple key stakeholders in the
(2) case; demonstrates insightful
Stakeholder analysis of strategy tensions or
Perspective conflicts of interest between the
stakeholders.
Presents a balances, in-depth
and critical assessment of the
(3) facts of the case in light of
Analysis and relevant empirical and
Evaluation theoretical research; develops
insightful and well-supported
conclusions using reasoned,
sound and informed judgment.
Effectively weighs and assesses
a variety of alternative actions
(4) that address the multiple issues
Courses of Action central to the case; proposes
detailed plans of actions; action
plans are realistic and contain
thorough and well-reasoned
justifications.
Objectively and critically reflects
upon alternative plans of
(5) actions; effectively identifies,
Recommendation: thoroughly discusses and
insightfully evaluates the
implications and consequences
resulting from the proposed
action plans; identifies
consequences are tied to the
key issues central to the case.
Evaluation Very Good
Dimensions (15 – 10)
Clearly displays evidence that
each team member is able to
(6) work harmoniously with each
Ability to work as a other with outmost
TEAM professionalism; ability to
demonstrate mastery of the case
study and ability to answer
questions during presentation
Reference: IACBE Advancing Academic Quality in Business Education Worldwide
summarizes the perspective of
the principal stakeholders
involved in the case; outlines
some conflicts of interest
between the company and
stakeholders.
Provides an acceptable analysis
of most of the issues and
problems in the case; in most
instances, analysis is
adequately supported by theory
and empirical data; appropriate
conclusions are outlined and
summarized.
Outlines and summarizes some
alternative courses of actions to
deal with most of the issues and
problems in the case; in most
instances, proposed action
plans are outlined, are feasible
and based on relatively sound
theory and evidence.
Demonstrates acceptable
analysis of the results of
proposed action plans;
adequately outlines and
summarizes the implications
and consequences resulting
from the alternative courses of
actions; with a few minor
exceptions; identified
consequences of action plans
are related to key issues in the
case
Good
( 9 - 5)
Demonstrates acceptable
evidence that each team
member is able to work
harmoniously with each other
with outmost professionalism;
with a few minor exceptions the
ability to demonstrate mastery
of the case study and ability to
answer questions during
presentation
stakeholders involved in the
case or explanation is flawed
in many respects; fails to
recognize any differences
between the interests of the
various stakeholders.
Simply repeats facts identified
in the case and does not
discuss the relevance of these
facts; fails to draw conclusions
or conclusions are not justified
or supported; does not
present relevant data; shows
no critical examination of case
issues.
Has difficulty identifying
alternative and appropriate
courses of actions; few if any
alternatives are presented,
infeasible actions are
proposed, action plans are not
supported or action do not
address the key issues and
problems in the case.
Displays limited awareness
and/or understanding of the
consequences of action plans;
fails to identify implications
and consequences of
proposed action plans.
Identified outcomes do not
follow from proposed action
plans; identified outcomes do
not follow from proposed
action plans or outcomes are
not related to issues in the
case.
Poor
(4 - 1)
Displays limited evidence that
each team member is able to
work harmoniously with each
other with outmost
professionalism; does not
demonstrate mastery of the
case study; and does not
answer questions during
presentation.