Assignment help
Join our 150К of happy users
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
BMA6104 Organisational Strategy Assignment Help
BMA6104 Organisational Strategy Assignment
| Module Code: | BMA6104 |
| Module Title: | Organisational Strategy |
| Assignment: | S1. Individual Case Study Report (50%) |
| Word Count: | 2,500 words |
| Contribution to Module Mark: | 50% |
| Deadline | 31 July2026, at 5:00 pm |
| Learning outcome assessed: |
|
| Assessment Brief 1 | |
This is an individual case study report addressing all learning outcomes.
Individual Case Study
The case study company is Unilever United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. See https://www.unilever.co.uk/
You are a junior analyst and have been asked to investigate the consumer goods industry in the UK and in particular the rising cost of living and availability of varieties. You will,therefore:
Note that this report is about applying and interpreting theory, models, and concepts from the module to the case study drawing on professional and academic resources. Your discussion should not focus on the description of the framework alone but on the implications this analysis does have for Unilever in the face of the rising cost of living and availability of varieties.
To be successful, you will need to access the respective corporate websites, relevant annual reports and analyst reports from the university online library. See https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/library/library-databases/This is a level 6 advanced module. At this stage you are expected to identify, critically evaluate, and apply relevant theory to business issues with insight and an evaluative stance. You will have a sound knowledge of secondary research, graphs, charts and will be able to intelligently make use of multiple sources of academic journals and professional resources from the online library.
Assignment 1 (S1): Your Individual Report needs to be submitted through Turn-It-In, in Microsoft Word format.
Deadline Time: 5:00 PM Deadline Date: 31 July2026.
Word Count: 2,500 words (+ or - 10%). Word count excludes the cover page, a one-page (maximum) executive summary, a table of contents (that should include a list of figures and a list of tables), a relevant reference list and if necessary, a maximum of three,relevant, appropriate appendices.
Assessment Guidelines
Your work should follow a business report structure. The following outline is a suggestion of what your report might contain.
Academic writing support
Professional reports should be grammatically correct, using UK English spelling, and be error-free with comprehensive in-text citations of all sources using the Harvard system.
It is strongly recommended that you make use of the university's academic writing and support services. Individual appointments are available from the university library and daily online Harvard referencing workshops are offered on a drop-in basis. See https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/library/writing-and-learning-centre/
In addition, your lecturer will be available for assessment workshops during class times during the final weeks of the course. You should not expect your lecturer to review an entire draft or give feedback by email. | |
| For all policies regarding the submission of your work please refer to the Programme and Student Handbooks available on VLE.See https://minerva.bathspa.ac.uk/ultra/institution-page | |
Assessment 1 Criteria: Individual Case Study Report
| 0% – 39% | 40% – 49% | 50% – 59% | 60% – 69% | 70% – 84% | 85% – 100% | |
Knowledge of concepts and contexts (40%)
| Very weak understanding, based on little or no research into case and sector. Descriptions of concepts and context lack accuracy and relevance. The source material is very weak or non-existent. | Generally weak understanding of core concepts, with weak research into the case and/or sector. Some limited evidence of understanding concepts and relevance in use. The source material is weak.
| Some understanding of core concepts is shown, also demonstrating some exploration of the case and sector issues. Generally clear and coherent, limited in range and depth. The source material is moderate, providing some adequate support. | Competent understanding of core concepts shown, along with a good breadth and depth of investigation into details of case and sector. Some critical reflection and consideration of alternatives are evident. The source material is good, providing strong support. | Excellent understanding of core concepts shown coupled with extensive and insightful details on case and sector. Wide-ranging and critical reflections strongly in evidence. The source material is excellent, providing very strong support. | Exceptional understanding of core concepts shown, together with comprehensive coverage of the relevant case and sector details. The source material is extremely well chosen throughout. |
| Analysis (40%) | There is no or very little evaluation or analysis; the work is almost entirely descriptive. | Very limited evidence of the ability to apply concepts and tools in analysis appropriately and meaningfully. The analysis is largely descriptive and there is a little developed argument. | Key concepts are used to structure and develop analysis, though this is limited in the range and depth of issues being considered. A reasonable attempt is made at developing a coherent argument. | Uses key concepts effectively to generate robust and well-focused insights into case and context, leading to a coherent analysis. Some evidence of further critical reflection and evaluation. | Key concepts are used very effectively, and these are complemented with clearly supported independent judgement, original insights, and critical reflections. The overall argument is coherent and wide-ranging. | There is a sophisticated use of core concepts, combining insightful analysis with well-supported critical reflection and generation of original ideas. The argument is comprehensive and compelling. |
| Communication (20%) | Lacking clarity in delivery. Frequently difficult to understand or follow the argument. Weak structure and over/under length. Numerous instances of errors in the quality of presentation including spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. | Basic delivery, acceptable overall but with some confusion and lack of clarity. There are noticeable errors in the quality of the presentation including spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. | Provides a fair level of clarity, occasionally lacking in coherence. Generally appropriate in length and focus. Limited errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Quality overall is standard. | Provides a good level of clarity, only minor aspects may lack some coherence. Good attention to length and focus, there are only occasional errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Quality shows some originality and careful attention to detail. | Provides an excellent level of clarity, covering complex issues very clearly. No noticeable errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Arguments are coherent and well-focused throughout, and the quality shows professionalism and originality. | Provides an outstanding level of clarity, without errors of any kind. Complex issues are succinctly covered, and the presentation provides a comprehensive and compelling exploration of core issues. The style is exciting and engaging throughout. |
Qualities for sound, good, excellent, and outstanding classifications include all lower classification qualities.
Send Your assignment brief
Share your assignment brief and after Checking assignment requirement expert Will share the quote
Get Quote and pay
Once quote is sent, you can make Payment through secure option after which our team will start work
Get Assignment
Our team will Deliver the work you can share If any feedback

