COMPONENT
UNACCEPTABLE
(FAIL)
0-10%

Executive summary











Literature search

Executive summary

sufficiently detailed, but still
brief and concise

Included most of the required
elements

Did not exceed 300 words limit

Few sound revisions to the 
executive summary and
tracked revisions
Updated executive

summary poorly and reflect
only some of the sections
added to the second report
Many sound revisions to the
executive summary and
tracked revisions
Updated executive summary
well to reflect the sections
added to the second report
Limited or no sound
revisions to the executive
summary and/or no
tracked revisions
Updated executive
summary did not reflect
the sections added to the
second report
Very poor or vague
description of the literature
search undertaken
None or few of the key
elements of the literature
search included
Sources used of very poor
quality
Used very few source
Poorly structured literature
section
Demonstrated very poor
competencies conducting
the literature search
Ignored 250 words limit
No or limited sound
revisions and/or id not
track revisions made
Updated literature section
did not reflect well how
search was expanded for
the second report
0 marks
Open Rubric
OUTSTANDING
+75%
Executive summary limited 
and incomplete
Included some of the
required elements of an

executive summary
Exceeded 300 words limit 

1-2 marks








GOOD PASS
50-70%
Executive summary not

presented
Vague statements or not a 
summary
Did not include any of the
required elements of an

executive summary
Ignored 300 words limit
0 marks

CLOSE TO FAIL
20-40%


Limited or incomplete
description of literature
search
Some elements of literature
search described, but not
very well done
Most sources used are of
poor quality
Some structure in the
literature search section
Used insufficient number of
sources (less than 15
sources)
Demonstrated limited
competencies conducting
the literature search
Exceeded 250 words limit

Executive summary is very
detailed, but still brief and concise
Included all of the required
elements
Did not exceed 300 words limit
Very sound revisions to the
executive summary and tracked
revisions
Updated executive summary very
well to reflect the sections added to
the second report
3-4 marks
4-5 marks








Literature search is sufficiently
described
All required elements of the
literature search included
Most sources used of good
quality
Good structure in the literature
search section
Used sufficient number of
quality sources (at least 15
sources used)
Demonstrated good
competencies conducting the
literature search
Slightly exceeded 250 words
limit





Max 5
Very detailed, clear and concise
literature description given
All of the required elements of
search indicated: period of search,
key terms used, search engine
and/or databases used, number of
articles found/read or abstracts
read
Literature search section very well
structured
High number of high quality
sources used (15 or more
sources used).
Demonstrated very good
competencies conducting the
literature search
Did not exceed 250 words limit

Few sound revisions and/or 
tracked only some
revisions made
Updated literature section 
to poorly reflect how search
was expanded for the
second report
1-2 marks

MARK
Many sound revisions and
tracked clearly all revisions
made
Updated literature section to
reflect well how search was
expanded for the second
report
3-4 marks


Very sound revisions and tracked
clearly all revisions made
Updated literature section to reflect
very well and in detail how search
was expanded for the second
report
4-5 marks
Max 5









Resource appraisal


Vague or very poor
evaluation of the key
resources identified
Very poor analysis
process followed. Only
one or two of the VIRO
criterion is used
No balance of theory and
contextualisation
Strategic implications
drawn for management
action not sound

Demonstrated very poor
insight into the application
of the resource-based
theoretical perspective
Few statements of facts
supported with references.
Interpretations or vague
statements presented
rather than factual
evidence
Few of the references
used are recent
Few quality/scholarly
references used
Very poor or no structuring
of arguments
Ignored 1000 words limit

0-3 marks








Poor or limited evaluation
of the key resources
identified
Poor analysis process
followed. Only some of the
VIRO criterion is used
Poor balance of theory and
contextualisation
Few or weak strategic
implications drawn for
management action sound

Demonstrated some insight
into the application of the
resource-based theoretical
perspective
Some statements of facts
are supported with
references
Some of the references
used are recent
Some quality/scholarly
references used
Poor structuring of
arguments
Exceeded 1000 words limit

4-9 marks








Good evaluation of the key
resources identified
Analysis process clear and
sound evaluation using VIRO
criterion
Good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Most strategic implications
drawn for management action
sound

Demonstrated good insight
into the application of the
resource-based theoretical
perspective
Most statements of facts are
very well supported with
references
Most of the references used
are recent
Most of the sources are
quality/scholarly
Good structuring of arguments
Slightly exceeded 1000 words
limit

10-15 marks








Very good evaluation of the key
resources identified
Analysis process very clear and
sound evaluation using VIRO
criterion
Very good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Very strong strategic
implications drawn for
management action
Demonstrated very good insight
into the application of the resourcebased theoretical perspective
All statements of facts are very
well supported with references
References used are recent
Quality/scholarly references used
Very good structuring of arguments
Did not exceed 1000 words limit
16-20 marks
Max 20





Challenges trading internationally





Vague or very poor
evaluation of comparative
advantages and resource
endowments that underpin
a comparative advantage
in different locations
Very poor evaluation of
whether a comparative
advantage is fixed or not
No balance of theory and
contextualisation
Implications drawn for
management action are
not sound

Demonstrated no or very
limited insight into the
application of classic
and/or modern trade
theories
Statements of facts are
not supported with
references
Presented interpretations
without any supporting
evidence
Very poor or no structuring
of arguments.
Statements as oppose to
arguments made
Ignored 1000 words limit

0-1 mark







Poor or limited evaluation
of comparative advantages
and resource endowments
that underpin a
comparative advantage in
different locations
Poor evaluation of whether
a comparative advantage is
fixed or not
Some balance of theory
and contextualisation
Weak implications drawn
for management action

Demonstrated some insight
into the application of
classic and modern trade
theories
Some statements of facts
are supported with
references/sources
Some of the
references/sources used
are recent
Poor structuring of
arguments
Exceeded 1000 words limit

2-4 marks







Good evaluation of
comparative advantages and
resource endowments that
underpin a comparative
advantage in different
locations
Good evaluation of whether a
comparative advantage is
fixed or not
Good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Most implications drawn for
management action are sound

Demonstrated good insight
into the application of classic
and/or modern trade theories
Statements of facts are
supported with quality
references
Most references used are
recent
Good structuring of arguments
Slightly exceed 1000 words
limit

10-7 marks








Very good evaluation of
comparative advantages and
resource endowments that
underpin a comparative advantage
in different locations
Very good evaluation of whether a
comparative advantage is fixed or
not
Very good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Very strong implications drawn for
management action
Demonstrated very good insight
into the application of classic
and/or modern trade theories
All statements of facts are
supported with references
References used are recent
Quality/scholarly references used
Very good structuring of
arguments
Did not exceed 1000 words limit
16-20 marks
Max 20



Foreign Direct Investment







Vague or very poor
evaluation whether FDI is
justified in light of
opportunities and
constraints created by
institutions
Presented no sound
evaluation whether FDI is
justified in light of
opportunities and
constraints created by
institutions
No balance of theory and
contextualisation
Implications drawn for
management action are
not sound

Demonstrated no or very
limited insight into the
application of the OLI
paradigm
Statements of facts are
not supported with
references or presented
interpretations without any
supporting evidence
Very poor or no structuring
of arguments.
Statements as oppose to
arguments are made
Few of the references
used are recent
Ignored 1000 words limit

0-3 marks



Conclusions

Little or superficial
improvements made to the
fist report and/or did not
tracked revisions

Very poor update of
conclusions section to
reflect the work done in the
second report

Ignored 750 word limit
1 mark

Revisions










Demonstrated some insight
into the application of the
OLI paradigm
Some statements of facts
are supported with
references
Some of the references
used are recent
Poor structuring of
arguments
Exceeded 1000 words limit

4-9 marks
Weak, vague or no sound 
conclusions drawn

Conclusions derived from
own interpretations
Conclusions not supported 
by factual evidence
Conclusions do not
connect to the
management problem
identified



Limited or poor evaluation
whether FDI is justified in
light of opportunities and
constraints created by
institutions
Presented few sound
arguments whether
locations advantages is a
good strategic fit for the
MNE goals
Some balance of theory
and contextualisation
Weak implications drawn
for management action are
sound



Weak conclusion drawn
Very little or “thin” factual
evidence presented to
support conclusions
Few conclusions connect
well to the management
problem identified









Demonstrated good insight
into the application of the OLI
paradigm
Statements of facts are
supported with references
Most references used are
recent
Quality/scholarly references
used
Good structuring of arguments
Slightly exceed 1000 words
limit

10-15 marks



Some improvements made 
to the fist report and tracked
revisions
Poor update of conclusions 
section to reflect the work
done in the second report
Poor planning in keeping to 
750 words limit
2 marks
Good evaluation whether FDI
is justified in light of
opportunities and constraints
created by institutions
Presented sound arguments
whether locations advantages
is a good strategic fit for the
MNE goals
Good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Most implications drawn for
management action are sound








16-20 marks
All of the conclusions are very
strong conclusions drawn.
Conclusions derived from very
good and rich factual evidence
presented in the report.
All of the conclusions connect very
well to management problem
identified

Substantive improvements made to
the fist report and tracked all
revisions made to the first report
Very good update of conclusions
section to reflect the work done in
the second report
Did not exceed 750 words limit
Good improvements made to
the fist report and tracked
revisions
Good update of conclusions
section to reflect the work
done in the second report
Slightly exceeded 750 words
limit
3 marks


4 marks
Superficial revisions to and 
tracked some of the
revisions made to the first
report

Some improvements to the
first report
Indicated why some of

revisions were needed
and/or how these revisions
were addressed
Sound revisions and tracked
revisions made to the first
report
Good substantive
improvements to the first
report
Indicated why most of
revisions were needed and
how these revisions were
addressed
Did not use a table, but

mostly superficial revisions
to the first report
Little to no reflexivity
demonstrated

Used a table but presented 
few revisions to the first
report that were wellstructured
Some reflexivity

demonstrated
Used a table to present

substantive revisions to the
first report in a well-structured
manner
Good reflexivity demonstrated 
2-4 marks
Demonstrated very good insight
into the application of the OLI
paradigm
All statements of facts are
supported with references
References used are recent
Quality/scholarly references used
Very good structuring of
arguments
Did not exceed 1000 words limit
Most of the conclusions drawn 
are strong conclusion drawn
Conclusions derived from

factual evidence and rich
factual evidence presented
Most conclusions connect well 
to the management problem
identified
Very poor, superficial or

no revisions and/or did not
tracked revisions made
As a whole, very little
improvements to the first

report
Did not indicate why

revisions were needed
and/or how these revisions
were addressed
0-1 mark
Very good evaluation whether FDI
is justified in light of opportunities
and constraints created by
institutions
Presented very sound arguments
whether locations advantages is a
good strategic fit for the MNE goals
Very good balance of theory and
contextualisation
Strong implications drawn for
management action
5-7 marks



Max 20
Max 4
Very sound revisions and tracked
revisions made to the first report
Substantive improvements to the
first report
Clearly indicated why all of the
revisions were needed and how
these revisions were addressed
Used a table to present all the
revisions to the first report in a
substantive and well-structured
manner
Very good reflexivity demonstrated
8-10 marks
Max 10
Technical requirements
Subtotal
Technical requirements
Total
No table of contents. Appropriate headings not created. Sections
0
not numbered or logically numbered. Poor grammar and spelling
Table of contents and headings are used.
Headings and subheading created and numbered
logically. Acceptable grammar and spelling
1
Sources acknowledged in-text and aligns with the
bibliography. Correct referencing technique is
used.
1
Sources are not acknowledged/Incorrect referencing technique
used
0
Bibliography included. At least ten sources
included
2
Bibliography not included. Required minimum number of 15 sources
not included. Sources used not reputable and scholary. Most
sources are“Wiki-like” pages and/or online sources by anonymous
authors.
0
Editing of an acceptable standard. Page numbers
included and correctly reflected in the table of
contents.
1
Editing of a poor standard. Page numbering not done or page
numbers not correctly reflected in the table of contents
0
Percentage mark for Assignment 04
/84
/6
/90