deliver a 15 minute presentation on a CSR plan for Monsanto

deliver a 15 minute presentation on a CSR plan for Monsanto Order Description Submission date: Submission format: Submission method: Presentations: Self-reflection: Objective Week 11 (No deadline extensions) 15 minute presentation using PowerPoint slides proceeded by 5 minutes for Q+A’s. Submissions are to be uploaded onto Blackboard the week of the presentation (Wed. 06.12.17 / Fri. 08.12.17 by 09:00) In-class on 06. & 08. Dec. 2016. Provide tutor with one hard copy of the PowerPoint slides (3 – 4 per page) at the start of the presentation To be uploaded onto blackboard by 15. Dec. 23:59 For this group project you are requested to construct and deliver a 15 minute presentation on a CSR plan for a company/ organisation of your choice. You will act as ‘consultants’ and research, develop and advise on implementation of a bespoke CSR initiative for the company. Your aim is to establish a business case for how ‘shared value’ can be established and how the company gain competitive advantage from it. When presenting, imagine that you are pitching your plan to the executive team of the organisation you have chosen. Task Your first task is to understand the purpose of the business. Then you will scope and identify the ‘materiality’ of the business and assess how both external and internal factors in terms of social, environmental and financial triggers impact the business. (What are the specific CSR issues: social and environmental, relating to their business, the consumers and the industry? Who are the stakeholders? Consider industry specific issues and benchmarks, e.g. Industry laws/ regulations & certifications, and include an analysis of the marketplace. What is best practice in the industry?) Once you have identified the key sustainability topic/s that are relevant to your chosen company, you will need to select a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) that aligns with the company’s issue/s and develop a CSR plan that addresses this goal using a ‘shared value’ framework. You will need to describe the type of activity you are recommending to implement and describe the intended results. You will need to outline how the success of the initiative will be measured and who will be responsible for it. Assessment Criteria The assessments will be moderated. No negotiation of marks will be possible once the final mark is given back to you with feedback. All marks are provisional and subject to final examiners board confirmation. The presentation will be assessed as a group where teamwork and collaboration skills will be noted alongside the quality of the project. Student members who are STM5A2, Corporate Responsibility, 2017/18 1 found to be lacking or not contributing effectively in teams may be downgraded and individual marks will be given according to the self-reflection on individual and team’s output. Marks will be awarded for: Delivery: ? Oral delivery (Ability to communicate contents in a clear and effective way) ? Use of time (Capacity to show good planning by keeping to time and good flow) ? Adaption to audience (Ability to be engaged and convincing) ? Answering questions (Capacity to respond in a mature and to the point manner) ? Team work (Capacity to collaborate and contribute as a team-member) ? Visuals/ Media (capacity to deliver a well-executed and professional looking presentation) Contents: ? Relevance (Demonstrating substantial understanding and appropriateness of the task) ? Analytical evaluation (Capacity to provide pertinent analysis and substantial argument for your case) ? Application of theory (Correct use and application of CSR frameworks, concepts, models and tools to sustain the analysis and recommendations) ? Structure & Coherence (Ability to structure and formulate a coherent and professional presentation) ? Research and documentation (Ability to provide relevant data collection and up-to date documentation) Self-reflection: ? Honesty (how you rate your own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output) ? Learning (what insights, knowledge and/or skills did you get/ develop on the project) ? Problem solving (what problems did you experience and how did you overcome them?) Guidelines Preparation tips: Careful selection and editing is needed to provide a compelling case that highlights and provides insights to your CSR plan. This task requires you to be VERY selective in the information you present. The idea is not to present the whole of your findings but to draw out the headlines and make a coherent argument. You will need to structure the relevant information onto slides in an interesting way. Try to keep the words on the slides to a minimum, but make notes for yourselves. Remember you have only got c. 3-4 minutes per student, (i.e. as a group you have max. 15 minutes. Therefore consider that 1 slide takes 1-2 minutes, depending on the amount of information you put on it. Use headings, as a way to navigate. Try to imagine what it would be like to be a listener to your presentation, and how you can engage your listener. To construct a coherent structure and analysis for your presentation you should consider the following regarding content and structure: STM5A2, Corporate Responsibility, 2017/18 2 Background and research: 1. Introduce your proposal and context: Provide a brief overview of the company of your choice. What is the organisation's purpose, values, vision & mission? 2. Scoping the issues: Identify the key CSR issues in terms of societal and environmental issues relating to the company’s business, consumers, and the industry sector by mapping materiality. Identify what stages of societal issue maturity you are dealing with. (e.g. Latent – Institutionalised) 3. Identify stakeholders: in terms of interests, power and priorities as well as evaluate what type of relationship to have with them. 4. Identify current company culture and existing CSR efforts in the company: what is driving CSR within the firm (clarifying the drivers & barriers, challenges and opportunities, consider using a SWOT or PEST analysis). How do geographical locations, operating units function with regards to your CSR plan. At what stage of the CSR evolution is the company situated? 5. Evaluate if and how the company is doing in terms of ‘shared value’: i.e. value that focuses on the creation of meaningful economic and social value – new benefits that exceed the costs for the business and society. 6. Using the Sustainable Development Goals identify a goal that aligns with the company’s issue/s (see pt. 2). Proposal: 7. Formulate a Breakthrough Question: Seek a gap or opportunity for creating an initiative that is beneficial both for the company and responds to the chosen SDG with the purpose of creating ‘shared value’. The best way is to frame a question e.g. How can company X solve problem A with the CSR initiative B towards gaining ‘shared value’? 8. Introduce the CSR plan: Develop a plan based on the ‘problem/ opportunity’ you have identified form your research and further describe the type of activity you are recommending to implement and why (e.g. employee volunteering/ supply chain support etc.). Does the company need to revise its current vision and mission? What are the best structures and procedures to implement? (e.g. incentives, staff plan, partnerships etc.) 9. Propose an Action plan: a timeline to assess the process as well as a framework for budget and resource allocation i.e. the resources (people, time, finances) and communication of the initiative. 10. Identify indicators: frame the type of indicators (KPI’s) that will best measure, monitor and reflect the effective progress and performance of the CSR plan. (e.g. standards, code of conducts, guidelines or other instruments, see also the SDG.) 11. Conclusion: To conclude you should highlight the benefits that this CSR plan will bring to the organization. Lastly include your own critical reflections on your reason for choosing this company and your insights on Corporate Responsibility and ‘shared value’. STM5A2, Corporate Responsibility, 2017/18 3 Coherence The project will be assessed on the way the group presentation is structured and presented and how well the design brief captures the proposal. Make sure you make linkages between the various slides to create a cohesive presentation. Format the presentation to look professional and check spelling and grammar and make use of images, maps, drawings, tables, graphs and other illustrations as appropriate, making sure you acknowledge sources correctly if they are not original (authors/copyright). Research and Referencing To back your findings up you are encouraged to use an array of reliable and relevant sources of information. You must give references to any quotes or other materials you include in presentation using the standardized Harvard system, as well as present a bibliography at the end with a full list of all the references used such as: books, newspapers, journals, websites, also using the standardized Harvard system (see the College Student Handbook for guidance). Teamwork This project is about balancing teamwork and delivering a coherent and persuasive piece of work making sure you make linkages between the various parts to create a cohesive presentation. You must delegate the work between you and work together as a team, this means managing your interpersonal issues well. Note that you will be assessed individually and awarded a mark according to your efforts in terms of teamwork alongside the response to the brief. Self-reflection Individually you will be asked to submit a self-reflective statement about your own contribution to the effective preparation and delivery of the team presentation. Here you can reflect on attendance at team meetings; contribution of ideas for the task and the team processes. You will be assessed on your honesty, insights to learning and ability to problem solve. Resources Blowfield & Murray (2011), Corporate Responsibility, second edition. Oxford University Press, New York Zadek, (2004) The path to Sustainability. Harvard Business Review Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R., (2006) Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility by Harvard Business Review. Scott, J. T., (2008) Managing the New Frontiers: An Introduction to the Fundamentals Senge, P., (2008) The Necessary Revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. Doubleda Assessment criteria STM5A2, Corporate Responsibility, 2017/18 4 Mark Content Delivery Groupwork Self- reflection 70%+ Extremely focused and well- organised presentation, excellent choice of content and convincing line of arguments, with a relevant plan and action points and performance indicators. Demonstrates high level of understanding of the chosen topic and the application of theory. Excellent and up-to- date research and documentation. A well-paced and effective communication (audible and clear). High engagement with the audience. Well designed and professional looking presentation, no typos, right number of slides, relevant information. Excellent teamwork, demonstrating high engagement and solid collaboration. Very well prepared, rehearsed, with equal contribution. Very honest rating of own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output. Pertinent reflection on learning and problem solving. 60- 69% A focused and coherent presentation, good choice of content and analytical evaluation, not quite comprehensive, argument is interesting but has minor flaws. Demonstrates a good level of understanding of the chosen topic and the application of theory. Good and relevant research and documentation. Overall good communication (audible and clear) with reasonable timekeeping. Fairly consistent engagement with the audience. Good design of presentation, quite professional, only a few errors with mainly relevant information. Good teamwork, demonstrating good engagement and collaboration, some members may dominate, perhaps slightly under prepared in parts. Fairly honest rating of own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output. Constructive reflection on learning and problem solving. 50- 59% A fairly focused presentation with reasonable choice of content, identified key issues yet some in flaws argument, tending to description rather than analysis. Demonstrates a satisfactory level of understanding of the chosen topic and some application of theory. Some gaps in research, either limited range of sources, or too reliant on inappropriate sources and a few referencing errors. Satisfactory communication (not always audible and clear). Lacks consistent engagement with the audience. Reasonable design, some errors, lack of attention to detail, design not aiding understanding at all times and uneven information on slides. Reasonable teamwork, with some more engaged members than others in terms of collaboration with significant under- contribution from some members. Adequate rating of own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output. Reasonable reflection on learning and problem solving. 40- 49% A Passable choice of content and grasp of the issues. Significant flaws in argument, highly descriptive response. Demonstrates basic understanding of the concepts and tools in terms of the chosen topic. Significant gaps in research, very limited range of sources and mistakes in referencing Suffers some consistency as some ideas are not clearly communicated. Limited engagement with the audience. Passable design, little attention to detail, lots of errors, poor choice of information. Little teamwork, and low demonstration of engagement and collaboration. Imbalanced delivery by team members and, under prepared, poor communication skills. Superficial rating of own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output. Tentative reflection on learning and problem solving. 0- 39% Poor to very poor choice of content, argument flawed or lacking, no analysis. Inadequate knowledge and application of concepts and tools. Insufficient research or the research is not relevant to the project and lacks referencing. Poor to very poor presentation skills. Poorly designed slides, with errors that hinder understanding. Insufficient clarity and coherence. No teamwork, and poor signs of engagement or collaboration. Complete lack of preparation, lacked clarity and professionalism. Insufficient rating of own contribution and responsibility to the team’s output. No reflection on learning and problem solving.