Assessment Brief – Undergraduate

Module Code: SM9532

Module Title: Strategic Frameworks and Cultural Contexts in International Management

Distributed on: September 2021 Hand in Date: 11/01/2022 12:00 noon

Further information about general assessment criteria, ARTA regulations, referencing and plagiarism
can be found on the module’s site on the e-Learning Portal. Students are advised to read and follow
this information.

Instructions on Assessment:
The module assessment comprises of an INDIVIDUAL research-based assignment that requires you to
write an essay that represents 100% of the module mark. You are required to produce a report covering
all four tasks of the assessment.

Bulb Energy Ltd. (Bulb) is a privately financed energy supply firm based in London, UK. Bulb is currently
the UK's biggest green energy supplier and is also operating in the USA, Spain, and France. With
growing success in existing markets, Bulb is keen on further international expansion. Assume that the
firm needs to choose ‘one’ country from three target countries, i.e., China, Argentina, and South Africa,
to invest. Only one of these countries that has the highest potential for success is to be chosen. Assume
that you are employed by a consulting firm that has been approached by Bulb seeking advice for making
the above decision. Now, you are required to conduct a research-based strategic analysis addressing
the following tasks.

1) Applying the CAGE framework, identify similarities/differences between the home country and
each of the potential host countries that Bulb must consider when developing cross-border
strategies. Based on the CAGE analysis, you also need to recommend a country for the firm to
invest in. (35 marks, 1050 words maximum)

2) Using Porter’s National Diamond (PND) framework, evaluate the competitiveness of the chosen
country focusing on the chosen industry, and summarise the strategic implications of the
findings from the PND analysis for Bulb. (25 marks, 750 words maximum)

3) Based on the findings of the above analyses, identify what should be the relatively most
important strategy out of the AAA (Arbitrage, Adaptability or Aggregation) strategies to focus on
for Bulb to create value in the chosen host country to start with, and justify your
recommendation. Reflect on how this strategy may shift over time as the firm continues to
operate in the chosen country. (25 marks, 750 words maximum)

4) Drawing on the above analyses and supported with other relevant sources, briefly discuss
THREE possible cross-cultural challenges in operating in the chosen country that should be
considered by Bulb. (15 marks, 450 words maximum)

Assignment Guidance Notes:

§ The word limit for the overall assignment is 3000 words.

§ Write your analysis as a piece of business communication in report style, using headings and
subheadings that are numbered. All the figures, charts and tables should be numbered and
titled, and they should be referred to and used in the report.

§ There should be no first-person references (I, we, us) in the report. If self-reference is required,
you may refer to yourself as "the author" or "this report".

§ Assignments require you to demonstrate that you understand, and you are able to apply
theoretical concepts, models and frameworks, studied on the module, in your analysis in the
report. Detailed descriptions of the frameworks that you use are not necessary.

Page 1 of 6
Assessment Brief – Undergraduate
§ This is a research-based assignment. Your analytical discussion must be supported by relevant
sources of information (using in-text citations).

§ Clarity and concision are encouraged and will be rewarded. You should be thorough and
detailed in your analysis, and all the points should be fully explained and justified. You could
present the discussions under each question in the body of the report and include
relevant tables, charts, graphs, and any other supporting evidence in the appendices. Do
NOT clutter the tables with text. Use concise text/data to make sure the table is easy to
understand.

§ The reports should have the following structure:

¾ Cover page (with the module code, title, word count, your programme, and student ID)
¾ Table of contents (with the page numbers)
¾ Q1
¾ Q2
¾ Q3
¾ Q4
¾ List of references
¾ Appendices (Should be maximum of 5 pages of appendices)

§ Appendices may be used only if they are necessary to support your discussion. The appendices
should be properly organised and there should be in-text references to all the appendices.

§ The work must be word-processed and saved in PDF format for final submission. Line spacing
1.5, font size 12 and font type Arial should be used in the body of the report.

§ Do NOT mention your name, or tutor’s name anywhere on your assignment. Insert the page
numbers and your student ID in the header or footer of every page of the report.

§ Badly written, badly organised and/or badly presented work will attract a low grade.

§ DO NOT copy text from any sources! Use the information to produce your own analysis.
Please familiarise yourself with what constitutes plagiarism and academic misconduct. For
further information on plagiarism, see the Referencing and Plagiarism related topics on Skills
Plus (www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus). Use only high quality and reliable sources.

§ You should use the APA (7th ed.) referencing style. Quick guide to Referencing APA 7th ed on
Skills Plus (https://cragside.northumbria.ac.uk/Everyone/skillsplus/database_uploads/55389635.pdf.) The official APA
website: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples.The official APA style guide is
available in print to borrow from the library: American Psychological Association (2020) Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association: the official guide to APA style, 7th ed. (Located at 808.06615 PUB).

§ Please ensure that all the materials and sources used in your work are properly referenced!

Where to find additional assessment support:

Please see the assessment and submission folder and other relevant resources that can be accessed
through the module Blackboard site. More details will be provided in the assessment briefing session
and during weekly seminars. There will also be an assignment surgery. A discussion board for
assessment related Q&As will be available on the module Blackboard site.

General notes:
If the assignment is within +10% of the word limit, no penalty will apply.

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover
sheet. The word count does not include:

Page 2 of 6
Assessment Brief – Undergraduate
¾ Title and Contents page
¾ List of References
¾ Appendices
¾ Appropriate tables, figures and illustrations
¾ Glossary
¾ Bibliography
¾ Quotes from interviews and focus groups.

Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab
nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.

If this word count is falsified, students are reminded that under ARTA page 11 Section 1.13.2 this will
be regarded as academic misconduct.

If the word limit of the full assignment exceeds the +10% limit, 10% of the total marks available
for the assignment (i.e., 100 x 10% = 10) shall be deducted from the assignment mark. For example:
An assignment which would have scored 70% but that has a word count greater than 10% of the
prescribed word limit will be allocated 60% (i.e., 70 -10 = 60).

Academic Misconduct
The Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) contain the Regulations and procedures
applying to cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct.

The full policy is available at: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/student-

library-and-academic-services/quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/

You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion and other forms of academic misconduct as referred to in
the Academic Misconduct procedure of the assessment regulations are taken very seriously by
Newcastle Business School. Assignments in which evidence of plagiarism or other forms of
academic misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.

Submission of Assessment:
• You MUST submit ONLY an electronic copy of the assignment in PDF format through Turnitin
FINAL assignment submission link on the module eLP (Blackboard site) before the deadline.

• You can submit draft assignments through the Turnitin DRAFT assignment submission link and you
will receive a Turnitin similarity report that will compare your assignment to previously submitted or
published work.

• You will NOT receive a Turnitin similarity report for your Final submission through Turnitin and the
final Turnitin similarity report will be accessible by staff only. The final Turnitin similarity report will
compare your assignment to previously submitted or published work and also to your fellow
students’ work.

• Marked assignments will be returned to students via the eLP and the marks will be available under
Grade Mark on the eLP.

• It is important that you retain a copy of your assignment for your own records.

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published deadline, the following penalties
will apply.

For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without
approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.,100 x 10% = 10) shall be
deducted from the assessment mark.

Page 3 of 6
Assessment Brief – Undergraduate
For clarity: a late piece of work that would have scored 65%, 55% or 45% had it been handed in on
time, will be awarded 55%, 45% or 35% respectively as 10 marks will have been deducted.

Coursework submitted more than 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline
without approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero will be awarded for
the assessment and the module will be failed.

For clarity: if the original hand-in time on working day A is 12:00 noon the 24 hour late submission
allowance will end at 12:00 noon on working day B.

Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives:

This assessment will contribute directly to the following programme goals and objectives.

Goal One: Knowledgeable about the theory and practice of responsible international
business in an international context

X 1. Assess knowledge of contemporary professional practice in international business

informed by theory and research.
X 2. Critically apply knowledge of international business to complex problems in professional
practice in order to identify justifiable, sustainable and responsible solutions.
X 3. Conduct and critique innovative and/or entrepreneurial project work and research.
X 4. Appraise an awareness of the cultural and ethical contexts in which international
business operates

Goal Two: Skilful in the use of professional and managerial techniques and processes

X 1. Evaluate effective interpersonal communication skills and the ability to work in multi-
cultural teams
X 2. Critique creative and critical thinking skills that involve independence, understanding,
justification and the ability to challenge the thinking of self and others

Goal Three: Prepared for career and personal progression

X 1. Critically self-reflect as a means of informing personal development planning

X 2. Critique their personal skills and attitudes for progression to post-graduate contexts
including professional work, entrepreneurship and higher level study.

Page 4 of 6
Assessment Brief – Undergraduate
Assessment Criteria (NBS)

Module Specific Assessment Criteria

Excellent (25-35) Very Good (21-24.5) Good (18-20.5) Adequate (40% 14-17.5) Inadequate (11-13.5) Bad (0-10.5)
Excellent knowledge of the A very good analysis. A good analysis using the The analysis demonstrates a Inadequate understanding No evidence of
nature and context of Demonstrates a very good CAGE framework to general understanding of the of the purpose of the understanding of the
international business understanding of the nature understand influences and key components in the CAGE analysis and poor use of purpose of the analysis
management. Excellent and context of international implications of distance framework. The application of the analytical framework. and the use of the
application of the CAGE business management. Very addressing the assigned the framework and the Many errors and analytical concepts. The
framework with well- good application of the CAGE task. Some evidence of lack analytical discussion shows a inadequacies in the use of work fails to use the
articulated discussion on framework with important of understanding or basic knowledge of the field of the CAGE framework and CAGE framework and
different types of influences points drawn from each confusion of the key international business. A consideration of the provides no evidence of
Q1. CAGE analysis

on cross-border interactions component. Discussion is elements in the analytical superficial discussion on contextual environment. research. The
drawn from each component supported with a range quality framework at times, but this influences and implications of Poor analytical discussion, discussion does not
(35 marks)

of distance. Discusses the sources. Very good evidence is counterbalanced by good distance with substantial flaws. which does not address the assignment
strategic implications of the of research. Makes a analysis elsewhere. Some May have recommended a adequately demonstrate task.
CAGE differences and recommendation of a country occasional inadequacies in country but may not be understanding of the
similarities in the case drawing on the findings of the the discussion. Analysis is convincing. The discussion international business
context. Discussion is analysis. Work is generally lacking depth and variety of relies on assertion and management. No
supported with a range of well-written and well- sources. Makes a description with limited use of recommendation of a
quality sources. Makes a structured, and properly recommendation of a research evidence. country. Poor evidence of
clear recommendation of a referenced. country. The structure needs Referencing is inconsistent research. The work is
country. Excellent research more clarity. Referencing and/or not in the appropriate poorly structured, poorly
skills are demonstrated. Well- may not always comply with format. presented, and badly
written, well-structured, and recommended referencing referenced.
correctly referenced. system.

Excellent (18-25) Very Good (15-17.5) Good (13-14.5) Adequate (10-12.5) Inadequate (8-9.5) Bad (0-7.5)
Demonstrates an excellent A very good analysis of the A good analysis using the Demonstrates a general Inadequate understanding No evidence of any
knowledge of the relevant relevant international business extended PND framework in understanding of the PND of the purpose of the understanding of the
international business context. Very good application addressing the task. Good framework and its application. analysis and the use of purpose of the analysis.
context. Excellent analysis of the extended PND model level of critical evaluation is Analysis uses only the basic the PND framework. Many The work fails to use the
applying the extended PND with external variables. The evident. Good analytical PND model without external errors and inadequacies in PND framework and
model with external variables. work demonstrates ability to points have been identified variables. The discussion may the application of the address the task. No
Q2.PND analysis

Well-articulated key analytical critically evaluate information. and discussed. Good be superficial with substantial framework. Poor analytical evidence of research.
(25 marks)

points made in the discussion Number of analytical points discussion supported with flaws. There may be gaps in discussion which fails to The work tends to be
that is supported with a range made, and the discussion is good sources. Good set of the analysis, but it is adequately reflect on inarticulate and badly
of quality sources. There is supported with a range of very strategic implications have adequate, and it demonstrates relevant international organised. No
evidence of excellent good sources. Very good been provided. The a basic understanding of the business context. recommended
research skills and use of evidence of research. Very structure needs more clarity. relevant international business Insufficient evidence of referencing method is
theory. Excellent set of good set of strategic Referencing may not always context. Discussion could be research. The work is used.
strategic implications have implications have been comply with recommended supported with sufficient poorly structured, badly
been provided. Well-written, provided. Work is generally referencing system. research evidence. Strategic referenced. Does not
well-structured, and correctly well-written and well- implications lack relevance. provide any clear strategic
referenced. structured, and properly Referencing is inconsistent. implications.
referenced.

Page 5 of 6
Assessment Brief – Undergraduate
Excellent (18-25) Very Good (15-17.5) Good (13-14.5) Adequate (10-12.5) Inadequate (8-9.5) Bad (0-7.5)
Evidence of excellent Very good evaluation of cross- Good analysis of cross- The quality of the AAA Muddled answer, which Very poor answer, which
knowledge of relevant theory. border strategies using the border strategies using the analysis is somewhat weak. does not adequately does not address the
Demonstrates an astute AAA framework building upon AAA framework. Connected Limited connection to the address the task. Shows task and shows no
knowledge of how the AAA the previous analyses. Rather to the previous analyses. previous analyses. Limited little evidence of research, evidence of research,
framework can be applied in good justification for a possible Demonstrates a reasonable knowledge of relevant theory reading and reading and
practice. Building upon the choice of value creation understanding of relevant and related literature. Choice understanding of the AAA understanding of the
previous analyses, identify the strategy in the chosen country. theory. Justifies a possible of value creation strategy in framework, and material studied on the
relatively most important Reflects on how this strategy choice of value creation the chosen country could be application of the module.
strategy out of the AAA may shift over time. The strategy in the chosen more convincing. Limited or no framework. Poor The work is often
Q3. AAA analysis

strategies to focus on for the content is always relevant to country. Some reflection on reflection on how this strategy referencing. inarticulate and can be
(25 marks)

firm to create value in the the assignment task with very how this strategy may shift may shift over time. There is incomprehensible.
chosen host country to start good explanation. Work is over time. The discussion evidence of limited research.
with and reflects on how this generally well-written and well- seems to lack coherence Little critical discussion and
strategy may shift over time. structured, and properly and may not always awareness of the broader
Arguments are well- referenced. recognise the broader implications. Referencing is
supported, and the analysis picture. Discussion could be inconsistent.
fits together to produce a more analytical and
coherent discussion on how supported with more
the firm could create value by research evidence. The
playing the differences. structure needs more clarity.
Excellent research skills are Referencing may not always
demonstrated. Well-written, comply with recommended
well-structured, and correctly referencing system.
referenced.

Excellent (10.5-15) Very Good (9-10) Good (7.5-8.5) Adequate (6-7) Inadequate (4.5-5.5) Bad (0-4)
Identifies key challenges in Identifies relevant challenges Identifies some challenges Adequate link to previous Inadequate link to Does not address the
the relevant contexts. in the relevant contexts. but may be brief and limited analyses. There may be gaps previous analyses. task. No clear link to
Demonstrates excellent Demonstrates very good in depth and/or research. in the analysis of challenges, Insufficient use of the previous analyses. No
cross-cultural intelligence. cross-cultural intelligence. Demonstrates some cross- but it is adequate. studied material and poor use of studied material.
Discussion is clearly built Discussion is linked to cultural intelligence. Demonstrates a basic evidence of any research. No evidence of
Q4. Key challenges

upon previous analyses. previous analyses. Content is Reasonable link to previous knowledge of the international Poor analytical discussion research. Fails to
Arguments are excellent and always relevant to the analyses. Good business environment and that fails to adequately demonstrate knowledge
(15 marks)

very well-supported. Overall assignment task with very understanding and cross-cultural challenges. reflect on cross-cultural of the international
analysis fits together to good explanation of the discussion of the chosen Analytical discussion relies on challenges. Poor business environment
produce a coherent, challenges. Very good ability context. Some reasonable assertion and description referencing. and cross-cultural
professional explanation and to critically evaluate is thinking and research effort. without sufficient use of challenges.
clear justification for key demonstrated. Good quality Discussion needs a clearer research and/or the studied
challenges. Evidence of research and references. grasp of the critical analysis material. Referencing is
excellent research skills and Properly referenced. involved and better rationale inconsistent.
use of good quality sources. based on good variety of
Correctly referenced. sources. Referencing may
not always comply with
recommended referencing
system.

Page 6 of 6