can you please use Nike as the company, also include some graphs that you find online to prove your case depending on the things you’re talking about. For example, when you’re talking about the macroeconomics forces or the market forces.
Module Title: Business Economics in a Contemporary Society Submission details: Friday 16th December 2022, 12pm (noon) You are now allowed to utilise the Turnitin Check before the assignment deadline which can be accessed via the information room. This allows you to generate an originality report and use this to improve your referencing and citation skills. Please note: Turnitin Check is NOT the final submission – you still need to submit your work to the Assignment Link on the module Blackboard site, otherwise it will be marked as Not Submitted. You should note that the time of submission is taken from once the document has been successfully uploaded and confirmed – this may take more than five minutes during busy periods. Late penalties will be applied to any work submitted from 12.01pm on Friday 16th December 2022 onwards. Details of how to calculate a late penalty can be found in your programme handbook. It is your responsibility to ensure the correct document/file has uploaded successfully. Failure to comply with any of these submission requirements will result in a 5-mark penalty. Contribution to Final Mark for Module: 100% Maximum Word Length: 2,000 words Unless otherwise specified, the word count is for the main body of the text and ignores the reference list and appendices. If you exceed the word length you will be penalised. For details see the Management School Handbooks. Please note that SUMS does not have a word count tolerance - it is a stated maximum as outlined above. Requirements: Prepare a report presenting a business economic analysis of an organisation of your choice. Use "Business Economics" ideas - particularly those discussed in this module - to explain why the effective demand for that organisation’s product(s) evolved over the last five years. Draw on company reports, market reports, market data, and/or academic journal articles, etc. to strengthen your case. The report should include: i) an introduction which describes the organisation’s characteristics and its main product(s) / lines of business, plus any changes in these over the last decade. This section should indicate how the number of sales and/or the amount of revenue changed over the last decade. It should provide information about the context for the business (such as the location of the market). [About 100 words.] ii) an analysis of the social forces that shape the demand for the organisation’s product(s). This section should include explicitly reference the work(s) of Thorstein Veblen, as well as discussion of social positioning, planned obsolescence, and want creation. [About 600 words.] iii) an analysis of the market forces that shape the demand for the organisation’s product(s). This section should include an analysis of changes in the market(s) within which the firm operates, explicit discussion of the market structure as implied by number of competitors, availability of substitutes, and the nature of complementary products, market concentration, barriers to entry, and the extent of product differentiation. Make sure that you highlight how this information shapes an understanding of the price elasticity of demand for the product(s) and how this information can be used to decide on any price changes. [About 600 words.] iv) an analysis of the macroeconomic forces that shape the demand for the organisation’s product(s). This section should highlight the importance of power, international trade and macroeconomic conditions, including references to unemployment, the business cycle, inflationary pressures, exchange rate volatility, and government policies. [About 600 words.] v) provide a conclusion which draws your analysis together and makes recommendations for the organisation. Here you should propose a strategy and/or a policy change for the organisation that explicitly builds on your earlier analysis. [About 100 words.] Note that your mark will depend primarily on the extent to which your report demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of the business economics concepts that we discussed during this Business Economics in a Contemporary Society module and your ability to apply these when analysing your chosen organisation. Submissions that simply describe potentially relevant issues will not receive a high mark. The selection and use of data to support your case is also important. Hint: One of several useful sources of data is Statista, which is available through our University Library. By connecting to Statista, then clicking on the “Reports” drop-down menu, and then selecting “Brands and Company Reports”, you will be able to gain access to over 17,000 dossiers providing you with a range of statistics about individual organisations. Remember, however, that it is your interpretation and analysis of this data from a business economics perspective that will receive the most marks. Assessment Criteria: Please note that the descriptors below are guidelines and should not be taken to correlate to precise percentages; they are indicative of a level of performance across the key criteria upon which the coursework is assessed.<40% (fail) 40-49% (pass: 3rd class) 50-59% (2.2) 60-69% (2.1) 70-79% (1st class) 80% and above (1st class) structure and focus minimal or no structure, with little or no focus / logic to selection and sequencing of material. moderately coherent structure, with some broad focus/logic to selection and sequencing of material. mostly coherent structure, with broadly consistent focus/logic to selection and sequencing of material. clear, fully coherent structure, with consistent focus / logic to selection and sequencing of material. very clear, highly coherent structure, with fully consistent focus / logic to selection and sequencing of material. superbly clear, highly coherent structure, with exceptionally consistent focus/logic to selection and sequencing of material. knowledge and understanding little/no knowledge/ understanding evident in relation to key economics concepts. some satisfactory knowledge/understanding evident in relation to key economics concepts. broadly satisfactory knowledge/understanding evident in relation to key economics concepts. high level of knowledge / understanding evident in relation to key economics concepts. very high level of knowledge/understanding in relation to key economics concepts. a fully comprehensive and deep knowledge / understanding of key concepts, with some evidence of advanced material/ideas. application and research little or no application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. extremely limited/no engagement with relevant literature. little / no presentation and analysis of relevant data to inform discussion and support arguments made. adequate application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. some engagement with relevant literature in an occasionally analytical manner. adequate presentation and analysis of relevant data from a limited range of sources to inform discussion and support arguments made. some good application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. solid engagement with relevant literature in an occasionally analytical manner. satisfactory presentation and analysis of relevant data from a limited range of sources to inform discussion and support arguments made. good overall application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. draws upon a range of relevant literature in a mostly analytical manner. good presentation and analysis of relevant data from a wide range of sources to inform discussion and support arguments made. excellent application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. draws upon a wide range of relevant literature in a sustained analytical manner. skilful presentation and analysis of relevant data from a wide range of sources to inform discussion and support arguments made. outstanding application of economic theory in the specific business and market context. draws upon an extensive range of relevant literature in a sustained and authoritative analytical manner. sophisticated presentation and analysis of relevant data from an extensive range of sources to inform discussion and support arguments made. presentation and style poor presentation with many errors in syntax and spelling. little or no signposting and poor/no linkages / flow. lack of appropriate referencing and / or inaccurate use of the harvard system of referencing. acceptable presentation with satisfactory syntax and spelling. adequate use of signposting and some clear linkages / flow. some complete referencing and some accurate use of the harvard system of referencing. solid presentation with satisfactory syntax and spelling. reasonable use of signposting and mostly clear linkages / flow. mostly complete referencing and largely accurate use of the harvard system of referencing. good presentation with good syntax and spelling. good use of signposting and clear linkages / flow. complete referencing and mostly accurate use of the harvard system of referencing. excellent presentation with good syntax and spelling, with very clear signposting and linkages / flow. complete referencing and sustained accuracy in use of the harvard system of referencing. superb, professional level of presentation. skilful use of signposting and exemplary linkages/flow. complete referencing and absolute accuracy in use of the harvard system of referencing. referencing: you must reference your work correctly using the harvard method. failure to do so will result in the deduction of marks and possible proceedings under the university's regulations as to the use of unfair means other submission details: · use the standard management school cover sheet · have the word count given on the cover sheet · be presented with 2.5cm margins all round · use times new roman or arial, 11 or 12 point for the main body text · use 1.5 line spacing · have all pages numbered except the first · be properly spell checked · be made attractive with suitable use of headings, paragraphs, and sections · be properly referenced to the management school version of harvard referencing (fail)="" 40-49%="" (pass:="" 3rd="" class)="" 50-59%="" (2.2)="" 60-69%="" (2.1)="" 70-79%="" (1st="" class)="" 80%="" and="" above="" (1st="" class)="" structure="" and="" focus="" minimal="" or="" no="" structure,="" with="" little="" or="" no="" focus="" logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" moderately="" coherent="" structure,="" with="" some="" broad="" focus/logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" mostly="" coherent="" structure,="" with="" broadly="" consistent="" focus/logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" clear,="" fully="" coherent="" structure,="" with="" consistent="" focus="" logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" very="" clear,="" highly="" coherent="" structure,="" with="" fully="" consistent="" focus="" logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" superbly="" clear,="" highly="" coherent="" structure,="" with="" exceptionally="" consistent="" focus/logic="" to="" selection="" and="" sequencing="" of="" material.="" knowledge="" and="" understanding="" little/no="" knowledge/="" understanding="" evident="" in="" relation="" to="" key="" economics="" concepts.="" some="" satisfactory="" knowledge/understanding="" evident="" in="" relation="" to="" key="" economics="" concepts.="" broadly="" satisfactory="" knowledge/understanding="" evident="" in="" relation="" to="" key="" economics="" concepts.="" high="" level="" of="" knowledge="" understanding="" evident="" in="" relation="" to="" key="" economics="" concepts.="" very="" high="" level="" of="" knowledge/understanding="" in="" relation="" to="" key="" economics="" concepts.="" a="" fully="" comprehensive="" and="" deep="" knowledge="" understanding="" of="" key="" concepts,="" with="" some="" evidence="" of="" advanced="" material/ideas.="" application="" and="" research="" little="" or="" no="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" extremely="" limited/no="" engagement="" with="" relevant="" literature.="" little="" no="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" adequate="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" some="" engagement="" with="" relevant="" literature="" in="" an="" occasionally="" analytical="" manner.="" adequate="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" from="" a="" limited="" range="" of="" sources="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" some="" good="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" solid="" engagement="" with="" relevant="" literature="" in="" an="" occasionally="" analytical="" manner.="" satisfactory="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" from="" a="" limited="" range="" of="" sources="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" good="" overall="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" draws="" upon="" a="" range="" of="" relevant="" literature="" in="" a="" mostly="" analytical="" manner.="" good="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" from="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" sources="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" excellent="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" draws="" upon="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" relevant="" literature="" in="" a="" sustained="" analytical="" manner.="" skilful="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" from="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" sources="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" outstanding="" application="" of="" economic="" theory="" in="" the="" specific="" business="" and="" market="" context.="" draws="" upon="" an="" extensive="" range="" of="" relevant="" literature="" in="" a="" sustained="" and="" authoritative="" analytical="" manner.="" sophisticated="" presentation="" and="" analysis="" of="" relevant="" data="" from="" an="" extensive="" range="" of="" sources="" to="" inform="" discussion="" and="" support="" arguments="" made.="" presentation="" and="" style="" poor="" presentation="" with="" many="" errors="" in="" syntax="" and="" spelling.="" little="" or="" no="" signposting="" and="" poor/no="" linkages="" flow.="" lack="" of="" appropriate="" referencing="" and="" or="" inaccurate="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" acceptable="" presentation="" with="" satisfactory="" syntax="" and="" spelling.="" adequate="" use="" of="" signposting="" and="" some="" clear="" linkages="" flow.="" some="" complete="" referencing="" and="" some="" accurate="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" solid="" presentation="" with="" satisfactory="" syntax="" and="" spelling.="" reasonable="" use="" of="" signposting="" and="" mostly="" clear="" linkages="" flow.="" mostly="" complete="" referencing="" and="" largely="" accurate="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" good="" presentation="" with="" good="" syntax="" and="" spelling.="" good="" use="" of="" signposting="" and="" clear="" linkages="" flow.="" complete="" referencing="" and="" mostly="" accurate="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" excellent="" presentation="" with="" good="" syntax="" and="" spelling,="" with="" very="" clear="" signposting="" and="" linkages="" flow.="" complete="" referencing="" and="" sustained="" accuracy="" in="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" superb,="" professional="" level="" of="" presentation.="" skilful="" use="" of="" signposting="" and="" exemplary="" linkages/flow.="" complete="" referencing="" and="" absolute="" accuracy="" in="" use="" of="" the="" harvard="" system="" of="" referencing.="" referencing:="" you="" must="" reference="" your="" work="" correctly="" using="" the="" harvard="" method.="" failure="" to="" do="" so="" will="" result="" in="" the="" deduction="" of="" marks="" and="" possible="" proceedings="" under="" the="" university's="" regulations="" as="" to="" the="" use="" of="" unfair="" means="" other="" submission="" details:="" ·="" use="" the="" standard="" management="" school="" cover="" sheet="" ·="" have="" the="" word="" count="" given="" on="" the="" cover="" sheet="" ·="" be="" presented="" with="" 2.5cm="" margins="" all="" round="" ·="" use="" times="" new="" roman="" or="" arial,="" 11="" or="" 12="" point="" for="" the="" main="" body="" text="" ·="" use="" 1.5="" line="" spacing="" ·="" have="" all="" pages="" numbered="" except="" the="" first="" ·="" be="" properly="" spell="" checked="" ·="" be="" made="" attractive="" with="" suitable="" use="" of="" headings,="" paragraphs,="" and="" sections="" ·="" be="" properly="" referenced="" to="" the="" management="" school="" version="" of="" harvard="">