MAN202 Assessment 2: Governance, Ethics and Sustainability – Individual Report (2026 Semester)

Assessment Information

Subject Code: MAN202 Subject Name: Governance, Ethics and Sustainability Assessment Title: Assessment 2 Assessment Type: Individual report Word Count: 1,200–1,500 words (+/-10%) Weighting: 40% Total Marks: 40 Submission: via Turnitin Due Date: Week 10

Your Task

Write a report that critically evaluates the sustainability claims made by one of the three companies listed below.

Assessment Description

In a world where reputation is shaped by social media, leading companies and multi-national corporations use their webpages to promote their sustainability record. How much of this information is public relations and hype? How much demonstrates a genuine commitment to protecting people and planet through social and environmental sustainability?

This assessment requires you to research and critically comment on the online sustainability claims made by ONE of these companies:

• Coca-Colahttps://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityhttps://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/17377964/coca-cola-water-sustainability-recycling-controversy-investigation
• Nikehttps://sustainability.nike.com/https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-raises-issues-of-workers-rights.html
• Cotton Onhttps://cottonongroup.com.au/sustainability/https://goodonyou.eco/how-ethical-is-cotton-2/

Learning Outcomes

This assessment addresses LO1, LO2 and LO4.

Assessment Instructions

Your 1,200–1,500-word report must focus on either the environmental sustainability record or the social sustainability record of your chosen company (not both).

The report must include these sections:

• Executive Summary (optional – does not count toward word limit)
• Introduction – Provide background on the concept of sustainability and describe the method (literature review and analysis using general web sources plus KBS library databases).
• Analysis and Discussion (Body) – Describe the claims made by the company on its website. Present any conflicting information from other sources.
• Conclusion – State the true sustainability record of the company based on the discussion.
• Recommendations – Suggest measures readers should take to accurately interpret company self-reports of sustainability.
• References – List all online sources plus at least five academic sources (book chapters or journal articles) from KBS library databases.

Neither the Executive Summary nor References count in the word limit. Submissions exceeding the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked beyond that point. Refer to the marking guide below.

Assessment Marking Guide

Introduction (Background plus Method) (8 marks)

• NN: Little or no background discussion or method missing.
• P: Basic discussion with fewer than two academic sources.
• CR: Competent discussion with at least two academic sources and method outlined.
• DN: Strong discussion with range of reputable sources.
• HD: Succinct and insightful discussion.

Body (Analysis and Discussion) (16 marks)

• NN: Weak summary or no challenge from external sources.
• P–CR: Incomplete or basic interrogation without consistent distinction between opinion and research data.
• DN–HD: Detailed summary with strong critical thinking and clear differentiation of source reliability.

Conclusion and Recommendations (10 marks)

• NN: Conclusion does not follow discussion or recommendations ignore need for corroboration.
• P–CR: Competent summary with basic practical techniques.
• DN–HD: Logical, masterly summary with well-considered research techniques mirroring the body.

Referencing (6 marks)

• NN: Limited citations or inaccurate list.
• P–CR: Many points unsupported or exceptions to Harvard style.
• DN–HD: Strong, frequent in-text citations and accurate Harvard referencing.

Sample Report Excerpt (Coca-Cola – Environmental Sustainability Focus)

The Coca-Cola Company presents itself on its official sustainability page as a leader in water stewardship and circular packaging, promising net-zero emissions and 100 percent recyclable bottles by 2030. Independent investigations, however, continue to highlight massive plastic pollution from single-use bottles and high water extraction in water-stressed regions. These gaps indicate that many public commitments serve more as reputation management than measurable reductions in environmental harm. Cross-checking company reports against NGO data and peer-reviewed studies reveals a consistent pattern where announced targets lag behind actual performance metrics. One detailed analysis concludes that Coca-Cola’s recent sustainable development strategies constitute classic greenwashing because the scale of plastic and water impacts far outweighs implemented changes (Reasons and analysis of Coca-Cola’s greenwashing, 2022, https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v33i.2714). Readers evaluating such claims should therefore always demand third-party audited data rather than accept self-reported progress at face value.

Corporate self-reports on sustainability require careful scrutiny because marketing language often outpaces verifiable action, as shown across consumer goods sectors in recent years. Independent academic reviews confirm that greenwashing remains prevalent when firms highlight isolated initiatives while core operations continue high-impact practices. Students completing this task build essential skills by applying ethical evaluation frameworks to real multinational data, directly supporting long-term responsible management decisions. Cross-referencing with credible external sources such as those from Greenpeace, academic journals and regulatory filings produces the most reliable picture of actual performance.

 References 

Inês, A., et al. (2023) ‘A review of greenwashing and supply chain management’, Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789423000302.

Sneideriene, A. (2025) ‘Greenwashing prevention in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures: A bibliometric analysis’, Research in International Business and Finance, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0275531924005130.

Gorovaia, N. (2025) ‘Identifying greenwashing in corporate-social responsibility reports using natural-language processing’, European Financial Management, https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12509.

Diandra, P. (2024) ‘The impact of greenwashing towards brand trust and brand loyalty: A study of Nike Move to Zero initiatives’, Mandalika Journal of Business and Management Studies, available at: https://journal.institutemandalika.com/index.php/mjbms/article/view/133.

Joshi, G. (2025) ‘Forty-five years of research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development’, Cogent Social Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2534145.

• Submit a 1,200–1,500 word individual report for MAN202 Assessment 2 that critically evaluates the sustainability claims of Coca-Cola, Nike or Cotton On using company websites and external sources.
• Complete a 1,200-1,500 word paper analysing either environmental or social sustainability claims for one chosen multinational as required in the Kaplan Business School MAN202 individual assessment.
• Write a focused report on corporate greenwashing and genuine sustainability practices for MAN202 Governance, Ethics and Sustainability.