MG5606 Global Business and Investments Assignment/Coursework Brief for 2026 | Brunel University
MG5606 Global Business and Investments Assignment/Coursework Brief for 2026
| Assessment Title: | Coursework |
| Module Leader: | Dr. Hemamali Tennakoon |
| Distribution Date: | 28th January 2026 |
| Submission Deadline: | 12:00 noon on 30th April 2026 |
| Feedback by : | 20 working days after the submission the deadline |
| Contribution to overall module assessment: | 100% |
| Indicative student time working on assessment: | 42 hours in total equivalent to 5.5 full-time working days |
| Word or Page Limit (if applicable): | 2,500 words, excluding references, cover page, table of contents, and appendices |
| Assessment Type (individual or group): | Individual |
Main Objective of the assessment
This assignment invites you to critically examine the diverse impacts of globalisation on both developed and developing countries. You will explore how globalisation shapes economic, social, and political landscapes, and assess the role of international financial institutions in influencing global trade, investment, and monetary systems.
By completing this assignment, you will:
- Analyse the differential impacts of globalisation on national economies and societies.
- Assess the roles and influence of global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.
- Develop a nuanced understanding of the interplay between global forces and national policy responses.
Description of the Assessment
Write a 2,500 words [excluding references, cover page, table of contents, and appendices] analytical essay that addresses the following:
Part A: Comparative Impact of Globalisation (Approx. 2,000 words)
1.Select two countries: one developed (e.g., Germany, Japan, USA) and one developing (e.g., India, Nigeria, Brazil).
2.Analyse how globalisation has affected each country in terms of:
- Economic transformation (e.g., trade, investment, industrialisation, labour markets)
- Social change (e.g., inequality, migration, cultural exchange)
- Political implications (e.g., policy autonomy, governance, civil society)
3.Compare and contrast the experiences of the two countries, highlighting:
- Key similarities and differences
- Factors that explain divergent outcomes (e.g., institutional capacity, historical context, policy choices)
Part B: Reflection and Policy Implications (Approx. 500 words)
1. Propose two policy recommendations for national governments or international institutions to mitigate the negative effects of globalisation.
Further Guidelines
The essay should be 2500 words (this word limit does not include title page, executive summary, table of contents, references or appendices but everything Else), word processed: 1.5 space; 12 font; Times Roman; 1 inch square margin. References should be in 11 font and single spaced. All appendix material should also be 11 font and single spaced.
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Critical Analysis: Depth of insight into the economic, social, and political impacts of globalisation. |
30% |
|
Comparative Evaluation: Effectiveness in comparing and contrasting the two countries’ experiences. |
25% |
|
Use of Evidence: Integration of academic sources, data, and real-world examples. |
20% |
|
Policy Insight: Relevance and feasibility of proposed policy recommendations. |
15% |
|
Structure and Presentation: Clarity, coherence, academic writing style, and referencing. |
10% |
PG mark bands and grade point bands [Senate Regulation 3] are:
| Indicative Mark Band | Degree class equivalent | Grade Point |
| 90 and above | A* | 17 |
| 80-89 | A+ | 16 |
| 73-79 | A | 15 |
| 70-72 | A- | 14 |
| 68-69 | B+ | 13 |
| 63-67 | B | 12 |
| 60-62 | B- | 11 |
| 58-59 | C+ | 10 |
| 53-57 | C | 9 |
| 50-52 | C- | 8 |
| 48-49 | D+ | 7 |
| 43-47 | D | 6 |
| 40-42 | D- | 5 |
| 38-39 | E+ | 4 |
| 33-37 | E | 3 |
| 30-32 | E- | 2 |
| 29 and below | F | 1 |
Submission Instructions
Coursework must be submitted electronically via WISEflow. The required file format for this report is Adobe PDF. Your student ID number must be used as the file name (e.g. 0123456.pdf). You must ensure that you upload your file in the correct format and complete the coversheet before submitting your assignment.
Please note that submissions of ‘.pages / .docx etc’ documents will not be accepted and must be converted to approved format.
Marking criteria
| Criteria | A (70–100%) | B (60–69%) | C (50–59%) | D (40–49%) | E (30–39%) | F (0–29%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Analysis (30%) | Demonstrates exceptional insight into the economic, social, and political impacts of globalisation. Arguments are original, well-developed, and supported by strong evidence. | Demonstrates clear understanding and thoughtful analysis. Arguments are coherent and mostly well-supported. | Demonstrates adequate understanding with some analysis. Arguments may lack depth or nuance. | Limited analysis with superficial understanding. Arguments are underdeveloped or poorly supported. | Very limited understanding. Analysis is minimal or mostly descriptive. | No meaningful analysis. Misunderstands key concepts or fails to address the topic. |
| Comparative Evaluation (25%) | Excellent comparison of countries with deep insight into similarities, differences, and contextual factors. | Good comparison with clear identification of key differences and similarities. Some contextual understanding. | Basic comparison with some relevant points. Limited contextual analysis. | Weak comparison with few relevant insights. Lacks depth or clarity. | Very poor comparison. Minimal or irrelevant discussion of differences. | No comparison or entirely inaccurate. |
| Use of Evidence (20%) | Extensive use of high-quality academic sources and data. Evidence is critically integrated and enhances the argument. | Good use of appropriate sources. Evidence supports the argument well. | Adequate use of sources. Some evidence may be outdated, limited, or not well-integrated. | Limited or inconsistent use of evidence. Some reliance on non-academic sources. | Very little use of evidence. Sources are inappropriate or poorly used. | No evidence or entirely inappropriate sources. |
| Policy Insight (15%) | Policy recommendations are highly relevant, innovative, and feasible. Demonstrates excellent understanding of global and national policy dynamics. | Recommendations are relevant and well-argued. Shows good understanding of policy implications. | Recommendations are somewhat relevant but may lack depth or feasibility. | Weak or vague recommendations. Limited understanding of policy context. | Recommendations are unclear, irrelevant, or poorly justified. | No recommendations or entirely off-topic. |
| Structure and Presentation (10%) | Exceptionally well-structured and clearly written. Fluent academic style. Accurate and consistent referencing. | Well-organised and clearly written. Minor issues in structure or referencing. | Adequately structured. Some issues with clarity, flow, or referencing. | Poorly structured or unclear in places. Referencing may be inconsistent. | Disorganised and difficult to follow. Major referencing issues. |