Assessment Task 2 – Marketing and Management Sustainability Analysis

Assessment Type: Individual Written Assignment
Word Count: Approximately 1,500 words (maximum 1,750 words)
Font and Formatting: Calibri 12-point, double line spacing
Referencing Style: Harvard. A minimum of 15 references are required; at least 75% must be peer-reviewed academic sources.
Submission: Individual. Submit via the Moodle assignment submission link for this task.
Weighting: As specified in the unit outline.

Overview and Purpose

This assessment task requires you to conduct a Marketing and Management Sustainability Analysis of a major vehicle manufacturing organisation. The task asks you to move between theory and practice — drawing on current academic scholarship to identify what sustainable marketing and management looks like, and then applying that body of knowledge to critically assess how well your chosen organisation meets, falls short of, or exceeds those principles in practice.

The vehicle manufacturing industry sits at the intersection of global supply chains, regulatory pressure, consumer expectations, and environmental accountability — making it a rich and complex context for analysing sustainability. Your analysis must be evidence-based, theoretically grounded, and critically reasoned throughout.

Step 1: Choose Your Organisation

Select one (1) organisation from the list below. All subsequent sections of your analysis must focus exclusively on your chosen organisation. Do not attempt to analyse more than one company.

1. Tesla
2. Ford Motor Company
3. General Motors
4. Honda Motor Company
5. Oshkosh
6. Tata Motors
7. Toyota

Task Structure and Required Content

Your assignment must address each of the following four sections. These are not optional sub-headings — each represents a distinct analytical layer and will be assessed separately.

Section 1 – Background to the Company

Provide a concise but substantive background to your chosen organisation. This section should not read as a company profile copied from a corporate website. Instead, focus on the key strategies the organisation has pursued — particularly those relevant to its positioning, market environment, and sustainability agenda. Identify the operational scale of the organisation, its primary markets, and any notable shifts in strategic direction over recent years. Keep this section focused and analytical: context should serve your later analysis, not substitute for it.

Section 2 – Demonstration of the Body of Knowledge

With reference to a minimum of 15 academic journal articles, identify and articulate the key principles of sustainable marketing and sustainable management practices as established in the current scholarly literature. You are expected to demonstrate genuine engagement with the field — not just list principles, but show that you understand what the research says about why these principles matter, how they have evolved, and where significant debate or disagreement exists. Synthesise across your sources rather than summarising them one by one. Thematic organisation of the literature will strengthen this section considerably.

Key concepts likely to be relevant include: the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit); circular economy principles in manufacturing; green marketing and greenwashing; corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its integration into marketing strategy; sustainable supply chain management; stakeholder theory; and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting frameworks.

Section 3 – Explanation of the Theory: The Concept of Sustainability

In this section, you move from general principles to your specific organisation. Explain, with direct reference to the academic principles you identified in Section 2, where your chosen company is or is not following sustainable marketing and management practices. This requires precision: do not make vague claims about a company being “sustainable” or “not sustainable.” Identify specific practices, strategies, programmes, or decisions, and map these clearly against the theoretical principles from your literature. Where the evidence is mixed — where an organisation performs well on some dimensions but poorly on others — acknowledge that complexity and analyse it honestly.

Section 4 – Analysis of the Situation

Provide a critical analysis of the evidence for success or failure of sustainable marketing within your chosen organisation. Draw on measurable outcomes where possible — published sustainability reports, independent assessments, regulatory outcomes, market performance data, or third-party audits. Evaluate whether the organisation’s stated sustainability commitments are matched by verifiable results, and consider the implications of any gap between rhetoric and practice. This section should demonstrate your capacity for independent, evidence-based judgement.

Submission Requirements

• Word count: approximately 1,500 words; do not exceed 1,750 words. The reference list is not included in the word count.
• Font: Calibri, 12-point size throughout.
• Line spacing: double throughout the body of the assignment.
• Referencing: Harvard style. A minimum of 15 references are required. At least 75% of your references must be peer-reviewed academic journal articles. The remaining 25% may include credible industry reports, government publications, or reputable organisational sources.
• Submission method: individual submission via the Moodle assignment link. Do not email your assignment to the lecturer.
• File format: Microsoft Word (.docx). PDF submissions are not accepted unless otherwise specified by the unit coordinator.
• File name your submission: StudentID_LastName_AssessmentTask2

Assessment Criteria and Marking Guide

Your submission will be assessed against the following criteria. Marks are distributed across the four task sections plus academic writing and referencing standards.

1. Background and Strategic Context (15 marks)

• High Distinction: Accurate, focused, and analytical company background. Key strategies are identified with precision and clearly connected to the sustainability context of the analysis. No unnecessary padding or copied corporate language.
• Distinction: Solid background with clear strategic focus. Minor gaps in depth or specificity.
• Credit: Adequate background but leans toward description over analysis. Strategic focus is present but underdeveloped.
• Pass: Basic company information provided. Limited engagement with strategic context.
• Fail: Background is absent, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the task.

2. Body of Knowledge – Sustainable Marketing and Management Principles (25 marks)

• High Distinction: Sophisticated synthesis of a minimum of 15 academic sources. Key principles are identified, explained, and evaluated with nuance. Literature is current, credible, and used to construct an integrated theoretical framework. The 75% academic source threshold is met and typically exceeded.
• Distinction: Strong engagement with literature. Principles are clearly articulated and mostly synthesised. Source quality is high and threshold is met.
• Credit: Adequate literature review. Some synthesis present, but sources are often summarised individually. Principles are identified with reasonable accuracy.
• Pass: Minimum source requirement met but engagement is surface-level. Principles are listed rather than analysed.
• Fail: Minimum source requirement not met, or sources are predominantly non-academic. Principles are absent, vague, or inaccurate.

3. Application of Theory to Organisation (25 marks)

• High Distinction: Specific organisational practices are mapped clearly and critically against identified theoretical principles. The analysis acknowledges complexity and mixed performance. Evidence is used precisely and argument is well-reasoned.
• Distinction: Good application with clear links between theory and practice. Minor gaps in precision or evidence.
• Credit: Theory and practice are connected, but application is sometimes vague or generalised. Evidence base is adequate.
• Pass: Some connection between theory and organisational practice, but links are underdeveloped or asserted without evidence.
• Fail: Theory and practice are treated separately with no meaningful application.

4. Critical Analysis of Sustainability Outcomes (20 marks)

• High Distinction: Evaluates measurable evidence of success or failure with independent critical judgement. Identifies tensions between stated commitments and actual performance. Well-supported by credible data and external assessments.
• Distinction: Sound critical analysis with good use of evidence. Minor lack of depth in evaluating specific outcomes.
• Credit: Analysis is present but relies more on assertion than evidence. Critical engagement is inconsistent.
• Pass: Basic assessment of outcomes. Mostly descriptive with limited critical evaluation.
• Fail: No meaningful analysis of outcomes. Description or repetition only.

5. Academic Writing, Structure, and Harvard Referencing (15 marks)

• High Distinction: Writing is precise, fluent, and consistently academic in register. Structure is logical and coherent. Harvard referencing is accurate throughout in-text and in the reference list. Word count is within limits.
• Distinction: Writing is clear and well-structured. Minor referencing errors. Word count within limits.
• Credit: Generally clear writing with some lapses. Harvard referencing used but contains errors. Structure is adequate.
• Pass: Writing is acceptable but inconsistent. Referencing errors are frequent. Basic structure present.
• Fail: Writing is unclear or does not meet academic standards. Referencing is absent or incorrect. Word count significantly exceeded or not met.

Academic Integrity

All submitted work must be entirely your own. Turnitin or equivalent similarity detection software will be applied to all submissions. The use of generative AI tools to draft or substantially produce assignment content is not permitted unless the unit coordinator has explicitly stated otherwise in writing. Paraphrasing the work of others without citation constitutes plagiarism and will be treated as academic misconduct in accordance with university policy.

Sample Answer Bay – Sustainability Analysis in Vehicle Manufacturing

The vehicle manufacturing sector has come under sustained scrutiny in recent decades as environmental regulations tighten and consumer expectations around corporate accountability shift considerably. Toyota’s adoption of the Toyota Production System and its extension into lean, low-waste manufacturing provides a frequently cited case of how operational efficiency and environmental responsibility can be pursued in parallel — though critics note that efficiency gains alone do not constitute a comprehensive sustainability strategy. Tesla, meanwhile, has built its entire brand identity around the narrative of environmental disruption, yet independent assessments of its supply chain — particularly lithium and cobalt sourcing for battery production — reveal tensions between the company’s green marketing positioning and the upstream social and environmental costs of its products. Ford Motor Company’s Ford+ restructuring plan, announced in 2021 and extended through 2024 and 2025, signals a strategic pivot toward electric vehicles and sustainability integration, though the pace of transition has been uneven and contested by analysts monitoring its ICE vehicle output. As Dangelico and Vocalelli (2017), writing in the Journal of Cleaner Production, establish in their systematic review of green marketing definitions and frameworks, the credibility of a firm’s sustainable marketing depends substantially on whether environmental claims are embedded in verifiable operational changes rather than used as a communication strategy detached from business practice. General Motors’ Ultium platform and its publicly stated goal of carbon neutrality by 2040 represent the kind of long-horizon commitment now common in the industry, but the literature consistently warns that aspirational targets without transparent interim reporting and third-party verification are vulnerable to greenwashing classifications.

Tata Motors and Oshkosh represent instructive contrasts within this industry set. Tata operates across highly varied regulatory environments — from India’s Bharat Stage emissions standards to European Union compliance requirements — and its sustainability performance is therefore shaped as much by regulatory geography as by strategic intent, a dynamic well-documented in comparative CSR and sustainability reporting research. Oshkosh, operating in defence, municipal, and commercial vehicle markets, has developed sustainability credentials through products such as the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle contract, positioning zero-emission fleet solutions as a core commercial proposition rather than an add-on. The International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2024 reported that electric vehicle sales reached 14 million units globally in 2023, representing 18% of all new car sales — a market shift that fundamentally reframes which manufacturers are positioned competitively and which are exposed to stranded-asset risk in their ICE portfolios. Students analysing any of these seven organisations will find that the most credible and highest-scoring analyses are those that resist both uncritical praise and sweeping condemnation, instead using the theoretical literature as a precise analytical instrument to evaluate specific practices, strategies, and outcomes with evidence-grounded rigour.

Recommended References

The following peer-reviewed sources are relevant to the core concepts in this assessment task and are published between 2018 and 2026. Use your institutional library database to access full text via the DOI links provided. These may be used as starting points; you are expected to locate additional sources independently to meet the 15-reference minimum.

1. Dangelico, R. M., & Vocalelli, D. (2017). “Green marketing”: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 1263–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.184
2. Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy — 45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.004
3. Naidoo, M., & Gasparatos, A. (2018). Corporate environmental sustainability in the retail sector: Drivers, strategies and performance measurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.253
4. Soewarno, N., Tjahjadi, B., & Fithrianti, F. (2019). Green innovation strategy and green innovation: The roles of green organisational identity and environmental organisational legitimacy. Management Decision, 57(11), 3061–3078. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2018-0563
5. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. [Widely cited foundational reference — access via: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039]
6. Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2013). Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: From stakeholders to performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 1–6. Updated discussions available via: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033