Select an organisation that has already integrated the SDGs into its sustainability strategy (whole-of-business or program-level). Analyse its SDG commitments and operations using frameworks provided in class and identify areas for improvement based on sector-relevant benc

Assessment

Background

Produce a professional report that analyses how a selected organisation applies the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within its operations or a specific project and recommend improvement actions aligned to sector benchmarks and SDG-aligned performance standards. The report should be written as if submitted to the company’s executive team to inform strategy and performance enhancement against relevant SDGs.

Task Outline

Select an organisation that has already integrated the SDGs into its sustainability strategy (whole-of-business or program-level). Analyse its SDG commitments and operations using frameworks provided in class and identify areas for improvement based on sector-relevant benchmarks. Next compare the company to another company and see what improvements could be made based on the comparison. Provide an analysis of enablers and constraints of implementation. Finally determine how the innovations link with business model of the organisation. The choice of company is your to make. You might light to choose a company aligned with your major.

Two Staged Report

Now that GenAi has impacted on the creation of reports the assessment will now include a staged process of assessment to test students ability to use GenAI in a critical, creative and professional way. The due date for the assessment is the 28th of November. However, this is the submission of a draft where GenAI material can be included that is unchecked. That is the report may include plagiarised content, unreferenced sources and the need for further source checking. Please include as many references as possible – including in text citations. This will ensure that the maker can provide good feedback to you. The Final Report for marking is due on the 1st of Feb 10pm. This submission will include tracked changes (in Microsoft Word) after the student has implemented a comprehensive editorial process to ensure and demonstrate that a rigorous process of academic and professional writing has occurred. A comprehensive critical thinking/editorial framework can be found in the AI folder. The principles of critical thinking and AI assessment principles underpin this assessment task . The assessment rubric will reflect these principles. The purpose of this approach to the assessment is to maintain critical and creative thinking in developing professional/academic writing in the face of GenAI’s ability to search for and directly author content for reports. In addition of the need to ‘test’ student knowledge there is a real need to make sure that AI does not dumb down professionals and that our thinking skills are not eroded by GenAI. Of course, you don’t have to use GenAI and can just submit a draft that you write yourself. You will still need to show tracked changes and indicate how you have developed your thinking.

Brief summary of assessment requirements

Produce a professional, executive-style report that analyses how a chosen organisation applies the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within its operations or a specific project, and recommend improvement actions aligned to sector benchmarks and SDG-aligned performance standards. Key requirements:

• Scope & purpose: Analyse SDG commitments and operational practice for a company that has already integrated SDGs into its sustainability strategy (enterprise-wide or program level).
• Frameworks: Use the class-provided analytical frameworks to assess performance and identify gaps.
• Benchmarking & comparison: Compare the chosen company against a second company from the same sector to highlight relative strengths and opportunities.
• Implementation analysis: Identify enablers and constraints to SDG implementation.
• Business model linkage: Explain how proposed innovations link to the organisation’s business model.
• Evidence & referencing: Include in-text citations and as many references as possible.
• Two-stage submission process:
  • Draft (GenAI-permitted, due 28 November): A working draft may include GenAI material, unverified sources, and plagiarised content these must be flagged; include many references for constructive feedback.
  • Final (due 1 February, 10pm): Submit a fully edited Word file with tracked changes showing the editorial process and demonstration of rigorous academic/professional writing. Use the AI/critical-thinking framework from the AI folder. The rubric assesses critical/creative use of GenAI and academic integrity.
• Assessment purpose: Demonstrate critical thinking, professional writing, and responsible/transparent use of GenAI (or deliberate non-use), ensuring AI does not erode professional judgement.

How the Academic Mentor guided the student step-by-step

Below is a practical walkthrough of how an academic mentor would coach the student through each section of the assessment, what actions were taken, and why.

1. Project selection & scoping

Mentor actions:

• Discussed student’s major and interests and recommended a shortlist of organisations with visible SDG commitments.
• Helped the student pick two comparable companies (target + comparator) in the same sector to enable meaningful benchmarking.
• Co-wrote a brief scope statement that defines time horizon, geographies, and which SDGs (or targets) will be the focus.

Why it matters: Narrowing scope prevents superficial coverage and makes benchmarking and business-model linkage feasible.

2. Framing the research question and objectives

Mentor actions:

• Turned the brief into clear research questions (e.g., “How effectively does Company A integrate SDG 7 and 12 into operations compared to Company B?”).
• Converted questions into measurable objectives (e.g., assess policy alignment, evaluate performance indicators, recommend two implementable actions).

Why it matters: Precise questions and measurable objectives guide data collection and analysis.

3. Literature & policy scan (existing research)

Mentor actions:

• Showed how to search for sector reports, company sustainability reports, and SDG performance frameworks.
• Taught the student to summarise prior studies and identify credible indicators and benchmarks.
• Recommended documenting gaps to justify the study’s originality.

Why it matters: Establishes baseline knowledge and situates the report in current debates.

4. Applying class frameworks to analyse the company

Mentor actions:

• Walked the student through each class framework step (e.g., SDG mapping, materiality matrix, KPI alignment, maturity model).
• Supported the student in mapping corporate policies, targets, and disclosed metrics to specific SDG targets.
• Checked the student’s matrix for consistency and advised on how to visualise findings (tables/figures).

Why it matters: Using standard frameworks ensures academic rigour and comparability.

5. Benchmarking & comparative analysis

Mentor actions:

• Advised on selecting sector-relevant benchmarks (industry averages, leading-practice companies, or standards).
• Co-developed comparison tables that show where Company A outperforms or lags Company B across chosen KPIs.
• Helped translate comparative findings into tangible improvement opportunities.

Why it matters: Benchmarking turns abstract goals into measurable performance gaps and priorities.

6. Enablers and constraints analysis

Mentor actions:

• Guided a structured assessment of internal enablers (governance, capex, culture, reporting systems) and external constraints (policy, supply chain, finance).
• Suggested evidence sources for each claim (interviews, reports, third-party indices).
• Encouraged linking constraints to pragmatic mitigation options.

Why it matters: Decision-makers need to know what’s feasible and what blocks implementation.

7. Linking innovations to the business model

Mentor actions:

• Coached the student to map recommended innovations (product changes, process upgrades, partnerships) to the company’s value proposition, revenue streams, cost structure, and key resources.
• Recommended short-case examples showing how similar changes produced commercial or reputational benefits.

Why it matters: Executives evaluate sustainability actions through returns and strategic fit, not only ethics.

8. Recommendations and action plan

Mentor actions:

• Helped craft 3–6 prioritized recommendations with implementation steps, responsible parties, timelines, and indicative KPIs.
• Ensured recommendations were SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound).

Why it matters: Clear actions convert analysis into decisions.

9. Drafting the report (GenAI-aware phase, due 28 Nov)

Mentor actions:

• Advised use of GenAI for idea generation, outline drafting, or paraphrasing but insisted on strict documentation of any AI-produced text.
• Provided a draft checklist: flag all GenAI content, include provisional references, and note places needing verification.
• Reviewed the draft for structure and argument flow, not final accuracy.

Why it matters: The draft allows feedback while keeping the final academic integrity process transparent.

10. Editorial refinement & tracked changes (final phase, due 1 Feb)

Mentor actions:

• Led an editorial workshop: verify all sources, replace or fact-check AI-generated passages, tighten arguments, and format citations.
• Taught how to use Word’s Track Changes to show the editorial journey: highlight deleted GenAI text, added verified sources, and reworked arguments.
• Conducted a final plausibility and originality check; recommended an authenticity/plagiarism scan and inclusion of an appendix documenting AI usage and editorial steps per the AI folder guidance.

Why it matters: Tracked changes provide evidence of critical engagement and satisfy the rubric’s requirements.

11. Final quality assurance

Mentor actions:

• Performed a final rubric check: did each objective get addressed? Are comparisons robust? Is evidence cited? Are KPIs and recommendations clear?
• Ensured the report is executive-ready: concise executive summary, clear visuals, and a one-page action plan.

Why it matters: Final QA aligns the product to the expectations of an executive audience and the assessment rubric.