The Report is in two parts.Part 1 (50% of total mark for this assignment)Design a comprehensive environmental audit tool (checklist) that could be used to undertake an environmental audit of one of t
MNG00912 Environmental Management for Hotels and Attractions
Assignment 2: Environmental Audit Report Marking Rubric
Marking Criterion | High Distinction | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Fail |
Environmental Audit Checklist | |||||
Selection of relevant items for checklist 15% | Excellent selection of relevant items based on a thorough understanding of environmental auditing theory and the particular characteristics of the business | Very good selection of relevant items based on a comprehensive understanding of environmental auditing theory and the particular characteristics of the business | Reasonable selection of relevant items based on a sound understanding of environmental auditing theory and the particular characteristics of the business | Adequate selection of items for checklist which have a reasonable fit with the business. Basic understanding of theory | Inadequate selection of items for checklist which are not necessarily well targeted to the business |
Appropriate method for evaluating each item in checklist are given 15% | Excellent. Appropriate methods for evaluating each item are proposed. Easily achievable and practical | Very Good. Mostly appropriate methods for evaluating each item are proposed. Mostly achievable and practical. | Good. Overall, appropriate methods for evaluating each item are proposed. Mostly achievable and practical. | Adequate. A suitable attempt to identify appropriate methods for evaluating each item are proposed. Most but not all are achievable and practical. | Inadequate. Appropriate methods for evaluating each item are not proposed. Most are not achievable or practical. |
Overall design and comprehensiveness of auditing checklist 20% | Excellent design; sections logically structured and organised | Very good design. Sections are mostly logically structured and organised. | Good design. Sections generally structured and organised appropriately. | Adequate design and structure. | Poor design; not logically structured and organised. |
Demonstrates understanding of the business’s environmental auditing needs 10% | Excellent level of understanding of the selected business and its environmental auditing needs; the audit checklist is well-targeted | Very good level of understanding of the selected business and its environmental auditing needs; the audit checklist is generally well-targeted | Good level of understanding of the selected business and its environmental auditing needs; the audit checklist is mostly well-targeted | Adequate level of understanding of the selected business and its environmental auditing needs; the audit checklist is adequately targeted | Inadequate level of understanding of the selected business and its environmental auditing needs; the audit checklist is not targeted |
Rationale Document | |||||
Audit design process informed by relevant literature 15% | It is clear that the design and development of the audit checklist has been informed by a comprehensive and excellent understanding of the topic gained by reading the relevant literature; the literature used includes academic and technical publications as well as other sources such as websites and YouTube videos and is relevant and contemporary | It is clear that the design and development of the audit checklist has been informed by a reasonably comprehensive and very good understanding of the topic gained by reading the relevant literature; the literature used includes academic and technical publications as well as other sources such as websites and YouTube videos and is relevant and contemporary | It is clear that the design and development of the audit checklist has been informed by a reasonable and good understanding of the topic gained by reading the relevant literature; the literature used includes academic and some technical publications as well as some other sources such as websites and YouTube videos and is reasonably relevant and contemporary | It is clear that the design and development of the audit checklist has been informed by an adequate understanding of the topic gained by reading the relevant literature; the literature used includes academic and technical publications as well as some other sources such as websites and YouTube videos | No clear indication that the audit design process was informed by the relevant literature |
Justification for the items included in the audit checklist 10% | Excellent justification given, informed by the specifics of the business as well as the literature | Very good justification given, informed by the specifics of the business as well as the literature | Good level of justification given, reasonably informed by the specifics of the business as well as the literature | Adequate justification given; some understanding evident of the specifics of the business as well as the literature | Inadequate or non-existent justification given |
Written expression and structure 5% | Excellent level of written expression and structure. The Rationale is logically structured and flows very well. There is a clear flow from paragraph to paragraph. | Very good level of written expression and structure. The Rationale is logically structured and flows well. | Good level of written expression and structure. Expression is mostly at a suitable level but could be improved in parts. | Adequate level of written expression and structure. Some problems with sentence structure and expression evident. | Very poor, inadequate level of written expression and structure. Difficult to understand large parts of the assignment. Unclear expression. |
Presentation level 5% | Excellent. Free of spelling and grammatical errors. Highly professional in appearance. | Very Good. Mostly free of significant spelling and grammatical errors. Professional in appearance. | Good level of presentation. Some errors in places, but overall of a suitably good standard. | Adequate presentation but flawed in places by some errors that reduce the level of presentation. But overall at an acceptable level. | Poor. Unprofessional in appearance with too many errors. |
Referencing and reference list 5% | Referencing without any errors Reference list comprehensive and free of errors | Referencing without any substantive errors and Reference List quite comprehensive and largely free of substantive errors | Referencing correctly done in most cases. Reference list good without being as comprehensive as it could have been and there may be some minor errors in its construction | Adequate referencing though there are minor to more substantial errors. Reference list adequate but not necessarily very comprehensive and there may be errors in its construction. | Incorrect referencing used. Reference list contains a number of significant errors in its construction. |