IB Business Management SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly stated, focused on one company, and time-bounded. This gives the investigation a clear business purpose and makes it possible to organise the later analysis around a single line of inquiry.

This factual detail conflicts with later claims that Sephora was founded in 1969. Inconsistent background information weakens topic communication because the reader cannot tell which version is being treated as accurate.

The method is described imprecisely: the essay also uses quantitative financial data, so calling it only a “mixed qualitative approach” is inaccurate. The student should state exactly what types of data are used, why those sources were chosen, and how they were cross-checked.

The student could strengthen focus by explaining, for each tool, precisely what aspect of the research question it helps answer. That would make the method feel more purpose-driven rather than a list of business frameworks.

If Sephora’s own results cannot be isolated, how confidently can the essay claim to measure Sephora’s revenue growth rather than LVMH Selective Retailing performance? This is the key focus issue the student should keep addressing throughout the investigation.

This limitation is useful and should be developed further. The student could state explicitly how this limitation affects the validity of the final conclusion, rather than mentioning it only as a methodological note.

The source base is relevant, but the essay relies too heavily on secondary blog-style material elsewhere in the report. The student should prioritise stronger company, academic, and industry sources, then use weaker web sources only to supplement rather than anchor the argument.

The student uses a concrete operational metric to support the argument, which is much stronger than a purely descriptive claim. Specific evidence like this helps show how omnichannel features can translate into commercial outcomes.

This claim is too broad for the evidence provided. The student should distinguish between customer engagement, market presence, and revenue, and show which source material supports each one rather than treating them as interchangeable outcomes.

This paragraph could be stronger if the student separated evidence of geographic expansion from evidence of omnichannel effectiveness. That would make the business knowledge more precise and prevent market growth from being automatically treated as proof of strategy success.

The subject knowledge would be stronger if the student linked each competitor more explicitly to a distinct comparison point, such as pricing, digital reach, loyalty, or store experience. That would make the comparison more analytical and less general.

The explanation is plausible but unsupported. The student should either provide evidence for digital-infrastructure costs or present this as a hypothesis, because at the moment the financial interpretation is asserted rather than demonstrated.

The student shows awareness that category mix matters, which is good subject knowledge. This helps move the analysis beyond a single-strategy explanation and recognises that different product lines can contribute differently to overall performance.

The conclusion summarises the argument well, but it overstates certainty by treating several different forms of evidence as if they all directly prove revenue growth. The student should make clearer which claims are about strategy, which are about positioning, and which are about financial results.

The student applies a business concept accurately and then links it to Sephora’s omnichannel model. This is effective because it shows conceptual understanding rather than simply naming the strategy.

The analysis jumps from operational improvements to revenue implications without enough intermediate reasoning. The student should explain the mechanism more explicitly: how exactly do faster checkout and improved satisfaction translate into revenue growth, and what evidence shows that they did so?

The conclusion is stronger than the evidence allows. A reported increase in conversion, returns, and engagement suggests effectiveness, but it does not by itself prove overall revenue growth or isolate omnichannel strategy as the cause.

This is a valuable critical point, but it needs tighter evaluation. The student should use this idea to question whether observed sales changes reflect channel substitution rather than genuine growth, and then test that possibility with evidence.

This example is relevant, but the evaluation stops at description. The student should explain what this case suggests about the limits of omnichannel expansion and how much it should reduce confidence in the overall positive conclusion.

This is a strong counterexample and could be used more analytically. The student should compare it against the positive examples to judge where omnichannel works best and where it fails, rather than presenting the cases separately.

The Five Forces section ends with a broad assertion rather than an evidence-based judgement. The student should explain which force mattered most, why, and how the framework actually helps answer the research question.

The comparison attempts to connect strategic differences to market outcomes, which is exactly the kind of evaluative reasoning expected here. The student is moving beyond description by using a competitor as a benchmark.

This claim would be more convincing if it were tied to a clearly identified data source and then interpreted in relation to other possible causes. At present, the essay often moves from positive figures to causal attribution too quickly.

What is the strongest evidence that omnichannel strategy itself caused the growth, rather than simply accompanying broader post-pandemic recovery, category demand, or store expansion? Answering that would make the final judgement much more critical.

The student could improve clarity by using more consistent naming for the competitors throughout the document. For example, the heading here differs from the discussion of DTC brands later, so a more precise label would reduce ambiguity.

The report is clearly signposted with main sections and sub-sections, which helps the reader follow the investigation logically from context to method, analysis, and conclusion.

The overall structure is appropriate for an extended essay because it separates framing, analysis, and conclusion. This makes the argument easier to navigate and supports coherence across the report.

This sentence weakens presentation as well as analysis because it is vague and imprecisely phrased. The student should revise sentences like this for clarity so that the reader can immediately understand the argument being made.

The table title contains a spelling inconsistency and is not as precise as it could be. The student should ensure all table labels are accurate and consistent so that the presentation of evidence appears polished and professional.

The report includes a dedicated reference section, which is essential for an extended essay and supports academic transparency.

Some reference entries are not consistently formatted and contain irregular spacing or punctuation. The student should standardise the bibliography style carefully so that source presentation is consistent and easy to verify.