To what extent will the use of Polylactic Acid bioplastics allow businesses to improve their environmental and economic sustainability in the UK?SL
Loading scores...
A
Official IB Result
27/34
Criteria A: Focus and Method
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
A.2Research question formulation and focus
Excellent
A.3Research methodology
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The topic is communicated accurately and effectively with comprehensive definitions and contextual framing.
- The research question is clearly stated, well-focused and drives both environmental and economic strands.
- An appropriate range of relevant secondary sources is selected, showing evidence of informed selection.
- Minor lapses in phrasing lead to occasional informal tone.
- Methodology relies solely on secondary data; no primary data collection limits depth of insight.
1.1·Strength
Page 1
The research question is specific and well integrated, guiding both environmental and economic strands of the essay.
1.2·Strength
Page 1
The title clearly communicates an interdisciplinary focus on environmental and economic sustainability of PLA bioplastics, effectively framing the investigation.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 6
Methodology section outlines secondary sources well but lacks any primary data collection; consider including a survey or interviews.
1.4·Suggestion
Page 12
The economic sustainability introduction is conceptually sound but would benefit from more precise definitions supported by theory citations.
1.5·Suggestion
Page 18
The CSR analysis describes pyramid tiers well but stops short of linking back to your specific research question; connect CSR findings to RQ.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 20
The final evaluation reflection shows engagement with interdisciplinary methods but would benefit from more detailed analysis of methodological limitations.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Application of source material
Good
B.2Subject knowledge
Good
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Good
Criteria Feedback
- Source material is generally relevant and integrated through paraphrase, quotation and figures.
- Subject knowledge is clear and coherent, demonstrating effective understanding of chemical and business concepts.
- Terminology and key concepts are used accurately and in context for the most part.
- Occasional missing or informal citations weaken academic rigor.
- Depth of economic analysis is sometimes surface-level, lacking detailed quantitative modelling.
- Terminology slips (“it’s strong chains”) and occasional generic phrasing reduce consistency.
2.1·Suggestion
Page 3
The introductory paragraph references Ritchie et al. without a year; add complete in-text citations to strengthen academic rigor.
2.2·Suggestion
Page 4
Definitions of sustainability are well integrated, but the citation lacks a page or date reference; include full details in-text.
2.3·Weakness
Page 5
The 83% figure for food-related waste is presented without an inline reference; add citation to underpin this key statistic.
2.4·Suggestion
Page 7
The phrase “it's strong chains” contains a contraction and is informal; revise to “its strong polymer chains” for precision.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 8
The description of hydrolysis vs glycolysis lacks quantitative recycling efficiency data; include figures to support analysis.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 10
PET vs PLA processing descriptions describe energy qualitatively; include comparative CO₂ emission figures for deeper analysis.
2.7·Question
Page 22
The use of a Wikipedia article in the bibliography requires justification; consider citing more authoritative sources or explaining its inclusion.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
10/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
C.1Research quality
Moderate
C.2Analysis depth
Poor
C.3Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- Research draws on a varied, current set of interdisciplinary sources directly tied to the research question.
- Analysis interprets chemical equations and economic data with sophistication, supporting clear conclusions.
- The argument is well-developed, balancing environmental and economic perspectives with critical evaluation.
- Depth of analysis is uneven—LCA discussion remains partly descriptive and could be expanded quantitatively.
- A few key claims lack full referencing (e.g. atom economy calculation errors, mixed data scopes).
- Counter-arguments and ethical trade-offs receive only brief treatment, limiting the highest level of critical evaluation.
3.1·Suggestion
Page 3
The final sentence of the introduction is truncated; complete the thought to ensure clarity of the environmental problem statement.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 9
The LCA resources section introduces the concept well; consider adding a summary table of impact categories and values.
3.3·Question
Page 9
The atom economy calculation for PLA appears mathematically incorrect; revisit molar masses and recalculate accurately.
3.4·Suggestion
Page 11
The overall summary segment is descriptive but could better link conclusions explicitly back to the research question.
3.5·Question
Page 14
Recycling rate calculation mixes UK PET data with a global PLA statement; ensure data scope consistency for valid comparison.
3.6·Strength
Page 15
SWOT analysis strengths section integrates price volatility and policy incentives effectively to support economic sustainability arguments.
3.7·Strength
Page 18
The SWOT conclusion effectively synthesizes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to support your final economic judgement.
3.8·Suggestion
Page 19
The ethical responsibility section is descriptive but lacks critical evaluation; consider discussing ethical dilemmas or trade-offs.
Criteria D: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
D.1Structure appropriateness
Excellent
D.2Layout and formatting
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The report structure is clearly appropriate, following EE requirements with logical sectioning that aids comprehension.
- Layout conventions (APA citations, figure captions, TOC, page numbering) are largely applied correctly.
- Headings and flow from environmental to economic strands are coherent and reader-friendly.
- Several figures are pixelated or lack standard captions and consistent numbering.
- Some TOC entries miss page numbers, and long URLs break across lines.
- A few editing oversights (incomplete sentences, inconsistent bibliography ordering) detract from polish.
4.1·Weakness
Page 2
Several entries (e.g., SWOT main header) lack page numbers, reducing usability of the contents page.
4.2·Strength
Page 2
The table of contents structure is clear and logically ordered, aiding reader comprehension.
4.3·Weakness
Page 3
Figure 1 appears pixelated and its caption formatting is inconsistent; consider replacing with higher-resolution image and standardizing style.
4.4·Suggestion
Page 5
The URL in the figure caption breaks across lines; adjust line breaks or use a DOI for cleaner formatting.
4.5·Weakness
Page 13
Figures 3 and 4 lack explicit captions or labels; add descriptive captions to clarify their roles in the circular economy discussion.
4.6·Weakness
Page 16
The “Opportunities” subsection ends mid-sentence, indicating an editing oversight; complete the thought and proofread thoroughly.
4.7·Suggestion
Page 24
Bibliography entries on pages 23–25 are not alphabetically arranged; sort entries to enhance navigability and professionalism.