To what extent are Costa Coffee UK’s current reusable-cup initiatives effective in mitigating the financial and environmental impact of the 2025 extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging fees?HL
Loading scores...
7
Official IB Result
23/25
Criteria A: Integration of a Key Concept
5/5
0
3
5
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Understanding and integration of key concept
Excellent
A.2Connection to organization
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student keeps the key concept visible throughout the investigation and uses it to frame the business response to regulation and customer behaviour.
- The student's analysis shows a strong, specific connection to Costa Coffee UK through its outlets, app, reusable-cup policy, recycling systems, and climate commitments.
- The student moves beyond description by distinguishing between different kinds of change and linking them to stakeholder adaptation.
- Some references to the key concept are still declarative rather than fully analytical.
- A few points rely on broad industry evidence without always showing how directly they apply to Costa.
- The conceptual argument would be stronger if the student pushed further into whether the change is temporary, incremental, or structural.
1.1·Strength
Page 1
The student identifies the IB key concept clearly and keeps returning to it in the analysis, which gives the investigation a coherent conceptual focus. This works well because the concept is not left as a label; it is used to frame Costa’s response to regulation and customer behaviour.
1.2·Strength
Page 3
The student makes the concept explicit and connects it to the method of evaluation, showing good awareness of how change should shape the investigation. The link is strongest when the student ties change to adaptation, incentives, and regulatory pressure.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 4
The student should connect this force more explicitly to the concept of change by explaining what kind of organisational change the app enables and why that matters for EPR mitigation. That would turn a descriptive point into analytical conceptual evidence.
1.4·Suggestion
Page 5
The student could use this evidence to distinguish between short-term behavioural change and sustained organisational change. That would strengthen conceptual depth by showing whether the result reflects temporary compliance or a more durable shift.
1.5·Weakness
Page 7
This link to Change is still quite declarative. The student should explain how the financial model itself changes over time, who must adapt, and whether the change is incremental or structural. That would make the concept drive the reasoning rather than merely label it.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 12
The student should go one step further and explain whether this external pressure creates reactive or proactive change. That distinction would make the conceptual integration more sustained and improve the sophistication of the evaluation.
1.7·Strength
Page 13
This is a strong conceptual judgement because it does more than restate the topic; it classifies the type of change and explains why it matters. The student is moving toward integrated conceptual analysis by distinguishing operational adaptation from deeper transformation.
1.8·Strength
Page 13
This phrase shows that the student is not treating change as uniform across the organisation. Recognising uneven adaptation across stakeholders is a strong conceptual move because it reflects the complexity of business change in practice.
1.9·Question
Page 13
What evidence would be needed to show that Costa has moved beyond operational change into genuine cultural change? Thinking about this distinction would help the student sharpen the conceptual judgement in the conclusion.
1.10·Strength
Page 14
This is a concise, conceptually accurate synthesis. The student successfully links the type of change to the constraints on effectiveness, which helps the final judgement feel grounded in the earlier analysis.
Criteria B: Supporting Documents
2/4
0
2
4
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Number of documents
Poor
B.2Relevance and depth
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- No separate supporting documents are included, so the source material itself cannot be assessed.
- The bibliography and in-text references do not replace the required document set for this part of the work.
- Without the actual documents, relevance, depth, provenance, and range cannot be judged.
2.1·Question
Page 3
Which of the cited sources would most strongly support the analysis if it were submitted in full, and why? Answering that would help the student identify which supporting documents are most relevant and worth including.
2.2·Weakness
Page 3
The student refers to supporting documents through SD labels, but the actual documents are not submitted as separate evidence here. To meet this criterion, the student needs to provide the supporting documents themselves, not just cite them in the text and bibliography.
2.3·Weakness
Page 7
This is a useful data point, but without the underlying supporting document it cannot be evaluated for provenance, depth, or relevance. The student should submit the source material itself so the evidence base can be assessed properly.
2.4·Weakness
Page 7
The student is relying on a useful range of references, but the supporting-document requirement is still not met because those sources are only cited, not provided. The criterion assesses the submitted documents themselves, so the actual articles, reports, or extracts need to be included.
2.5·Weakness
Page 9
The stakeholder matrix is useful, but the document still does not supply the actual supporting evidence behind the plotted positions. Including the full documents would allow the assessor to see whether the stakeholder classifications are properly grounded.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 15
The student could strengthen the supporting-document strand by prioritising the most directly relevant company documents, then pairing them with regulatory and academic sources. That would create a clearer spread of provenance and perspective.
2.7·Suggestion
Page 15
The student should consider attaching the source documents behind these citations in an appendix or submission pack, even if they are already listed in the works cited. That would allow the assessor to judge relevance and depth directly.
2.8·Weakness
Page 16
A cited article title is not the same as a supporting document set. If the source was important to the analysis, the student should include the article itself so its content can be assessed alongside the investigation.
Criteria C: Selection and Application of Tools and Theories
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Selection of tools and theories
Excellent
C.2Application and relevance
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student selected three appropriate tools that fit the research question well and complement one another.
- The student's cost-benefit work is clearly linked to the research question and uses transparent assumptions.
- The student's stakeholder analysis and broader tool use help them build toward a single business judgement rather than isolated exercises.
- The force-field scoring is not always explained clearly enough by the evidence that follows.
- Some tool application becomes blurred when staff-process claims are mixed with unrelated recycling-scale evidence.
- The links between the tools and the exact mitigation of EPR fees could be made more precise.
3.1·Suggestion
Page 4
The student should explain more clearly how this evidence justifies the score chosen in the force field analysis. A brief link between the feature, the score, and the research question would make the tool’s application more rigorous.
3.2·Weakness
Page 6
The scoring here is not sufficiently explained by the evidence that follows. The student should show exactly how staff training and workflow integration influence reusable-cup uptake, rather than relying on a general operational claim.
3.3·Weakness
Page 6
This justification mixes scale-and-recycling evidence with a staff-process claim, so the relevance of the tool is blurred. The student should separate operational workflow issues from national recycling statistics to keep the analysis tightly focused.
3.4·Strength
Page 7
This is a well-chosen setup for the cost-benefit analysis because the assumptions are explicit and the tool is clearly linked to the research question. The transparency makes the calculation easier to follow and assess.
3.5·Strength
Page 7
The student selects a strong and appropriate mix of tools for the question. These methods complement one another well because they examine operational barriers, financial trade-offs, and stakeholder pressure from different angles.
3.6·Suggestion
Page 8
The student could connect this benefit more directly to the research question by clarifying whether indirect profit helps offset EPR costs or simply justifies the initiative for other reasons. That distinction would improve analytical precision.
3.7·Strength
Page 9
The student chooses a relevant stakeholder framework for judging how customer behaviour, government pressure, and management priorities affect initiative effectiveness. This is a good fit for a question about the extent to which change is adopted.
3.8·Question
Page 10
How much should broad strategic value influence the evaluation if the research question is specifically about mitigating EPR fees? Reflecting on that boundary would help the student keep the tool application tightly aligned to the question.
3.9·Strength
Page 10
This is a strong application of evidence because it uses a behavioural gap to explain why the initiative does not perform as intended. The student is using the tool analytically rather than descriptively.
3.10·Strength
Page 12
The student uses stakeholder analysis to reach a clear business implication, which shows the tool is being applied rather than merely presented. This is a strong link between stakeholder power and strategic outcome.
3.11·Strength
Page 13
The tools are being used to support an overarching business judgement rather than appearing as isolated exercises. That strengthens the relevance of the selected frameworks because they are feeding into a single evaluative line of argument.
Criteria D: Analysis and Evaluation
5/5
0
3
5
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Data selection and use
Excellent
D.2Analysis quality
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student uses data effectively to make concrete comparisons rather than simply listing figures.
- The student's calculation-based judgement gives a clear sense of whether the initiative is worthwhile financially.
- The student recognises limitations and alternative strategic value, which makes their evaluation more balanced and credible.
- The environmental side of the question is less directly evidenced than the financial side.
- Some analysis remains descriptive where it could more clearly explain causation and business impact.
- A few claims would be stronger if the student identified exactly which data point supports the judgement.
4.1·Weakness
Page 5
This comparison is useful, but it mainly describes scale rather than analysing causal impact. The student should explain what the statistic shows about Costa’s specific effectiveness, not only the national context.
4.2·Weakness
Page 6
This point is relevant, but it is left as a brief assertion. The student should evaluate how much contamination affects Costa’s actual EPR mitigation relative to other barriers, so the analysis becomes more discriminating.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 6
The student should unpack why the total scores matter for the research question. A short explanation of how the balance of forces translates into real-world effectiveness would make the analysis more persuasive.
4.4·Strength
Page 7
The student selects data that directly answers the question and uses it to make a concrete comparison. This is effective analysis because the figures are not just reported; they are used to judge whether the initiative is financially worthwhile.
4.5·Strength
Page 8
The student avoids an oversimplified conclusion by recognising that one initiative can be weak for the question yet still valuable for other strategic reasons. That balanced evaluation strengthens the credibility of the analysis.
4.6·Strength
Page 8
This is a clear evaluative claim that follows from the numbers already presented. The student shows good analytical control by turning the calculation into a direct judgement about effectiveness.
4.7·Suggestion
Page 8
The student should indicate which assumption is most likely to change the result if tested differently. That would turn the limitations section into a more analytical evaluation of uncertainty.
4.8·Strength
Page 10
This comparison is analytically powerful because it contrasts intention with behaviour and shows why uptake remains limited. The student is using evidence to explain a business problem rather than merely describing it.
4.9·Strength
Page 12
This is a strong evaluative link between regulation and likely outcomes. The student is showing cause-and-effect reasoning, which is central to high-quality analysis.
4.10·Weakness
Page 12
This is a strong evaluative phrase, but it needs tighter support from the evidence already presented. The student should state which data point most clearly justifies the claim that the initiatives are symbolic.
4.11·Strength
Page 13
This is an insightful evaluative conclusion because it identifies the mechanism behind the weak performance, not just the outcome. Naming the gap between organisational intent and customer behaviour adds real analytical depth.
4.12·Strength
Page 13
The student uses evidence to qualify the success of Costa’s response rather than presenting a one-sided verdict. That willingness to test the initiative against quantified evidence is a major analytical strength.
Criteria E: Conclusions
3/3
0
2
3
Criteria StrandsPro
E.1Consistency with evidence
Good
E.2Answer to research question
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student answers the research question clearly and directly in the final judgement.
- The student's conclusion is consistent with the main evidence and does not overstate the case.
- The student uses quantified and qualitative findings together to support a qualified final position.
- The environmental judgement is less secure than the financial judgement.
- A few final claims go slightly beyond the evidence base available in the investigation.
- The conclusion would be stronger if the different dimensions of effectiveness were separated more explicitly.
5.1·Strength
Page 13
The conclusion clearly returns to the research question and offers a qualified judgement. This works well because it synthesises the investigation rather than simply repeating earlier sections.
5.2·Strength
Page 13
The student uses earlier findings to explain why the answer is limited, which strengthens consistency between analysis and conclusion. That alignment is exactly what makes a conclusion robust.
5.3·Strength
Page 13
The conclusion is well supported by evidence because it cites a specific quantified result rather than making a vague overall claim. This makes the final judgement more convincing.
5.4·Suggestion
Page 13
The student could make the conclusion stronger by separating financial and environmental judgements more explicitly. Right now the answer is clearer on the financial side than on the environmental side.
5.5·Weakness
Page 13
This conclusion is slightly too broad because the evidence mainly shows adaptation to regulation and incentives, not necessarily full organisational change. The student should ensure each final claim is tightly matched to the evidence base.
5.6·Strength
Page 14
This is an explicit answer to the research question, and it is consistent with the preceding analysis. The student’s final judgement is clear, concise, and defensible.
5.7·Strength
Page 14
This is a sound summary of the evidence and shows the student has a clear line of argument. The conclusion does not overclaim, which is a sign of mature evaluation.
5.8·Question
Page 14
If future regulatory shifts are only expected and not yet in force, how much weight should they carry in the final judgement? Considering that boundary would make the conclusion more precise.
Criteria F: Structure
2/2
0
1
2
Criteria StrandsPro
F.1Organization and structure
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student's investigation is clearly organised with a contents page and distinct sections.
- The sequence from introduction to analysis, limitations, and conclusion is logical and easy to follow.
- Each tool is separated clearly, which helps the reader track the student's argument.
- Some internal repetition makes the sectioning feel longer than necessary.
- The layout could be streamlined so the progression between tool analysis and final synthesis feels more concise.
- A few repeated headings and labels reduce efficiency.
6.1·Strength
Page 2
The submission is clearly organised with a contents page and distinct analytical sections. That structure helps the reader follow the argument and makes the investigation easy to navigate.
6.2·Suggestion
Page 2
The student could reduce some repetition by tightening the recurring subheadings and integrating the tool-specific analysis more smoothly. A slightly leaner structure would make the argument feel more streamlined.
6.3·Weakness
Page 2
The table of contents suggests a very long, section-heavy layout, but some sections repeat similar headings and analysis labels. The student should streamline the internal organisation so the structure feels purposeful rather than repetitive.
6.4·Strength
Page 3
The investigation follows a logical progression from introduction to analysis, limitations, and conclusion. This sequencing supports clarity because each section builds toward the final judgement.
6.5·Strength
Page 3
Using clearly labelled tool sections gives the argument an organised, purposeful structure. The student makes it easy to see how each analytical method contributes to the overall answer.
6.6·Strength
Page 7
Each analytical tool is separated into its own section, which helps the reader understand the role of each method. This improves the readability and coherence of the investigation.
6.7·Strength
Page 9
The student maintains a consistent organisational structure across the whole report. This regularity makes the evaluation feel systematic rather than fragmented.
6.8·Suggestion
Page 12
The student could strengthen structure by briefly indicating where stakeholder analysis ends and broader evaluation begins. That would help the reader distinguish between the tool output and the final synthesis.
6.9·Strength
Page 13
The conclusion appears in a dedicated section and is clearly signposted, which is appropriate for an extended investigation. That helps the final judgement stand out as a separate synthesis of the analysis.
Criteria G: Presentation
2/2
0
1
2
Criteria StrandsPro
G.1Required elements
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student includes the main required presentation elements in a recognisable academic format.
- The student's research question is focused and clearly connected to the key concept and business context.
- The student's source list shows effort to draw on a range of source types and support academic transparency.
- The separate supporting documents are missing from the submission.
- Citation formatting and URL presentation could be more consistent.
- The overall presentation would be more polished with cleaner reference formatting.
7.1·Question
Page 1
Has the student checked whether the word count complies with the task requirements, and does every section contribute directly to the argument? Reviewing that balance can help improve overall presentation efficiency.
7.2·Strength
Page 1
The research question is focused, analytical, and clearly connected to the key concept and business context. This is an effective presentation choice because it gives the investigation a precise scope from the outset.
7.3·Strength
Page 2
The submission includes the core required elements in a recognisable academic format, including an introduction, analysis sections, conclusion, and works cited. That satisfies the main presentation expectations for this type of investigation.
7.4·Suggestion
Page 2
The student could improve presentation by making the referencing style more consistent across all entries. A uniform citation format would make the submission look more polished and easier to verify.
7.5·Weakness
Page 3
The submission is missing the separate supporting documents required for full presentation credit. A bibliography is not enough on its own; the actual selected documents need to be included with the investigation.
7.6·Strength
Page 15
The works cited list is present and includes a range of relevant source types, which supports academic transparency. This is important because the reader can see where the analysis draws its evidence from.
7.7·Suggestion
Page 15
The student should check citation consistency and clean up URL formatting in the works cited list. Even when the content is strong, uneven reference presentation can reduce the professionalism of the final submission.
7.8·Strength
Page 15
The bibliography includes an academic source, which improves the credibility of the evidence base. Including research literature alongside company and government sources is a strong presentational choice.
7.9·Strength
Page 16
The source list shows an effort to include comparative industry material as well as regulatory and company sources. That range supports a balanced investigation and makes the presentation feel more comprehensive.