IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student identifies the key concept correctly and keeps it central to the topic, which is essential for an ethics-focused inquiry. This gives the report a clear conceptual anchor and helps the argument stay tied to corporate responsibility rather than drifting into a general brand-history summary.

The concept is defined too broadly as simply “right or wrong.” The student should develop ethics as a business concept by distinguishing legal compliance, corporate responsibility, supplier oversight, and stakeholder harm, because that distinction is necessary for an analytical rather than descriptive discussion.

Consider linking each ethical allegation to a specific ethical principle or stakeholder impact, rather than only noting that Samsung has a “well-known brand image.” That would make the key concept more integrated and would show how ethics shapes business decisions and reputation.

This sentence collapses allegations and verified findings into one undifferentiated statement. The student should separate what was claimed, what was investigated, what Samsung admitted, and what was proven, because ethics analysis depends on evidential precision rather than treating every allegation as established fact.

What evidence shows that the effect was “immediate” and “drastic” rather than limited or temporary? The student should test the strength of this claim against the supporting documents and any brand or sales data before presenting it as a firm conclusion.

This generalizes from a very small survey and from broad theory to a company-specific conclusion. The student should use Samsung-focused evidence to show how the ethical issues affected brand image and revenue in this case, otherwise the argument remains too generic to demonstrate ethical impact.

This background is only loosely relevant to the research question and does not add depth to the evidence base. The student should prioritize supporting documents that directly address ethical codes, labour practices, and brand-image effects, because general company history does not help answer the question about extent.

The student is using supporting documents to ground the claims in external evidence, which is a strength. This is especially helpful when discussing sensitive allegations, because it shows the argument is not based only on opinion.

Much of this supporting document is historical background rather than evidence for the research question. The student should reduce reliance on broad company history and instead choose documents that provide direct, in-depth evidence about the ethical allegations and their business consequences.

This source covers many issues, but the student uses only a narrow slice of it. The student should quote or analyze the sections that directly support the argument about labour ethics and brand image, otherwise the document remains broad rather than deeply applied.

How directly does this source relate to the student’s question about brand image and revenue rather than only ethical dilemma? The student should consider whether each supporting document helps answer the specific research question, not just the general topic.

This is highly relevant evidence that appears to contradict the report’s claim of revenue decline, yet it is not incorporated into the student’s argument. The student should use such conflicting evidence explicitly, because evaluating inconsistency is essential to a credible business analysis.

The methodology promises a force-field analysis, but that tool does not appear in the body. The student should either include the analysis or remove it from the methodology, because the selected tools need to match the actual execution of the report.

The student selects a recognizable analytical tool and uses it to organize thinking about Samsung’s position. This works well as a signpost for the reader and provides a clear framework for discussing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

This point is plausible, but it is generic and not clearly tied to the research question. The student should choose tools and subpoints that directly test ethical violations and brand-image impact, because broad market-growth ideas do not help evaluate the specific issue under investigation.

A more focused tool choice would help here. The student could pair the ethical allegations with a stakeholder analysis or risk analysis, because those frameworks would better show who was affected, how seriously, and why the reputational consequences matter.

This section describes macroeconomic pressures but does not show how they help answer the question about ethical violations and brand image. The student should either connect each economic factor to the ethical issue and consumer response, or remove irrelevant discussion so the analysis stays focused.

This conclusion from the tools is too broad and not well-supported by the preceding analysis. The student should show exactly which SWOT and STEEPLE findings justify this judgment, because a tool-based conclusion needs explicit evidence rather than a general reassurance.

How does the student distinguish between “unproven claims” and the allegations that were actually supported by investigations or admissions? Clarifying that boundary would make the tool application more precise and would improve the evaluation of Samsung’s response.

The student includes the company’s response, which is useful because it allows some balance in the analysis. This helps the discussion move beyond one-sided accusation and gives room to evaluate the credibility of the competing claims.

This is a major causal claim, but no brand-equity, sales, or revenue evidence is provided to prove it. The student should replace assertion with data or a carefully qualified inference, because analysis must demonstrate the impact rather than simply state it.

The analysis repeats allegations but does not measure their significance or compare them against stronger evidence. The student should explain which claims were substantiated, which were denied, and how each one affects the research question, because analysis needs evaluation, not just narration.

This statement is plausible, but it is asserted rather than demonstrated. The student should show what evidence links the ethical issues to actual brand perception changes, because strong analysis requires a chain of reasoning supported by data, not just logical assumption.

This is a useful evaluative idea, but it is underdeveloped. The student should explain why compensation would be effective, for whom, and how it would reduce reputational harm, because evaluation should judge the likely impact of the recommendation.

What specific Samsung evidence demonstrates this connection in the student’s own analysis? The student should avoid relying only on general theory and instead show how the company’s case supports, qualifies, or complicates the broader claim.

This is an important piece of evidence that the student should have analyzed more carefully. It shows partial admission and partial denial, so the student should use it to distinguish confirmed ethical failings from unproven accusations instead of treating the whole issue as settled.

The conclusion is too absolute and not fully supported by the evidence presented. The student should distinguish between allegations, denials, and confirmed violations, because the final judgment must reflect the strength and limits of the evidence.

This is a stronger, more defensible part of the conclusion because it reflects evidence of admission. The student should extend this balance to the whole ending by making clear which claims are confirmed and which remain disputed, so the answer stays consistent with the sources.

A stronger conclusion would directly answer the “to what extent” part of the question with a nuanced judgment such as partial, moderate, or substantial violation, then briefly justify it with the strongest evidence. That would make the final answer more precise and analytical.

What evidence in the body of the report actually proves a revenue drop? The student should revisit the supporting documents and annual-report evidence before repeating this claim in the conclusion.

This is not sufficiently supported by the evidence provided. The student should avoid claiming that Samsung has restored its original image unless there is direct data showing recovery in brand perception, because conclusions must be evidence-led.

The contents page lists a force-field analysis, but no corresponding section appears in the body. The student should either include the missing section or remove the reference, because the structure should accurately reflect the actual report.

The report has a clear overall structure, with sections that guide the reader from introduction to conclusion. This helps the argument unfold in a logical sequence and makes the submission easier to follow.

Consider making the methodology more specific by explaining how the survey was designed, who was surveyed, and why those sources were selected. That would strengthen the report’s structure by showing a clearer route from evidence collection to analysis.

The argument would benefit from clearer separation between the findings, analysis, and evaluation sections. The student should keep descriptive claims in the findings section and reserve judgment or synthesis for the analysis and evaluation sections, so the structure supports clearer reasoning.

The appendix is very extensive and contains material that could have been more selectively integrated into the main body. The student should ensure that the most relevant evidence appears where it is directly analysed, rather than leaving too much of the argument in supplementary form.

The research question is focused, evaluative, and clearly aligned with the topic of ethics and brand impact. This is a strong starting point because it gives the entire report a clear line of inquiry to answer.

The survey responses are reproduced, but the analysis would be more credible if the student cleaned up obvious wording issues in quotations only where necessary for readability and clearly distinguished raw responses from interpreted findings. As it stands, the evidence is usable but not presented with enough methodological clarity.

The survey questions appear leading, because they tell respondents about “lawsuits and ethical violations” before asking for views. The student should use more neutral wording if the goal is to measure genuine perception, since leading questions can bias the results.

Consider tightening the survey design by separating brand image from purchase intent into two distinct questions. That would make the findings easier to interpret and would give a cleaner link between ethics perceptions and consumer behaviour.

How representative are five survey responses of the wider market, especially for a global company like Samsung? The student should reflect on sample size and limitations, because presentation quality also depends on how well the evidence is framed.

Several references appear incomplete or inconsistently formatted, which makes it harder to verify the evidence trail. The student should standardize the bibliography so every source is fully traceable and consistently cited, because presentation quality includes source accessibility.