IB Business Management SL Internal Assessment Example

The student integrates the key concept clearly here by showing how ethics connects directly to consumer behaviour. This works well because it is not just defined; it is used as an analytical lens for the research question, which helps keep the investigation conceptually focused.

The student applies ethics effectively to Lush’s actual initiatives rather than treating the concept abstractly. Linking the concept to the Fight Animal Testing campaign and alternative testing investment makes the analysis organization-specific and relevant.

The link between ethics and customer behaviour is plausible, but it is stated too confidently without direct evidence from Lush consumers. The student should distinguish clearly between a general ethical-consumer trend and proof that Lush’s campaigns caused repeat purchasing.

This is a strong conceptual move because it develops ethics beyond simple “good behaviour” into credibility and authenticity. That deeper connection helps explain why ethical activity might influence loyalty and purchase intent.

This sentence overextends the ethics argument by moving from market growth to a conclusion about Lush’s impact. The student should show how the trend specifically translates into brand loyalty or purchase intent for Lush, rather than assuming alignment alone proves effect.

How directly does this evidence show that Lush’s anti-animal-testing campaigns changed consumer behaviour, rather than simply benefiting from a wider rise in ethical consumption? Clarifying that distinction would make the ethics analysis more convincing.

This limitation is useful and should be developed further by comparing at least one ethical benefit with one affordability constraint. A more balanced ethical evaluation would show where Lush’s campaigns are most and least persuasive.

The conclusion is too absolute for the evidence provided. The student should soften “significantly strengthened” unless supported by direct Lush-specific consumer data, because the current body of evidence mainly shows ethical alignment rather than measured impact.

Which part of this evidence shows the effect of Lush on consumers, rather than Lush’s general ethical commitment? Identifying that link would help separate organizational action from impact on the target audience.

Including a company source directly linked to animal testing is appropriate because it gives first-hand evidence of Lush’s own commitments. That helps the investigation stay grounded in the organization under study rather than relying only on secondary commentary.

The supporting documents include a relevant academic source on greenwashing, which strengthens the investigation’s depth. This is useful because it provides a theoretical counterpoint to Lush’s ethical claims rather than only supplying supportive evidence.

This document is relevant to ethical beauty trends, but it remains broad market evidence rather than Lush-specific evidence. The student should include more sources that directly measure Lush brand loyalty or UK purchase intent to better match the research question.

This is a strong choice because it adds UK-focused market evidence about ethical consumption. It supports the wider context of the research question and helps the student connect Lush’s campaigns to consumer trends in the relevant market.

This source is useful for context, but it is still a general trend article. The student should not let broad ethical-shopping data stand in for evidence about Lush customers specifically, because that weakens the directness of the support.

Porter’s framework is relevant because it helps the student examine competitive advantage as well as consumer response. That makes the business analysis broader than a simple description of campaigns.

Focusing on promotion is effective because the research question is about campaigns, not just the product itself. This keeps the tool tightly connected to the investigation and helps explain how Lush communicates its ethical position.

The student makes a sensible tool choice here because CSR is directly relevant to a campaign based on ethics and social responsibility. This gives the investigation a clear business lens for examining how Lush’s actions may shape consumer response.

The tool application becomes a little repetitive here, moving from CSR evidence straight to loyalty claims without a distinct analytical step. The student should show more clearly how CSR specifically leads to the behaviour being discussed, rather than restating the same idea in different sections.

This is a useful observation, but the student should explain more explicitly why this promotional choice is the best answer to the research question. As written, the relevance of the tool is present, but the evaluative link to loyalty and purchase intent is still too brief.

The student identifies differentiation well, but the analysis would be stronger if it separated competitive advantage from consumer impact. Premium pricing shows positioning, but it does not by itself prove stronger loyalty or purchase intent.

Consider linking this more explicitly to the theory by showing how the USP changes consumer choice relative to rivals. A brief comparison with a non-cruelty-free competitor would make the strategy application much sharper.

How much of this advantage comes from Lush’s anti-animal-testing campaigns specifically, rather than from Lush’s wider ethical brand image? Answering that would improve the precision of the tool application.

This is a relevant theory point, but it is used too generally. The student should apply the theory to evidence from Lush or UK consumers, otherwise it reads as a textbook statement rather than analysis of the case study.

The evidence is informative, but the student needs to explain more clearly how these figures support the research question. At the moment, they demonstrate commitment to the cause, but the causal link to UK brand loyalty and purchase intent is still missing.

The analysis is interrupted here and the line of reasoning is not fully developed on the page. The student should complete the claim and then show how the theory applies to Lush, otherwise the argument feels unfinished and harder to evaluate.

The student selects data that is clearly relevant to the investigation and uses a specific figure to support the argument. This is effective because it moves beyond assertion and gives the analysis a measurable basis.

This is a strong example of data and evidence being used analytically, because the student does not only describe the campaign but explains its likely effect on consumer engagement. That is closer to business analysis than simple narration.

The student has a useful counterargument here. Consider adding one specific piece of evidence showing how price sensitivity affects cosmetics purchases, since that would make the evaluation more balanced and convincing.

This is an important claim, but it is asserted without evidence or comparison data. The student should support it with a source or a concrete example, because otherwise the pricing argument remains speculative.

The student uses the evidence to connect market position with strategy in a meaningful way. This helps the analysis because it shows how the campaign may function as part of Lush’s overall competitive approach.

This conclusion is directionally consistent with the analysis, but it still reads as a broad claim rather than a tested judgement. The student should qualify it with the limitations already identified, especially the lack of direct Lush-consumer evidence.

What evidence in the body of the investigation directly demonstrates that this alignment occurred for Lush in the UK? Pushing this point would help the student distinguish between plausible theory and demonstrated outcome.

The student answers the question clearly, but the judgement is stronger than the evidence securely supports. To improve consistency, the conclusion should use a more measured extent statement unless direct consumer data is added.

The conclusion would be stronger if it briefly stated the main piece of evidence for differentiation and then the limitation. That would create a more precise final judgement and reduce the sense of repetition.

The conclusion explicitly returns to the research question and summarises the promotional evidence in a coherent way. This is effective because it shows the student is using the analysis to answer, not merely restate, the question.

This is consistent with the body of the investigation, but it still assumes the effect rather than proving it. The student should make clear whether this is an observed conclusion from the evidence or an inference drawn from theory.

This qualification improves the conclusion because it acknowledges the boundary of the argument. A balanced conclusion is more convincing than an absolute one, especially when the evidence base is mostly indirect.

A separate bibliography is included, which supports the overall academic structure of the piece. This shows the student has followed the expected IA conventions.

The investigation is well structured overall, and the table of contents signals a clear route through the argument. This helps the reader anticipate the progression from context to analysis to conclusion.

Including a methodology section is a strong structural choice because it shows the student is making the research process explicit. That improves coherence and helps the reader understand how the evidence was selected and applied.

The main body is organized around three analytical frameworks, which creates a logical progression through the investigation. This structure helps prevent the work from becoming a simple collection of sources.

The supporting documents are clearly separated from the main analysis, which makes the submission easier to navigate. That organization is helpful because it distinguishes evidence selection from the argument itself.

The analysis would be easier to follow if each paragraph ended with a short link back to the research question. That would make the structure feel more explicitly argumentative rather than descriptive.

The argument here is structurally incomplete because the sentence continues onto the next page and the thought is not fully developed in the excerpt. The student should ensure each paragraph contains a complete analytical point before moving on.

Consider adding a mini-conclusion at the end of each analytical subsection. That would make the sectioning more purposeful and help the reader see how each framework contributes to the overall judgement.

The key concept is clearly identified, which meets the expected presentational requirements and gives the reader immediate conceptual orientation. This also supports the coherence of the investigation because the concept matches the topic well.

The research question is focused, specific, and clearly written in investigable terms. This is a strong presentation choice because it defines the scope of the whole investigation and keeps the argument anchored.

The word count is stated, which is an expected presentational element for this task. Including it helps the document appear complete and professionally presented.

Consider keeping heading style and capitalization fully consistent across sections. Small presentational consistency choices like this help the investigation feel more polished and professionally produced.

The figure is an appropriate addition because it reinforces the promotion analysis visually. A brief in-text reference explaining what the figure shows about consumer engagement would make its purpose even clearer.

The supporting documents section is clearly included and easy to locate, which supports the completeness of the submission. This helps the examiner verify the sources selected for the investigation.

The supporting document list is clearly presented, but the student should ensure each source is labelled consistently and accurately throughout the document. Minor inconsistencies in source formatting can reduce professionalism even when the content is strong.

The bibliography is clearly separated from the body of the work, which is appropriate for a formal academic submission. That separation improves clarity for the reader and makes the source base easier to check.

This bibliography entry is useful and relevant, but the student should check that all in-text citations match the bibliography exactly. Accurate source matching is important for a polished presentation and for easy source verification.