IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student clearly identifies ethics as the key concept and links it to sourcing strategy, which gives the investigation a coherent conceptual frame from the outset. This works well because it keeps the analysis focused on fair treatment, transparency, and responsible decision-making rather than treating ethics as a vague label.

The student applies ethics through a concrete business action rather than abstract discussion, which strengthens the link to real operations. Referencing seedlings, training, and farmer resilience helps show how ethical sourcing can affect stakeholder welfare in practice.

This claim is acknowledged as underdeveloped, but it needs more critical ethical analysis rather than just a cost statement. The student should explain why higher costs are justified, who bears them, and whether the sourcing practice is ethically stronger only because it is more expensive.

The conclusion would be stronger if it tied the ethical concept directly to a justified extent of change. The student could specify whether Starbucks should strengthen C.A.F.E. moderately, aggressively, or selectively, and explain why that level best balances ethics with operational efficiency.

This evidence is useful, but it is not clearly separated from other time periods and document sets, which makes the support harder to verify. The student should identify each supporting document consistently and show exactly which claim comes from which source.

This combines several claims, but the sourcing is too thin to establish the strength of the evidence. The student should use a more precise and preferably independent source for consumer switching and premium willingness, especially because the argument depends heavily on this conclusion.

The bibliography is substantial, but the evidence base would be easier to assess if the student reduced it to a focused three-to-five-document pack aligned to the analysis. That would make the most relevant supporting documents easier to track and would improve the clarity of source-to-claim mapping.

The student includes several relevant company and third-party sources, which gives the investigation a broader evidence base than a single report. This is helpful because it allows claims about sourcing, sustainability, and financial performance to be cross-checked.

A more effective application would justify each stakeholder placement with brief evidence. For example, the student could explain why regulators belong in a particular quadrant using specific influence over sourcing standards or market access.

This is a strong choice because it connects C.A.F.E. Practices to Starbucks’ broader strategic positioning rather than treating ethics in isolation. The tool selection fits the company’s premium brand logic and helps explain why ethical sourcing matters commercially.

The Triple Bottom Line is an appropriate tool here because it directly matches the ethical, environmental, and profit dimensions of the research question. The student’s choice shows good judgment in selecting a framework that can compare stakeholder welfare with financial performance.

The tool is relevant, but the application is still too general here. The student should show how each stakeholder group changes specifically because of the Colombian context, otherwise the analysis remains descriptive rather than analytical.

The Porter's analysis is relevant, but this section mostly excludes strategies rather than testing the best fit for the research question. The student should explain more directly how the model helps decide the extent of strengthening C.A.F.E. Practices, not just whether Starbucks is differentiated.

The student uses quantitative evidence to support the claim, which makes the analysis more convincing than a purely conceptual argument. This is effective because the numbers help show the scale of Starbucks’ intervention.

This conclusion is asserted too strongly for the evidence provided. The student should show how the data demonstrates improved efficiency or durability, and should consider alternative explanations such as market demand, brand power, or other sustainability initiatives.

The student attempts to interpret financial data rather than merely reporting it, which is a good analytical move. Linking margin and revenue helps show trade-offs between ethical investment and profitability.

Revenue alone does not prove long-term benefits from C.A.F.E. Practices, because it does not isolate the effect of the initiative. The student should distinguish correlation from causation and use data that better measures the impact of the Colombia strategy itself.

The analysis would be stronger if it quantified or at least bounded the expected margin effect. The student could compare the likely cost increase against a plausible range of premium pricing, retention, or supply stability benefits to make the evaluation more rigorous.

If the seedlings improve welfare, what evidence shows that this benefit is large enough to justify the added costs and make the strategy the best option? This is where the student could sharpen the conclusion by weighing magnitude, not just direction, of impact.

The student does answer the research question directly, which is important for this strand. The conclusion is clearly aligned to the investigation’s overall argument and does not leave the reader guessing about the final recommendation.

This overstates certainty. The student should separate what the evidence supports from what is projected, especially when claiming the proposal will not compromise sourcing status or will produce balanced outcomes across all three dimensions.

The recommendation would be stronger if the student explained how the USD 2 million figure was calculated and what result it is expected to achieve. A target, timeframe, or success metric would make the conclusion more actionable and evidence-based.

The section headings follow a logical analytical sequence, which makes the response easier to follow. Breaking the analysis into People, Planet, and Profit helps the student organise evidence around the main dimensions of the question.

The submission has a clear overall structure, and the table of contents helps the reader navigate the argument efficiently. This is useful in an internal assessment because it signals a planned progression from context to analysis to conclusion.

The opening paragraph is informative, but the transition between ideas is uneven and some sentences are overloaded. The student should tighten sentence structure and use clearer signposting so the introduction builds the case more smoothly.

To improve flow, the student could make each stakeholder subsection follow the same pattern: claim, evidence, implication, evaluation. That would create a more consistent structure and make comparisons across stakeholders easier.

This section is much more detailed than the rest of the analysis, but it does not always advance the research question proportionately. The student should streamline this part and devote more space to the operational efficiency implications in Colombia.

The citation labels are not always easy to trace, and that reduces presentation clarity. The student should standardise source references so SD labels map cleanly to the bibliography and can be followed without ambiguity.

There is a spelling inconsistency here that should be corrected for polish and professionalism. More importantly, the student should keep terminology consistent throughout, especially for key business terms and the company’s ethical sourcing language.

The submission includes the required recommendation section, which is a good sign that the final response is complete and purposeful. This helps the IA move beyond analysis into practical business decision-making.

The bibliography is present and extensive, showing an attempt to document the evidence base systematically. This supports academic integrity and gives the reader a trail for checking the claims made in the body.