IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student defines “change” clearly as transformation and movement from one state to another, which gives the essay a workable conceptual starting point. This is useful because it shows awareness that the key concept must be explained before it can be applied to Starbucks' situation.

The methodology gives the essay a clear route for using the concept of change in analysis, especially by linking STEEPLE and pricing to the research question. That structure helps the reader see how the key concept will be carried through the argument.

The roadmap is still too general. The student should state explicitly how each analytical section will show change in brand perception or brand performance, otherwise the key concept remains separate from the actual argument.

The concept is still used mainly as a label rather than a lens for analysis. The student should show what is changing, why it is changing, and how that change alters specific brand indicators such as awareness, associations, loyalty, or perceived quality.

What exactly is changing here: consumer information sources, consumer attitudes, or Starbucks' brand perception? Clarifying that distinction would make the link between social media and the key concept much more analytical.

The student could strengthen the key-concept integration by ending each analysis paragraph with a short sentence that explains the specific change observed and its implication for Starbucks' brand. This would prevent the word “change” from becoming repetitive and make it analytically purposeful.

The conclusion returns to the key concept by stating that the boycotts affect Starbucks' brand “to an extent,” which shows the student is using change to frame a measured final judgment rather than a binary claim.

The final judgment would be stronger if it quantified or ranked the scale of change. The student should indicate whether the main change is in sales, investor confidence, or customer perception, and explain which of these changes matters most to the brand.

Source use would be stronger if the body explained why each document was selected and how it specifically shaped the argument. At present, the bibliography lists the sources well, but the essay does not consistently show the analytical role of each supporting document.

The student could improve the supporting-document analysis by briefly identifying the perspective or purpose of each source before using it. That would help distinguish factual evidence, commentary, and opinion, which is important when evaluating boycott-related claims.

If the claim is that Starbucks lost market value because of boycotts, what evidence rules out other explanations such as quarterly guidance, broader market conditions, or seasonal trading effects? Addressing that would make the document use more persuasive.

Including Vox as a counterclaim is a strong choice because it prevents the argument from relying only on boycott-supporting evidence. That range improves credibility and shows the student is aware that the market-value decline may have multiple causes.

The supporting documents are clearly identified and relevant to the issue, with a useful mix of pro-boycott, counterclaim, and contextual sources. This gives the essay a broader evidence base than a one-sided set of articles would.

The documents are relevant, but their depth of use remains limited. The student often treats them as headline support rather than analysing reliability, limitations, or what each source contributes to understanding different dimensions of brand impact.

The STEEPLE tool is not applied in a balanced way. The essay develops social and political factors, but the economic, technological, environmental, and legal dimensions are mostly absent, so the tool is used more as a heading than as a full framework.

The student selects a sensible combination of tools for this topic: STEEPLE for external pressures, dynamic pricing for pricing strategy, and stakeholder confidence through share-price discussion. These choices are relevant to how boycott pressure might affect Starbucks.

The use of social-media behaviour as part of the analysis is relevant because it shows how information spread can affect customer reactions and brand perception. That makes the tool application more grounded in the real boycott environment.

A stronger application would compare Starbucks' pricing decision with the boycott context: did higher prices intensify negative sentiment, or did they mainly reflect wider cost pressures? Linking the pricing tool to the research question would make the analysis more relevant.

The dynamic pricing discussion is only partially accurate because Starbucks' price increases are described as dynamic pricing without evidence of demand-based or time-based price variation. The student should either justify the label with clearer mechanisms or use a different pricing concept if the prices are simply increasing.

The section title promises a market-value explanation, but the analysis still relies on an asserted link between boycotts and share price rather than a clearly supported causal chain. The student should triangulate this with competitor data, analyst commentary, or other performance indicators.

The research question is focused and specific, which is a strong presentational choice because it gives the whole IA a clear analytical target. The inclusion of the key concept on the title page also supports coherence.

The stock figure would be more informative if the student explicitly referred to what the axes and time intervals represent in the discussion. Clearer figure interpretation would help the reader understand the evidence without relying on the chart alone.

The figure is referenced in the text, but the discussion does not fully explain the chart's key turning points or what they imply. The student should guide the reader through the most important features instead of assuming the visual evidence is self-explanatory.

The figure is captioned, which is a useful presentational choice because it tells the reader what the image is meant to show. That makes the chart easier to reference in the discussion.

A cleaner separation between textbook, websites, and supporting documents would make the bibliography easier to scan. This would improve the usability of the reference list without changing the content.

The bibliography appears to contain the required sources, but the referencing style is not fully consistent across entries. The student should apply one format consistently so the final page looks more polished and professional.

The required supporting-document section is present and clearly labelled, which improves navigability and shows compliance with IA expectations. The bibliography is also easy to locate.