PESTEL Analysis for Ethical Breach or Environmental Problem: Research Exercise

This assignment is an important part of the team project. Your team project will produce a PESTEL analysis of the company in terms of its ethical breach or ecological or environmental problem. To ensure the best team project, team members need to cooperate in the selection of which of 

the first three PESTEL forces, Political, Economic, and Legal, each student will study. Ideally each student selects one of the three and explores it in such a way that the team expands its collective knowledge of the company. If a team consists of more than three members, divide 
the forces as equally as possible. Each team member then does their own work.

This is an exercise in research for your company. Select one of Political, Economic, or Legal forces. Review your team worksheets one and two. On that basis:

1. Define the force. Use at least one academic or other high quality source to help you define the issue.

2. Draw a mind-map of the force confronting your company using the original problem identified by the team as a key point of orientation. (Refer to the mind-mapping guidelines in week 1 and other information sources). Ensure your company is clearly located on the mind-map (depending on how you see the force it might or might not be at the center). Include enough factors with enough precision (typically to a third level of mind-map) to show you understand the force and how it affects the business environment of the company.

3. Identify what you think is a critical component of the mind-map. There might be many critical components, but for this exercise you must choose one. Clearly identify it and list the library research terms you use to find your academic resources (next).

4. Find two high quality academic sources (use the UCW library) that help you understand that one component. (Use the standards for high quality you learned in Week 2. Be quick ensure no more than 20 minutes of research for each article. More than 20 minutes finding each high quality article suggests poor research skills on the part of the student.) Note: Your articles should not directly refer to your source company this is external research to help your company.

5. Briefly summarize the academic sources in your own words. Do not use quotes or paraphrases think about how you would describe the content. (maximum of 100 words each) (See the guide sheet or slides on how to do an academic summary.)

6. Think about how the academic sources improve your understanding of the stakeholders and the stakeholder environment. Try to imagine how you could improve its relationship with the stakeholder, especially in terms of the problem. On that basis, use your research to develop one or more recommendations that one be useful to the source company.

7. Write a very brief memo style (not APA essay form. Use the “Ingre-Written Image Tips” and the “Developing a Business Recommendation” guides for help) report to the presumed head of your company (actual CEO or relevant Vice-President or senior manager). In this report:

• Identify the company’s force factor component you think is most significant. Draw upon your research to help you explain why it is an issue! This should include at least a two-line rationale for your choice of research component.

• Explain your research—why you looked at the research you did and what you learned from the research. Make sure you identify the authors of the research you read as part of explaining what you found (no APA citation necessary beyond author-year identification). Remember to use 
concrete and specific support from your article to be persuasive.

• Develop one or more recommendations on how the company could respond to that factor effectively based on the research you completed. For each recommendation ensure there is a logical rationale. A good rationale draws clear connections between the research, the 
recommendation and the company issue.

This report should be no longer than 250 words. (Note, it is much better to exceed the report length than to not say something you think must be said. You lose fewer marks for going over the length than for not saying something important—use your judgement.)