BSS083-3 Business Continuity and the Planet AS1 - Coursework 2026/27 | University of Bedfordshire

Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?

Talk to an Expert

Published: 12 Oct, 2026

Category	Assignment	Subject	Business
University	University of Bedfordshire	Module Title	BSS083-3 Business Continuity and the Planet AS1 - Coursework 2026/27

Assignment Brief |UG | AY26-27

Assessment deadline	Marks and feedback
To be submitted Before 10 a.m. on:	20 working days after deadline (L3,4, 5,6 and 7)
	15 working days after deadline (block delivery)

Click or tap to enter a date. Friday, Week 6	Click or tap to enter a date.
Please note, for Exams the date is arranged centrally aligned to the academic calendar. Exams timetables will be released 6 weeks before the exam period.

Key assignment details
Unit title & code	BSS083-3 Business Continuity and the Planet
Assignment number & title	AS1 - Coursework
Assignment type (including exams)	Individual Report
Weighting of assignment	40%
Size or length of assessment or exam duration	2,400 words (+/- 10%) This does not include the title page, executive summary, table of contents, reference list and appendices.
Use of generative AI	Permitted - in line with the UG Business Checklist for Ethical Use of AI
Use of self-plagiarism	Not permitted

Understanding the assignment brief

Assignment brief to be discussed during an in-class session with students within the first 2 weeks of the unit.

Click or tap to enter a date.

Date this discussion is to take place: Teaching week one, date to be confirmed.

Uploaded screen/podcast explaining the assessment, the rubric and marking criteria.

Enter link on the BREO shell

What am I required to do in this assignment?

Assessment 1: Case Study Report

Task: Write an individual report analysing a case study. You are required to choose ONE company, either from the product or service sector from the table below and analyse its business practices in relation to their business continuity and strategy.

Product Sector Companies Service Sector Companies
Nokia/ Huawei Netflix / Disney+
Toyota / Tesla Airbnb / Booking.com
Estée Lauder / L’Oréal Group Amazon / eBay

Your report should cover the following (Topics/Themes from Week 1 to Week 4, see BREO shell weekly topics for details):

l An introduction to business continuity and why it matters for your chosen case.
l The main strategic risks the organisation is facing.
l The impact of climate change and environmental challenges on the case.
l How globalisation and supply chain issues affect the organisation’s continuity.
l Your own analysis using ideas and tools from the unit, leading to clear and practical recommendations.

What You Need to Do:

l Pick only one company – Choose one from the options given.
l Find the key problems – What are the main challenges in the case?
l Use theories & research – Apply what you’ve learned in class and from readings.
l Suggest solutions – Give practical recommendations to fix the problems.
l Write clearly – Structure your report logically (introduction, analysis, conclusion).

Important Notes:

l In week 5, you have an opportunity to get formal feedback from your tutor during the seminar. If you need your tutor to look at your report, please bring a short summary of your report (max 200 words) to the class in Week 5.

l You can only ask for verbal formative feedback (no written comments).

l Guidance on the Appropriate and Unacceptable Use of AI in Assessments: Students may use AI tools in a limited and responsible way to support their learning and assessment preparation. Acceptable uses of AI may include grammar correction, proofreading, brainstorming ideas, mind mapping, organising notes, formatting, and presentation design. Such use should support the student’s own learning, understanding, and independent academic work rather than replace it. However, students must not use AI tools to generate substantive academic content on their behalf. Unacceptable uses include AI-generated essay writing, critical analysis, reflective writing, discussion or conclusion sections, and copying or pasting AI-produced text into assessments as original work. Students remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, academic integrity, and authorship of all submitted work, even where AI tools have been used for support purposes.

What do I need to do to pass? How do I achieve a good grade?

Please follow the structure below when writing your report. Each section is linked to the assessment marking criteria and will help you meet the requirements for a clear, coherent, and well-supported analysis. There is a report template available on the BREO shell.

Introduction (Approx. 200 – 300 words): This section sets the scene and helps the reader understand what your report is about and how it is organised.
Case Background & Problem Identification (Approx. 300 – 400 words): This section demonstrates your understanding of the case/company/sector and helps identify the real-world business challenges.
Theoretical Framework & Method of Analysis (Approx. 300 – 400 words): This section links your analysis to taught content and allows you to apply theory to practice.
Case Analysis and Discussion (Approx. 600–800 words): This is the core of your report where you show your ability to think analytically and apply what you’ve learned.
Recommendations, Solutions & Conclusion (Approx. 400–500 words): This section translates your analysis into actionable insights and gives your report a professional close.
References and Bibliography
Appendix

a) Assessment Process Log (Template is available to download from the BREO shell)

b) Checklist for Ethical Use of AI in Assessments (Template is available to download from the BREO shell)

To achieve a pass (40% or above):

Show an understanding of business continuity and explain the case background clearly.
Identify at least one or two key issues in the case (e.g. risk, sustainability, or continuity challenges).
Apply at least one relevant theory or framework from the unit to analyse the case.
Support the analysis with evidence from 5–10 credible academic or industry sources.
Present the work in a clear structure (introduction, main body, conclusion) and use Harvard referencing consistently.

Tip: To pass, students should show they understand the core unit concepts and can apply them in a simple but relevant way to the case study.

To achieve a good grade (Merit: 60–69%) or an excellent grade (Distinction: 70%+):

Show a thorough understanding of the case, including its industry context and stakeholder challenges.
Identify and explain multiple, connected business issues, not just the obvious ones.
Apply two or more relevant theories or models effectively in the analysis.
Use at least 10 high-quality academic sources and integrate them smoothly into the argument.
Provide original insights and realistic, well-supported recommendations.
Write in a clear, professional style with well-structured sections and accurate Harvard referencing.

Tip: You are expected to use at least two relevant theoretical frameworks introduced in the unit, and explain why they are suitable for analysing your chosen case. High-quality work will show a strong connection between class content and your own critical thinking.

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations (see the Unit Information Form uploaded on BREO) and the specific marking criteria below (marking rubric). Please read carefully as they will help you prepare and evaluate your own work before you submit. They will also help you understand the grade and feedback received once marked.

	70%+ (1st Class)	60-69% (2:1)	50-59% (2:2)	40-49% (3rd Class) Threshold Standard	30-39% (Fail)	0-29% (Fail)
1. Recognition and Understanding of Challenges and Threats (10%)	Clearly identifies multiple, well-defined and interrelated challenges and threats. Shows excellent awareness of their impact on business continuity and sustainability.	Identifies key challenges with clear explanation. Demonstrates good awareness of relevance to business continuity and sustainability.	Identifies some relevant challenges but explanation lacks depth. Awareness is mostly correct but limited.	Challenges identified are vague or overly general. Shows only basic awareness of relevance.	Minimal or unclear identification of challenges. Shows little awareness of business continuity or sustainability issues.	No relevant challenges identified. No evidence of awareness or understanding.
2. Selection and Application of Tools and Techniques (20%)	Selects multiple appropriate tools/techniques with excellent justification. Applies them accurately and insightfully to the case study.	Selects relevant tools/techniques with clear explanation. Applies them appropriately with only minor gaps.	Uses some relevant tools/techniques but justification is limited. Application is basic or partially correct.	Tools/techniques identified are vague or only partly relevant. Application is weak or inconsistent.	Minimal or inappropriate use of tools/techniques. Application is largely incorrect or missing.	No relevant tools/techniques identified or applied.
3. Models and Contents Analysis (relevant to unit contents and weekly topics) (30%)	Applies multiple relevant models with excellent understanding. Shows very strong and consistent links to unit content and weekly topics. Demonstrates critical use of theories taught in the unit.	Uses appropriate models with good explanation. Links to unit content are clear and mostly well developed. Shows good awareness of weekly topics.	Applies models in a basic way with limited explanation. Some connection to unit content is made, but links are partial or not fully developed.	Models are applied superficially or only partly relevant. Weak or inconsistent links to unit content.	Minimal or incorrect use of models. Little evidence of connection to unit content.	No relevant models used. No connection to unit content shown.
4. Critical Analysis and Recommendations (30%)	Provides excellent critical analysis with depth and originality. Recommendations are realistic, well-justified, and strongly aligned with the case context. Shows strong integration of unit content, theories, and weekly topics in shaping recommendations. Demonstrates ability to balance short-term and long-term perspectives.	Provides good critical analysis, though with minor gaps in depth. Recommendations are appropriate and mostly well justified. Clear links made to unit content and weekly topics, though not as fully developed as higher levels. Shows awareness of both immediate and broader implications.	Provides some critical discussion, though analysis may be descriptive. Recommendations are general and only partly supported by evidence. Some references to unit content, but links may be weak or inconsistent.	Limited analysis; mainly descriptive with little critical engagement. Recommendations are vague, impractical, or poorly linked to the case. Minimal connection to unit content; mostly generic observations.	Very little evidence of analysis; work lacks depth or insight. Recommendations are unrealistic, irrelevant, or unsupported. Almost no use of unit content or theories.	No meaningful analysis or recommendations provided. No evidence of engagement with unit content.
5. Structure, Referencing, and Academic Practice (10%)	Report is logically structured and professionally presented throughout. Writing is clear, coherent, and focused, making the argument easy to follow. Accurate and consistent referencing using an appropriate academic style (e.g. Harvard). Demonstrates full adherence to academic conventions and excellent academic integrity.	- Report is well structured, with clear organisation and appropriate sectioning. - Writing is generally coherent and clear, with only minor lapses. - Mostly accurate referencing, with minor errors in formatting. - Academic conventions and integrity are upheld.	- Structure is adequate but may lack consistency or logical flow in places. - Writing is understandable but may lack precision or fluency. - Referencing is inconsistent, with some errors in citation style or source use. - Some awareness of academic practice is evident.	- Report shows limited structure or coherence, with unclear progression of ideas. - Written expression lacks clarity in several places. - Referencing style is used inconsistently or incorrectly, with several missing citations. - Limited understanding of academic conventions is shown.	- Report is poorly structured or disorganised. - Difficult to follow due to unclear or inconsistent expression. - Referencing is mostly incorrect or missing, and sources are not properly acknowledged. - Academic integrity may be at risk.	- No clear structure or organisation. - Writing is incoherent or inappropriate for academic work. - Referencing is absent or shows serious misunderstanding. - Academic misconduct or plagiarism may be evident.

70%+

(1st Class)

60-69%

(2:1)

50-59%

(2:2)

40-49%

(3rd Class)

Threshold Standard

30-39%

(Fail)

0-29%

(Fail)

1. Recognition and Understanding of Challenges and Threats (10%)

Clearly identifies multiple, well-defined and interrelated challenges and threats.

Shows excellent awareness of their impact on business continuity and sustainability.

Identifies key challenges with clear explanation.

Demonstrates good awareness of relevance to business continuity and sustainability.

Identifies some relevant challenges but explanation lacks depth.

Awareness is mostly correct but limited.

Challenges identified are vague or overly general.

Shows only basic awareness of relevance.

Minimal or unclear identification of challenges.

Shows little awareness of business continuity or sustainability issues.

No relevant challenges identified.

No evidence of awareness or understanding.

2. Selection and Application of Tools and Techniques (20%)

Selects multiple appropriate tools/techniques with excellent justification.

Applies them accurately and insightfully to the case study.

Selects relevant tools/techniques with clear explanation.

Applies them appropriately with only minor gaps.

Uses some relevant tools/techniques but justification is limited.

Application is basic or partially correct.

Tools/techniques identified are vague or only partly relevant.

Application is weak or inconsistent.

Minimal or inappropriate use of tools/techniques.

Application is largely incorrect or missing.

No relevant tools/techniques identified or applied.

3. Models and Contents Analysis (relevant to unit contents and weekly topics) (30%)

Applies multiple relevant models with excellent understanding.

Shows very strong and consistent links to unit content and weekly topics.

Demonstrates critical use of theories taught in the unit.

Uses appropriate models with good explanation.

Links to unit content are clear and mostly well developed.

Shows good awareness of weekly topics.

Applies models in a basic way with limited explanation.

Some connection to unit content is made, but links are partial or not fully developed.

Models are applied superficially or only partly relevant.

Weak or inconsistent links to unit content.

Minimal or incorrect use of models.

Little evidence of connection to unit content.

No relevant models used.

No connection to unit content shown.

4. Critical Analysis and Recommendations (30%)

Provides excellent critical analysis with depth and originality.

Recommendations are realistic, well-justified, and strongly aligned with the case context.

Shows strong integration of unit content, theories, and weekly topics in shaping recommendations.

Demonstrates ability to balance short-term and long-term perspectives.

Provides good critical analysis, though with minor gaps in depth.

Recommendations are appropriate and mostly well justified.

Clear links made to unit content and weekly topics, though not as fully developed as higher levels.

Shows awareness of both immediate and broader implications.

Provides some critical discussion, though analysis may be descriptive.

Recommendations are general and only partly supported by evidence.

Some references to unit content, but links may be weak or inconsistent.

Limited analysis; mainly descriptive with little critical engagement.

Recommendations are vague, impractical, or poorly linked to the case.

Minimal connection to unit content; mostly generic observations.

Very little evidence of analysis; work lacks depth or insight.

Recommendations are unrealistic, irrelevant, or unsupported.

Almost no use of unit content or theories.

No meaningful analysis or recommendations provided.

No evidence of engagement with unit content.

5. Structure, Referencing, and Academic Practice

(10%)

Report is logically structured and professionally presented throughout.

Writing is clear, coherent, and focused, making the argument easy to follow.

Accurate and consistent referencing using an appropriate academic style (e.g. Harvard).

Demonstrates full adherence to academic conventions and excellent academic integrity.

- Report is well structured, with clear organisation and appropriate sectioning.

- Writing is generally coherent and clear, with only minor lapses.

- Mostly accurate referencing, with minor errors in formatting.

- Academic conventions and integrity are upheld.

- Structure is adequate but may lack consistency or logical flow in places.

- Writing is understandable but may lack precision or fluency.

- Referencing is inconsistent, with some errors in citation style or source use.

- Some awareness of academic practice is evident.

- Report shows limited structure or coherence, with unclear progression of ideas.

- Written expression lacks clarity in several places.

- Referencing style is used inconsistently or incorrectly, with several missing citations.

- Limited understanding of academic conventions is shown.

- Report is poorly structured or disorganised.

- Difficult to follow due to unclear or inconsistent expression.

- Referencing is mostly incorrect or missing, and sources are not properly acknowledged.

- Academic integrity may be at risk.

- No clear structure or organisation.

- Writing is incoherent or inappropriate for academic work.

- Referencing is absent or shows serious misunderstanding.

- Academic misconduct or plagiarism may be evident.

How does this assignment relate to ‘my learning in this unit and help me develop knowledge and skills that I will need for my future?

This assignment is directly aligned with the weekly topics explored in the scheduled sessions. Each session addresses a key theme or challenge that organisations face in relation to business continuity and crisis management, such as:

Supply chain disruptions and customer service recovery
ICT and cybersecurity challenges
Climate-related and environmental risks
Strategic risk planning and disaster recovery
Crisis communication and leadership under uncertainty

Through lectures, case study discussions, and seminar-based activities, students will explore real-world scenarios and develop a toolkit of analytical frameworks, theories (such as Normal Accident Theory and High-Reliability Theory), and decision-making strategies. These insights and frameworks can then be applied in the assessment task, where students are required to analyse a selected case and develop well-reasoned, realistic recommendations.

In particular, the assignment draws on:

Practical tools introduced during seminars
Theory-to-practice application through scenario-based exercises
Real-world challenges discussed in group activities

This assignment helps you consolidate and apply the knowledge gained across the unit. It is designed to enhance your ability to:

Analyse complex and uncertain business environments
Apply relevant theories to real-world continuity and crisis scenarios
Identify organisational risks and propose practical, evidence-based solutions
Think critically, structure professional reports, and communicate insights effectively

The skills you develop through this assignment—problem-solving, analytical reasoning, strategic planning, and structured communication—are directly transferable to roles in operations, risk management, supply chain, crisis response, and business strategy.

By working through a realistic case study, you’ll practice thinking like a manager who must make decisions under pressure, balance competing risks, and justify their actions through clear analysis. These are vital capabilities in today's volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) business environment.

Within the University of Bedfordshire, graduate competencies refer to the skills, knowledge, attributes, and abilities that individuals are expected to possess upon completing their education at the graduate level. Our graduate competencies are the fundamental building blocks in preparing you for the future world of work. They form the foundation for learning outcomes within and beyond your course. They are relevant for every subject, and you can work towards them in different ways, so that you can attain and benefit from them even if you have lots going on outside university. These competencies will be integrated across your course and units

What should I be aware of when preparing my work? How and where should I submit my work? (May need WISEflow info for exams)

To submit assignments at the University of Bedfordshire, you will typically use the BREO (Bedfordshire Resources for Education Online) platform. Within BREO, locate the specific assessment you need to submit, and then follow the instructions provided to upload your work.

The University has produced a guide that is designed to help you understand the processes we use to deliver and manage assessment-related processes, what support is available to you and how we agree and approve your results. It also provides you with an explanation of the codes we use when we issue results and transcripts.

When submitting work for assessment, you must ensure that it is all your own work. Failure to do this could result in sanctions, including removal from your course. The Academic Integrity Resource (AIR) has been designed to introduce you to academic integrity and how to demonstrate this during your studies. Remember to use the self-help resources to support your skills in academic writing. You could also Improve your assignment grades by accessing free university support to develop a wide range of relevant and valuable academic skills.

For exams, you should familiarise yourself with the guidance information available here: https://www.beds.ac.uk/exams/

Practice exams can be taken for all exam types before exams week. Please see section Prepare for your exam.

Request Answer of this Assignment

Share this with your Friends

Facebook

Instagram

Looking for BSS0833 Business Continuity and the Planet AS1 coursework help? Workingment can help you understand the assessment requirements and develop a structured approach to topics connecting business resilience with environmental sustainability. Get guidance with researching business continuity strategies, evaluating environmental challenges, analysing organisational responses and supporting your discussion with credible academic sources. If you need help organising your arguments or presenting a clear, well-supported report, our business coursework help can guide you through the writing and research process. You can also explore relevant coursework examples to understand how academic arguments are structured and presented. Get subject-focused assistance tailored to your BSS0833 assessment brief.

Latest Related Questions

No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential

BSS083-3 Business Continuity and the Planet AS1 - Coursework 2026/27 | University of Bedfordshire

Assignment Brief |UG | AY26-27

Key assignment details

Understanding the assignment brief