Case Study
Syngenta is a global agribusiness based in Switzerland Chinese chemical company ChemChina made a takeover bid for the company in February 2016, valuing it at the equivalent of around $60 billion. Syngenta operates in many countries, including Australia
Syngenta’s main business focuses on seeds and crop protection. Many of its products are chemical in nature.
You are required to complete the following tasks with respect to the case study of Syngenta:
Become familiar with the details of the cast study and then respond to the following tasks using data and commentary presented in the case study and referring to relevant content of BM101:
Your case study is to be presented in report form, structured as follows:
The following pages contain the marking rubrics assignment 3.
Each rubric sets out marking criteria (the first row of each rubric) and the standards associated with each range of marks (the first column of each rubric).
| Criteria ? | Standard ? | Exceptional | Excellent | Satisfactory | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Maximum Marks | Your Marks |
| Do you think Solutions will be successful in the marketplace? Explain your response. | Perceptive and discerning articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with mostly convincing supporting evidence from the case study and /or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with some convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with some supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Insubstantial articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with little or no supporting evidence | 20 | ||
| How can Syngenta ensure their strategy is sustainable in the long run. Explain your response. | Perceptive and discerning articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with mostly convincing supporting evidence from the case study and /or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with some convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with some supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Insubstantial articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with little or no supporting evidence | 20 | ||
| Can a global company be grower-centric? Explain your response. | Perceptive and discerning articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with mostly convincing supporting evidence from the case study and /or other sources | Perceptive articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in relation to each point with some convincing supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with some supporting evidence from the case study and / or other sources | Insubstantial articulation of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ with little or no supporting evidence | 20 | ||
| Do you think a takeover by ChinaChem will affect world wide demand for Syngenta’s products. Explain why. | Well-integrated, first person commentary supported by clearly identified evidence | Well-integrated first person commentary supported by some evidence | First person commentary supported by some evidence | First person commentary supported by little evidence | Poorly articulated commentary with little or no supporting evidence | 20 | ||
| Required format of report | Required format followed in all respects | Required format followed with one or two minor lapses | Required format followed with a few minor lapses | Required format followed in most respects, but one or two major lapses | Little or no evidence of the required format | 5 | ||
| Quality of written communication | Well-crafted control of the conventions of academic writing to produce fluent argument that creates meaning and effect | Control of conventions of academic writing to produce fluent argument that clearly conveys meaning | Few minor lapses in control of the conventions of academic writing with few instances of impaired fluency | Some minor lapses in control of the conventions of academic writing with some instances of impaired fluency | Frequent lapses in control of the conventions of academic writing and grossly impaired fluency | 10 | ||
| Consistent citation and referencing | Comprehensive citation and appropriate referencing with consistent adherence to referencing conventions | Comprehensive citation and appropriate referencing with few minor lapses in adherence to referencing conventions | Few citation and / or referencing omissions, with few lapses in adherence to referencing conventions | Some citation and / or referencing omissions and / or some lapses in adherence to referencing conventions | Frequent citation and / or referencing omissions and / or frequent lapses in adherence to referencing conventions | 5 |