Debate on Socially Responsible Investing Order Instructions: Your final research paper for this course is based on the Issues for Debate in Sociology textbook.

You are required to read and participate in discussion questions for 4 of the 17 chapters in the Issues for Debate in Sociology textbook. Choose one of the other 13 chapters from the book (Celebrity Culture, Teaching Values, Closing Guantanamo, Middle-Class Squeeze, Debating Hip-Hop, Women’s Rights, Future of Marriage, Religious Fundamentalism, The Obama Presidency, HPV Vaccine, Declining Birthrates, Rapid Urbanization, or Socially Responsible Investing) and use that chapter as your final research paper topic. You can choose to write about any topic that is discussed in the chapter that you choose. The final research paper should be double spaced and between three and four pages (750-1000 words) in length, not including the title page and references page, using APA writing style. You must use a minimum of 4 references in this paper. The research paper is due by the end of Module 7 and is worth 25% of your overall grade for this course.

FYI material and text books used for this class:
________________________________________
Humanity, Diversity and The Liberal Arts by Joseph B. Cuseo and Aaron Thompson (ISBN 13: 978-0-7575-6241-9)
On Course: Strategies for Creating Success in College and in Life by Skip Downing, 7th Edition, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (ISBN 13: 978-1-133-30973-4)
Issues for Debate in Sociology: Selections from CQ Researcher by Sage Publications, Inc (ISBN 13: 978-1-4129-7860-6)

Rubric used to grade the paper:
Google: “SLA writing rubric” for more infor please.

Grid View
List View
F(0) F(11) D(13) C(15) B(17) A(20)
Writing Skills: Grammar, spelling and syntax are correct. Length meets requirements for the assignment. Points:
0 (0%)

No submission
Feedback: Points:
11 (11%)

Significant number of errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax per page. Indicates a significant lack of proofreading effort. Does not adhere to length requirements.
Feedback: Points:
13 (13%)

Many errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax on most pages. Some minor effort at proofreading, insufficient. Does not adhere to length requirements.
Feedback: Points:
15 (15%)

Rare errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax; for example – fewer than two per page. Overall, some effort at proofreading; meets length requirements.
Feedback: Points:
17 (17%)

No obvious errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax; for example-fewer than one minor error per page; meets length requirements.
Feedback: Points:
20 (20%)

Essentially, no errors in grammar, spelling or syntax throughout the entire document; meets length requirements.
Feedback:
Development: Core theme or thesis statement is present along with coherent, coordinated, supported arguments. Points:
0 (0%)

No submission
Feedback: Points:
11 (11%)

1) Paper has no theme/thesis statement; 2) Lacks identifiable arguments and/or ideas
Feedback: Points:
13 (13%)

1) Paper’s core theme/thesis statement is difficult to identify; 2) Rudimentary development of arguments and/or ideas
Feedback: Points:
15 (15%)

1) Paper is organized around a core theme/thesis statement; 2) Identifiable development of arguments and/or ideas
Feedback: Points:
17 (17%)

1) Paper is focused on a well developed theme/thesis statement; 2) Ideas and arguments are clear and well defined
Feedback: Points:
20 (20%)

1) Paper’s theme/thesis statement is completely developed 2) the arguments and ideas are clear, well defined and comprehensive
Feedback:
Content: Paper contains the appropriate quality and quantity of well thought out ideas to support and address the topic as required. Points:
0 (0%)

No submission
Feedback: Points:
11 (11%)

Paper lacks the most basic quality and quantity of ideas to support and address the topic as required.
Feedback: Points:
13 (13%)

Paper contains poorly developed ideas that inconsistently support and address the topic as required.
Feedback: Points:
15 (15%)

Paper contains the minimum quality and quantity of ideas that support the topic as required.
Feedback: Points:
17 (17%)

Paper contains the appropriate quality and quantity of ideas to support and address fully the topic as required.
Feedback: Points:
20 (20%)

Paper contains high quality ideas that are skillfully used to support the topic completely as required.
Feedback:
Conclusion: Paper contains a well-developed summary or conclusion that builds on the theme/thesis and the ideas or arguments presented. Points:
0 (0%)

No submission
Feedback: Points:
11 (11%)

Paper lacks a summary/conclusion drawn from stated ideas.
Feedback: Points:
13 (13%)

Paper has incorrect and/or incomplete summary/conclusion.
Feedback: Points:
15 (15%)

Paper has an adequate summary/conclusion.
Feedback: Points:
17 (17%)

Paper has a convincing and inclusive summary/conclusion.
Feedback: Points:
20 (20%)

Paper has a cogent, inclusive and well-developed summary/conclusion which completely wraps up all themes and ideas presented in the paper.
Feedback:
Sources and References and Format: Appropriate source material, used to support the student’s ideas are cited and referenced according to specifications. Points:
0 (0%)

No submission
Feedback: Points:
11 (11%)

1) Resources used are not used; 2) Student does not clearly differentiate his/her thoughts from those of others.
Feedback: Points:
13 (13%)

1) Resources used are not sufficient in quantity; 2) Most (>75%) resources are not appropriate; 3) incorrect citations and/or referencing 4) Student does not clearly differentiate his/her thoughts from those of others in several places.
Feedback: Points:
15 (15%)

1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity; 2) Some (<50%) Resources are not appropriate; 3) Most citations and references use the correct style; 4) Student usually (75%) differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others.
Feedback: Points:
17 (17%)

1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity, 2) Few (<25%) of the resources are not appropriate; 3) >75% of citations and references use the correct style; 4) Student (90%) differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others.
Feedback: Points:
20 (20%)

1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity; 2) Resources are appropriate; 3) Correct style for all citations and references 4) Student clearly and consistently differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others at all times.
Feedback:
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Writing Skills: Grammar, spelling and syntax are correct. Length meets requirements for the assignment.–
Levels of Achievement:
F(0) 0 (0%) points
No submission
F(11) 11 (11%) points
Significant number of errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax per page. Indicates a significant lack of proofreading effort. Does not adhere to length requirements.
D(13) 13 (13%) points
Many errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax on most pages. Some minor effort at proofreading, insufficient. Does not adhere to length requirements.
C(15) 15 (15%) points
Rare errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax; for example – fewer than two per page. Overall, some effort at proofreading; meets length requirements.
B(17) 17 (17%) points
No obvious errors in grammar, spelling and/or syntax; for example-fewer than one minor error per page; meets length requirements.
A(20) 20 (20%) points
Essentially, no errors in grammar, spelling or syntax throughout the entire document; meets length requirements.
Feedback:
Development: Core theme or thesis statement is present along with coherent, coordinated, supported arguments.–
Levels of Achievement:
F(0) 0 (0%) points
No submission
F(11) 11 (11%) points
1) Paper has no theme/thesis statement; 2) Lacks identifiable arguments and/or ideas
D(13) 13 (13%) points
1) Paper’s core theme/thesis statement is difficult to identify; 2) Rudimentary development of arguments and/or ideas
C(15) 15 (15%) points
1) Paper is organized around a core theme/thesis statement; 2) Identifiable development of arguments and/or ideas
B(17) 17 (17%) points
1) Paper is focused on a well developed theme/thesis statement; 2) Ideas and arguments are clear and well defined
A(20) 20 (20%) points
1) Paper’s theme/thesis statement is completely developed 2) the arguments and ideas are clear, well defined and comprehensive
Feedback:
Content: Paper contains the appropriate quality and quantity of well thought out ideas to support and address the topic as required.–
Levels of Achievement:
F(0) 0 (0%) points
No submission
F(11) 11 (11%) points
Paper lacks the most basic quality and quantity of ideas to support and address the topic as required.
D(13) 13 (13%) points
Paper contains poorly developed ideas that inconsistently support and address the topic as required.
C(15) 15 (15%) points
Paper contains the minimum quality and quantity of ideas that support the topic as required.
B(17) 17 (17%) points
Paper contains the appropriate quality and quantity of ideas to support and address fully the topic as required.
A(20) 20 (20%) points
Paper contains high quality ideas that are skillfully used to support the topic completely as required.
Feedback:
Conclusion: Paper contains a well-developed summary or conclusion that builds on the theme/thesis and the ideas or arguments presented.–
Levels of Achievement:
F(0) 0 (0%) points
No submission
F(11) 11 (11%) points
Paper lacks a summary/conclusion drawn from stated ideas.
D(13) 13 (13%) points
Paper has incorrect and/or incomplete summary/conclusion.
C(15) 15 (15%) points
Paper has an adequate summary/conclusion.
B(17) 17 (17%) points
Paper has a convincing and inclusive summary/conclusion.
A(20) 20 (20%) points
Paper has a cogent, inclusive and well-developed summary/conclusion which completely wraps up all themes and ideas presented in the paper.
Feedback:
Sources and References and Format: Appropriate source material, used to support the student’s ideas are cited and referenced according to specifications.–
Levels of Achievement:
F(0) 0 (0%) points
No submission
F(11) 11 (11%) points
1) Resources used are not used; 2) Student does not clearly differentiate his/her thoughts from those of others.
D(13) 13 (13%) points
1) Resources used are not sufficient in quantity; 2) Most (>75%) resources are not appropriate; 3) incorrect citations and/or referencing 4) Student does not clearly differentiate his/her thoughts from those of others in several places.
C(15) 15 (15%) points
1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity; 2) Some (<50%) Resources are not appropriate; 3) Most citations and references use the correct style; 4) Student usually (75%) differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others.
B(17) 17 (17%) points
1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity, 2) Few (<25%) of the resources are not appropriate; 3) >75% of citations and references use the correct style; 4) Student (90%) differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others.
A(20) 20 (20%) points
1) Resources used are sufficient in quantity; 2) Resources are appropriate; 3) Correct style for all citations and references 4) Student clearly and consistently differentiates his/her thoughts from those of others at all times.
Feedback:

Name:SLA_DEFAULT_WRITING_RUBRIC

Debate on Socially Responsible Investing Sample Answer

Socially responsible investing 

Introduction

Socially responsible investing is all about considering ethical, governance, environmental, and social issues when making decisions related to investment. It is worth pointing out that this process varies from the normal management and investment selection process, where the focus is on financial risk and performance. On the other hand, socially responsible investments may constitute of a complete investment portfolio or they may be used as a proportion or in addition to existing portfolios.

Thesis

Regardless of the potentials created by SRI, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed for it to be useful in markets, particularly in South Africa.

Argument

During the last decade, there has been a rise is global environmental issues awareness. Based on this awareness, SRI (socially responsible investing) has become more structures and visible as a form of investment. Its underlying rationale is the maximization of financial returns, in addition to promoting environmentally and socially sustainable growth and development. SRI is also referred to as ethical or value-based investing, and it is an investment approach that takes into consideration both the negative and positive environmental and social implications, within the securities and investment analysis’ context. Asset managers dealing with SRI portfolios normally utilize customary quantitative analysis methods in addition to environmental and social analysis tools when faced with investment decisions (Ethical Markets Media., Films for the Humanities & Sciences (Firm) & Films Media Group, 2007).

SRI came up during the eighteenth century following the opposition of particular religious groups to make investments into firms that linked to or involved with tobacco, alcohol, and weapon production. Over the years, there was a shift of focus where between 1960- 1970, the focus became human rights, equality, and environmental protection. During the 1980s, a lot of emphasis was on the South Africa’s apartheid, and numerous European and North American investors ceased investing in South Africa market. During the 1990s, there was the emphasis on anti-tobacco investing as well as the poor workers’ treatment (Issues for debate in sociology: Selections from CQ researcher, 2010). Within the previous decade, the carbon footprinting concept and environmental issues garnered a lot of attention.

Speaking broadly, the two major forms of SRI approaches used for achieving maximum financial return, while achieving and promoting social good are the broad and core strategy. Core SRI is all about detail analysis and screening on the basis of religious, ethical and personal values. The investors in this case include NGOs, religious groups, and individuals with strong feelings about particular beliefs and practices. On the other hand, broad based SRI entails of a more simplistic strategy, encompassing of norms-base integration, engagement, and screening. Considering that institutional investors are considered the major investors in this form of investing, it has traditionally attracted far bigger volumes compared to core SRI.

The foregoing discussion basically gives highlights on how important SRI can be, particularly in relation to the environment and meeting the different interests of all investors. However, in addition to the fact that SRI has become considerably prominent in worldwide investment environments, there are a number of impediments which stand in the path of furthering innovation and growth of these kinds of investments (Downing, 2005).  This is more so in South Africa. One of the universal challenges is that despite the fact that SRI has been under exploration for a considerably long period, there is still no formal average definition. There is the need for an official definition in South Africa, especially in the manner in which it would be understood in relation to the broad-based BEE as it became prominent first as the apartheid era was ongoing. During this period, trade unions denied investing the members’ contributions of pensions into companies which stood with the apartheid regime, in addition to those that were practicing poor industrial relations. Basically, the major focus of the early SRI channels than was issues connected to empowering people that had previously been disadvantaged and enhancing and improving their living standard, in addition to the opportunities they had. For this legacy to continue, there is a great need for a clear SRI definition.

The second issue which should be addressed relates to the use of short-term performance benchmarks in SRI markets. This leads to a fundamental challenge based on the fact that numerous investors prefer saving for retirement. Hence, their investment horizons are long-term. Measuring an SRI fund’s performance is very hard in the absence of a benchmark which is fashioned based on similar standards as the fund. Other factors preventing the SRI market expansion globally and in South Africa include lack of understanding about SRI’s investment sphere and skill. There also lacks a connection between compliance, monitoring, and the asset managers dealing with SRI stocks investment (Cuseo & Thompson, 2010).

Debate on Socially Responsible Investing Conclusion

The foregoing discussion has established that SRI involves making governance, social, environmental, and ethical considerations when making decisions about investment. Despite the fact that SRI can create numerous benefits for companies, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed for it to be wholly useful, particularly in South Africa.

Debate on Socially Responsible Investing References

Cuseo, J. B., & Thompson, A. (2010). Humanity diversity and the liberal arts: Foundation of a college education. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Downing, S. (2005). On course: Strategies for creating success in college and in life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Ethical Markets Media., Films for the Humanities & Sciences (Firm), & Films Media Group. (2007). Socially responsible investing. New York, N.Y: Films Media Group.

Issues for debate in sociology: Selections from CQ researcher. (2010). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge.