Document1

Module code and title

Module leader

Diet

Assessment type Case Study

Submission date

Submission method

Assessment limits 4,000 words with an allowance of +10% will be accepted.

Figures/tables/diagrams specified in the assignment brief, appendices
and the reference list are NOT included in this word limit.
Assessment weighting 100%

Assessment brief(if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

Paper and email submissions will NOT be marked.

You will NOT gain marks for simply explaining information or copying and pasting the case study
information from the brief into your answer. You should ensure that the majority of your answer is
used to analyse the information using relevant theories from academic sources.

In writing your responses, you should use a range of text books and at least two peer-reviewed journal
articles to support your analysis across the whole assignment.

Each answer is worth 25% of the final mark and should be approximately 1,000 words in length. To
achieve a pass, you MUST answer all four questions.

The following Declaration should be inserted at the front of your assignment submission. A separate
copy of this declaration is available on the Canvas topic.

Page 1 of 9
Document1

Electronic Cover Sheet

 Please complete and insert this form as the first page of your electronic submission.
 Submit the assignment with attached coversheet electronically through the Canvas E-submission
gateway
 Please make sure you keep a copy of your assignment.

Student Details

Student Number

Assignment Details

Social
Module name Responsibility

Due date See Canvas for date and time of

submission
Assignment title Social Responsibility Case Studies

All forms of plagiarism, cheating and unauthorized collusion are regarded seriously by the
University and could result in penalties including failure in the unit and possible exclusion from
the University. If you are in doubt, please read the following web page.

Student’s Declaration

By submitting this assignment, I SIGNAL & DECLARE my knowledge and agreement to the following: -
where I have indicated, the work I am submitting in this assignment is my own work and has not been
submitted for assessment in another unit or for any other purpose. This work conforms to the instructions
and submission guidelines as contained in the assessment briefing and the module guide respectively.

This submission complies with University of Wolverhampton policies regarding plagiarism, cheating and
collusion.

I acknowledge and agree that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this
assignment:

 Reproduce this assignment and provide a copy to another academic staff member; and/or
 Communicate a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism-checking service. This web-based service will
retain a copy of this work for subsequent plagiarism checking, but has a legal agreement with the
University that it will not share or reproduce it in any form.

I have retained all assignment drafts, papers, materials and a copy of this assignment for my own records.

I will retain a copy of the notification of receipt of this assignment.

Page 2 of 9
Document1

6HR005 Case Study – Social Media Influencers

In addition to reading the case study below, please ensure you have watched the Panorama
documentary Million Pound Selfie Sell Off before starting your response.

To access the programme, click on the hyperlink below and register with Box of Broadcasts. When you
have registered with an account if you do not get taken to the correct page, search using “Million
Pound Selfie Sell Off”

https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/12F638D8?bcast=128560485

Case Study

With the rise of social media has come the rise of social media influencers. There are different forms of
social media influencer but broadly an influencer can be described as “an individual who has the power
to affect purchase decisions of others because of his/her authority, knowledge, position or relationship
with his/her audience” (Influencermarketinghub.com, 2019). An alternative definition is “an individual
who utilises a variety of social media platforms to express their opinions on specific brands or products,
consequently influencing their captive audience” (Crook, 2018). Sometimes influencers may have a
narrow sphere of influence, others will have a much broader appeal, but the common theme is that they
all have a social relationship with the brands they represent and this supports the brand’s marketing
strategy. Influencers may use a range of social media channels to share their knowledge and views and
this in turn can generate large numbers of followers.

Broadly there are four types of influencer:

 Celebrities
 Industry experts and thought leaders
 Bloggers and content creators
 Micro Influencers
It can be seen that some influencers then are “normal” people who could be perceived as representative
of the general public. The latter two types are the ones with the fastest growth. All of the above will
influence specific groups of people with diverse interests and preferences.

Followers will often feel that messages from their preferred influencers are more trustworthy;
consequently their recommendations are more likely to be followed. This is a direct result of the rapport
built between influencer and followers, and leads to the influencers’ views being perceived as more
credible and knowledgeable than celebrity endorsements, particularly with younger generations.

The value of social media influencers to companies is significant. In 2015 Zoe Sugg had 7.4 million
subscribers and charged advertisers up to £20,000 to place products on her videos. In 2017 over 5 billion
videos were watched on YouTube every day and vlogger PewDiePie, with over 60 million subscribers,
earned about $12m. This does however lead to false claims being made. Approximately 50% of posts
tagged as sponsored on Instagram were actually created by so called “Bot followers” rather than real
people. It can also lead to a range of behaviours on the part of some influencers. One example is a
vlogger who asked a hotel owner for a free stay. When the owner refused, saying that he still has to pay
his staff, the vlogger accused him of being ‘malicious’ and her followers and other bloggers then gave
the hotel bad reviews and posted personal attacks online. The owner said this called into question the

Page 3 of 9
Document1

validity of influencer marketing since the inference was that she would have given him a good review
purely on the basis he let her stay there for free. There is also a significant rise in the number of child
influencers. Parents take control of the account and the content and manage the money which can be
earned – between $200 and $2000 per post. Those interviewed all claim their children enjoy choosing
the products and having their photos taken, and that when their children stop enjoying this, the activity
will stop. Although there is legislation in the US relating to how parents manage earnings from
children’s film activity, there is nothing covering earnings made online in this way.

Then there is the impact on the influencers themselves. Andy Jordan, former star of Made in Chelsea,
was heavily involved in promoting products via social media and significantly reduced his activity when
he realised the impact it was having on his life, and he now chooses to promote products that he
believes in. Another factor was the potential impact on others’ lives. BBC research showed that over
50% of 18-34 year old believe social media and TV have a negative impact on their body image and this
type of statistic makes Jordan fear that someone could end their life if feelings of inadequacy get strong
enough.

As the size of the market grows, in the UK the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and in the US
the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) have recently provided guidelines on influencers and marketing
activity. However, research carried out by BBC Radio 4 identified that 82% of those polled said it was
“not always clear when an influencer has been paid to promote a product, and as many as 54% of 18-34
year olds made purchases based on what influencers suggested.” There are also concerns that some
influencers whose audience is mostly children are promoting gambling in their YouTube content. There
has been a rise in concerns that high profile influencers do not always make it clear that they have been
paid to endorse some of the products they promote. As a result a number of influencers including singer
Ellie Goulding and vlogger Jim Chapman have promised that they will clearly state whether they have
received any kind of incentive to promote. Additionally, the ASA (Advertising Standard Authority) in the
UK released guidelines to help social media influencers ensure they are compliant with consumer law.

In spite of this, a number of bloggers don’t feel that such regulation is necessary. Partly this is because
many of the influencers are “micro-influencers” who have small followings of between 10,000 and
100,000 and earn relatively modest sums, often in addition to a more traditional job role and which
supplement their earnings. One view is that if influencers behave professionally there is no need for a
code of ethics and that disclosing a commercial relationship is the correct way to behave. Sites often
offer rules for bloggers and others which focus on honesty in relation to sources, beliefs and
relationships with other organisations. Influencers should also critically consider decisions made, how
and what they communicate and ensure that credit is given to others where appropriate.
Bloggersrequired.com have a strong ethical message for bloggers which also covers disclosing when
payment has been received to promote content, writing honest reviews even when they have been paid
to review something and not paying for followers. It can be argued that ethics in social influencing are
becoming more important, with the need for products and influencers to be aligned. This is
demonstrated in the rise of influencers focusing on issues such as sustainability and fashion. There are
also new trends like “anti-hauls”, outlining what consumers don’t want to buy and a drive from some
cosmetics influencers to get companies to reduce packaging and consider what products they do send
out.

Sources (accessed March 2019)

 https://appinstitute.com/social-media-influencer/

Page 4 of 9
Document1

 https://influencermarketinghub.com/what-is-an-influencer/
 https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.wlv.ac.uk/docview/2131739467?accountid=14685
 http://www.magscholar.com/ajbr/ajbrv7n2/ajbr170035.pdf
 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/19/hotel-owner-hits-youtube-vloggers-flooded-
business-bad-reviews/
 https://mumbrella.com.au/influencers-and-bloggers-dont-need-a-code-of-ethics-359091
 https://mor10.com/code-of-ethics-for-bloggers-social-media-and-content-creators/
 https://www.vuelio.com/uk/blog/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-influencer-marketing/
 https://goodonyou.eco/5-ethical-influencers-on-instagram/
 https://bloggersrequired.com/uk-ethical-blogging/
 https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/bbc-panorama-influencers-instagram-youtube-million-
pound-selfie-sell-off-a8775601.html
 https://www.ft.com/content/d0ad1e78-1fbd-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46636502
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-
47246776?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=
social
 https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/inside-lives-child-instagram-
influencers/583675/
 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/mar/17/instagram-social-media-influencers-reality
 https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/apr/03/when-less-is-more-the-beauty-bloggers-
exposing-the-industrys-wasteful-secret

Questions

1. Using one ethical theory taught in the module, justify the practice of a social media influencer
not declaring when they have been paid to promote a product. Using a different ethical theory,
justify why this practice is not acceptable. You should use ethical theories which have been
taught within the module. You should ensure that you use a range of relevant academic sources
to support your work and link these to the case study information provided.

2. Using one of the CSR models taught in the module (Carroll; Chryssides and Kaler; Reidenbach
and Robin) analyse where activities of social media influencers could meet each of the different
levels of the model you have chosen. Where a level is not met either suggest what influencers
could do to meet this level, or state clearly why achieving this level may not be possible. You
should include a referenced image of the model in your answer (NOT in an appendix). You
should ensure that you use a range of relevant academic sources to support your work and link
these to the case study information provided.

3. Who are the key stakeholders involved with or affected by social media influencers? Complete a
stakeholder map to identify these. Explain the purpose of a stakeholder map using relevant
theory. Choose two CSR issues related to social media influencers (you should use two from
those identified in question 2) and analyse how these would affect any two key stakeholders of
your choice. You should include the completed stakeholder map in your answer (NOT in an
appendix). You should ensure that you use a range of relevant academic sources to support
your work and link this to the case study information provided.

4. What future CSR trends might affect management decisions made in relation to how
organisations engage with social media influencers in the future? You should ensure that you
use a range of relevant academic sources to support your work and link these to the case study
information provided.

Page 5 of 9
 Document1

Assessment Criteria(The actual assessment components for this assignment)

Criteria Weighting (If
applicable)
 Level of research and range of additional material used n/a

 Identification and critical analysis of key issues n/a

 Application of theory to the case study materials n/a

 Structure of argument, clarity of writing and Harvard referencing n/a

Undergraduate 40%
Pass mark

Performance descriptors in use;

 University of Wolverhampton No•
 Professional or Statutory Body No•
 Module specific Yes •
 Other (specify below) No•

Return of assessments
(Instructions for return / Feedback sent through Canvas, within 4 working weeks.
collection of assessments)

This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes Tick if tested here

LO1 Critically analyse concepts and theories of business ethics 

LO2 Discuss the relevance of social responsibility concepts in 

organisational contexts
LO3 Differentiate social responsibility issues from the perspective of a 
variety of stakeholders
LO4 Examine the future of social responsibility and business ethics within 
organisations and reflect upon its impact on leaders and managers

Additional information for students

The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a
range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to
academic referencinghttp://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx

Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;
 The required referencing style for your assignment.*
Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing
convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford
Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.

 Submission of your work

 Marking, feedback and moderation in accordance with the University of Wolverhampton
Assessment Handbook
 Extensions on submission dates *
 Additional support *
 Academic conduct with regards to cheating, collusion or plagiarism *
 Links to appropriate sources of relevant information *

Page 6 of 9
 Document1

* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on wlv.ac.uk.

Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers

The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances
where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit
your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.

When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:
 The submission is your own work
 Any material you have used has been acknowledged and appropriately referenced
 You have not allowed another student to have access to your work
 The work has not been submitted previously.

The following information is important when:

 Preparing for your assignment
 Checking your work before you submit it
 Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

Module Learning Outcomes

 Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was
validated.

 Assessment Criteria
 The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your
work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.

Performance Descriptors
 Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria.
The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands
indicated.
To help you further:
 Re-sit opportunities are available for students who are unable to take the first sit opportunity, or
who need to re take any component.
 Refer to the VLEtopic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended
reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on the VLE module topic.
 The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your
studies and develop your academic skills
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx

Page 7 of 9
 Document1

Performance descriptors
Assessment A (70-100%) B (60-69%) C (50-59%) D (40-49%) E (30-39%) F (0-29%)
criteria Work of an Work of a good Work of a Work of a Work of an No learning
outstanding, standard. competent satisfactory unsatisfactory outcomes fully met.
excellent and standard. standard to pass. standard *
very good
standard.

Evidence of wide
Content relevant
independent Some evidence Material merely Little/no attempt to
to the
reading with of reading Limited reading repeats taught address the
Level of research question/task.
variety of outside the only; mostly just input. Too little assignment brief or
and range of Reading based
relevant and up module list and class notes. Only evidence of learning outcomes or
additional on main texts or
to date source beyond a few sources reading, from class to engage with module
material used. materials, but not
materials used. classroom notes. used and those notes or outside. materials. No evidence
always utilized in
Excellent All significant taken from Limited analysis of reading or analysis
supporting
analysis of content accurate. materials provided ofsources. Failure of sources. Failure to
argument.
researched Analyses a good in class. to answer the answer the question
Analyses a range
material to the range of sources. question as set. as set.
of sources.
topic.
A comprehensive
Competent
understanding of Basic
understanding
ethical and Social Good understanding of
ofethical and Lacks
Responsibility understanding of ethical and Social
Social understanding of
theory and issues ethical and Social Responsibility
Responsibility basic ethical and Inadequate/no
demonstrated. Responsibility theory and issues
theory and issues Social demonstration of
Focused and in- theory and issues demonstrated.
demonstrated. Responsibilitytheory knowledge or
depth demonstrated. Some key issues
Competent and concepts. Few understanding of key
identification of Full identification identified but
Identification and identification of key issues ethical and Social
the key issues, of key issues, discussed in a
critical analysis of most key issues identified. Wholly Responsibilityconcepts
which are then which are predominantly
key issues which are descriptive. or theories. Wholly
analysed in an analysed in a descriptive rather
analysed No evidence of descriptive and lacking
insightful way. thorough way. than analytical
competently. A examination or in theory. Failure to
Full answers Theory should be way. Limited
range of relevant application of answer the question
provided to all applied to relevant theory
theory theory. Failure to as set.
parts of the support answers applied to support
competently answer the
assignment and to a good overall the answers.
applied to question as set.
supported standard.
support answers
throughout by
in most places.
theory.
Focused and
Sound links Some links made
comprehensive
Clear links made made between between the case
links made
between the case the case study study information One or two links
between the case
study information information and and limited made between the
study information
and relevant relevant theory. relevant theory. case study
and relevant
theory. Good Competent level Very little critical information and No evidence of theory
theory. Fully
level of critical of critical evaluation of theory. No critical to link to the case
Application of critically
evaluation evaluation theory and case evaluation, wholly study. Wholly
theory to the evaluates the
between theory between theory study examples, descriptive and descriptive and no
case study connection
and case study and case study the writing is assertions made attempt made to
materials between theory
examples in most examples in key mostly descriptive without engage with the topic.
and case study
areas. Draws areas. Draws and repeats the substantiation. No Failure to answer the
examples in all
meaningful sound case study details. meaningful question as set.
areas. Draws
conclusions from conclusions from Draws limited and conclusions drawn.
insightful
wider reading reading key obvious Failure to answer
conclusions from
and information sources and conclusions from the question as set.
wider reading
provided. information reading of narrow
and information
provided. range of sources.
provided.
Key arguments Limited evidence
All arguments Most arguments critically of analysis, some Little or no No evidence of
Structure of critically critically analysed, key obvious insights evidence of engaging with the
argument, clarity analysed, original analysed, a insights and offered. Structure analysis and limited assignment materials,
of writing and insights and range of conclusions muddled, or insights or content unclear due to
Harvard conclusions appropriate drawn and writing style conclusions drawn. poor structure and
referencing offered and insights and presented. lacking in Lack of structure, writing style with
overall the conclusions Structure and coherence. poor writing style extensive errors in
Page 8 of 9
Document1

structure is clear offered and a writing style Regular or with extensive grammar, spelling,
and well laid out. clear structure clear. Repeated frequentlyrepeated errors in grammar, punctuation and
Articulate and and writing style. errors in errors in in spelling, syntax. Harvard
accurate writing Minor repeated grammar, grammar, spelling, punctuation and references missing in
style. Very few errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax. Harvard either the assignment
errors in grammar, punctuation and syntax evident. references and/or in the reference
grammar, spelling, syntax evident. Significant negligible or list.
spelling, punctuation and Repeated errors repeated errors missing in either the
punctuation and syntax evident. and/or omissions and/or omissions assignment and/or
syntax evident. Minor errors in in Harvard in Harvard in the reference list.
Harvard Harvard referencing both referencing both
referencing all referencing, or within the within the
present and some omissions assignment and assignment and in
correct both both within the in the reference the reference list.
within the assignment and list.
assignment and in the reference
in the reference list.
list.

Page 9 of 9