Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship

The evaluation will take the form of:
(1) Team Group work (group of 4-5 students): a mid-course video of their SSE project, and a written team report about their project and their entrepreneurial adventure. The team group project should draw on the topics learned during the course and will be defended during a team meeting with the professor in June. This teamwork will evaluate students' ability to identify a relevant social and/or environmental challenge(s), to elaborate a business model that tackles their social and/or environmental challenge(s), and to communicate effectively.
(2) Individual written case study: this written assignment will evaluate students' understandings of key concepts and their ability to apply them to a real case.
3) Individual continuous evaluation: continuous evaluation of students during in-course interactions and the redaction of reflexive journals about students' practices and learning.
Re-sit (August session):
If the Team group work is below 10/20: A revised version of the group project (on the same topic or a new one) is to be submitted and defended by the whole group in August. The weights of this part for the final grade remain similar as for the first sit.
If the Individual written case study is below 10/20: A new written individual assignment taking the form of the exploration and analysis of a real case study, based on the concepts learned during the course and making use of the articles that were part of the readings. The weights of this part for the final grade remain similar as for the first sit.
There is no re-sit for the continuous evaluation.
By submitting your report and case study for evaluation:
- You affirm that it faithfully reflects the phenomenon studied, and for this you must have verified the facts, especially if they are claimed by a generative AI (the use of which you must explicitly mention as a tool to support the completion of your work);
- You affirm that all sources of knowledge that go beyond the common domain are duly referenced. Common domain knowledge is universally established and is about what an informed reader can assess without needing confirmation from a separate source;
- You affirm that you have complied with all the specific requirements of the work entrusted to you, in particular the requirements for transparency and documentation of the scientific approach implemented.
If any of these statements are not true, whether intentionally or through negligence, you are in breach of your ethical commitment to the knowledge produced as part of your work , and possibly other aspects of academic integrity, what constitutes academic misconduct and will be considered as such.