Title: Detailed Review on Example 1

Review 1

The introduction states the topic of the argument clearly and would definitely arouse the interest of Paul Polman. I like that you really stick to the case and say “our company” instead of “Unilever”.

You have also stated your position clearly and have explicitly identified the actors (“we”) and objects (“contract with Wilmar”) in the context of the case. Maybe you should watch out that you don’t already bring in too much of a reason for your recommendation at this point but I think here it is still okay.

I am not really convinced by your reason though. First, I think it is generally better not to include words in parentheses in a 6AS writing because it should be short and to the point and parentheses disturbe the flow of reading. Second, it does not really become clear in the context of your text what you mean with Palm Oil example (although from the readings, I know that you refer to the PT Smart case). Moreover, I feel that your reason misses a strong connection to your position in the previous sentence. It does not really explain WHY it is beneficial that NGOs favor Unilever over other companies (does this really have such a big effect on the well-being of the company?).

Similar critizism applies to the challenge. It does not directly respond to the reason. It is challenging the idea that Wilmar is acting unsustainable, but how does this relate to the NGOs or us being a sustainability leader? I would suggest that you try to be more specific and relate your ideas more coherently. Also, it is not really clear who you mean with “opponents” (opponents of what?).

Your rebuttal, however, refutes the callenge in a logical way.

The conclusion is again very clear and strong.