← How a large business responds to external factors

Writing the Excellence-level Justify part

Every year's task ends at least one part with a Justify question — and it is graded on a genuinely different skill from the Explain/Fully explain parts before it.

What a Justify answer needs that an explanation does not

  • A stated POSITION or DECISION — which of two options you are recommending, or a clear yes/no on the question asked.
  • TWO REASONS supporting that position, each genuinely different from the other (not the same idea restated).
  • A reference to the ALTERNATIVE you did not choose, or to new information not already used in the earlier parts — this is what makes it a genuine weighing-up, not a repeated explanation.
  • A link to a stakeholder or business goal (profitability, sustainability, reputation) that the position actually serves.
Worked example A complete Justify answer Justify, with two reasons, whether complying with resource-management law improves the business's relationship with two key stakeholder groups. STATE THE POSITION: yes, compliance improves the relationship with both local residents and government/council stakeholders. REASON 1 (residents): actively monitoring and reducing environmental effects (e.g. noise, discharge) directly addresses residents' immediate concerns, rebuilding trust after any prior complaints. REASON 2 (government/council): a business with a clean compliance record faces fewer delays on future consent applications, which the council is more likely to grant given a demonstrated track record. ACKNOWLEDGE A LIMIT: compliance alone does not guarantee goodwill if the underlying activity (e.g. late-night noise) continues to cause disruption regardless of paperwork — genuine reduction, not just compliance on paper, is what actually rebuilds the relationship. ✓ Two distinct reasons, each tied to a NAMED stakeholder group, plus an acknowledged limitation, is what separates a Justify answer from restating the "fully explain" part in different words. ✕

Restating the fully-explain answer with "therefore" added

Adding "therefore, this is justified" to the end of an explanation already given in an earlier part does not meet what Justify requires. A genuine Justify answer introduces something NEW — a named alternative, a stated position, or a stakeholder-specific reason — that the earlier explanation did not already cover.

A Justify checklist to run before submitting

  • Have I stated a clear position (yes/no, or which option) in the first sentence?
  • Are my two reasons genuinely different ideas, not the same idea reworded?
  • Have I named the alternative I did NOT choose, or introduced information not already used?
  • Have I linked at least one reason to a specific stakeholder or business goal?

Practise just this