[ngeleja]

Thank you so much for your assistance and for the link, opened it but unfortunately still i am required to pay for a subscription to have any access.
i have started tackling my research objectives. i have come to notice that the UK CG codes change almost in every 2 years and as per the info pack im required to use at least 3 previous annual reports. will it be appropriate, lets say i make comparison of Tesco’s year 2014 with the CG guidelines published in 2016?

[ngeleja]

Thank you so much Trephena, thats so resourceful

i have set up my research objectives which includes assessing the quality of CG against those UK guidelines also identifying the tesco’s cg weaknesses and critically assess those areas where tesco has struggled to maintain an upper hand, assessing the impacts it had on its stakeholders as well as the company’s response and the last one is my recommendation. does my research objectives sound fair enough? do i need to include a comparison? lets say with its competitor on its CG practices?

the oher minor question, when i make a citation lets say theres this article on BBC by Kamal ahmed. do i need to write (Kamal Ahmed, 2014) or just (K. Ahmed, 2014)

[ngeleja]

thanks trephena

i have decided to re write my RAP and picked tesco, i have come to notice that Tesco had encounter lots of up and downs in 2014 on its corporate governance, however most of my sources are from BBC. will it be okey to make a citation from a single source when it comes to this particular area?

[ngeleja]

HI Trephena

i have also noticed a change in topic 17, im submitting this November. im having some doubts which i would be very happy if you help me clear them.
i am in east Africa, there hasn’t really been a specific company in my country that has been specifically identified as having a week CG structure , however i have noticed a university report here in our country which has generalized the level of CG of all companies listed in our stock exchange as being good in average but are still struggling when it comes to board structures. also a reliable newspaper article which has just generalize that we still having issues and a long way to go when it comes to CG, especially on issues of board structures as identified above and other transparency issues, all these reports haven’t specifically directly addressed the company i have picked to make my RAP but rather generalized the company listed in our stock exchange on which this company is also among.
My question is can i take these as arguments to proceed my RAP with? are they really enough of a reason? if not is there any other alternatives? can i proceed with those of UK? if yes would you please kindly give me some guidelines on the UK companies?as im still not that much aware of corporate stuffs happening in UK. i have written the part 1 and 2 of the RR already.
the other doubt, do stakeholder analysis really is required in this new T17? do i really need to include the Mendelow matrix and the carroll csr pryramid in stakeholder analysis? as the topic has just specified to assess on CG origins issues and the organisation response.
and if i was really required to make a change, considering the time remained to submitting, do you think time is still realistically with me? or i should just postpone to next submission

kind regards

[Author]

Posts