[Ulyana]

Gillian, thank you so much! very helpful!

[Ulyana]

Hi Gillian and Trephena!

First of all thanks a lot for this forum. I’ve read through before starting my research and it helped a lot.

I’ve almost completed my report on Carillion. But have some concerns about structuring part 3.

Initially I structured it by the nature of issues, i.e. board performance and behavior (strategic and operational risk management failures, accounting manipulation and executive remuneration), audit performance (both internal and external), pension scheme failures following with the stakeholders analysis (and impact on them).

My mentor asked for more mentions of UK CG Code in part 3. And I restructured it by the 5 sections of the UK CG Code (as she initially advised), i.e. leadership, effectiveness etc… Stating the exact principle and how Carillion failed (with supporting references).
Obviously Carillion failed in each section. But she also advised to include the parts where they did comply with the CG Code. And include a separate part on assessment of origins.

My concern that this way of structuring makes part 3 more formulaic and could hardly be done in a word count limit. I would prefer to return and to continue with my initial structure and not include the parts where Carillion complied as I did a lot of research of non-compliance. What would you suggest?

Thank you!

[Author]

Posts