- This topic has 466 replies, 74 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by trephena.
- March 28, 2017 at 10:57 am #379428trephenaModerator
Thank you for your vote of conference!
You mainly seem to be on the right track. Just a few areas for me to clarify. Quality in the title mainly relates to the initial analysis rather than the stakeholder part -yes the two are connected but do not fret about not being able to make direct comparisons with other companies when it comes to employees and suppliers. State the facts and consider their implications -that should be fine.
Regarding the Institutional shareholders -ignore the nominee companies. You might be able to see if any Institutional shareholders spoke at the AGM if this was reported in the financial press (Google search perhaps?). Alternatively you could email GSK’s Investor Relations department and ask who their main institutional shareholders are.
One thing you possibly have misunderstood is that there are elements of CG outside the Code -so don’t try to fit everything to the 5 Principles it doesn’t quite work like that e.g. the Bribery Act 2010 and Anti-Corruption measures.
You might also consider in terms of customers whether GSK is dealing ethically with the NHS (which is possibly it’s major customer ) as some drug companies have been exploiting their position if they have a monopoly with certain drugs
It would be an excellent idea to point out your CEO is also chairing the Review of Women on Boards (Brownie points with the marker hopefully too 😀 )
You are approaching the topic well and sort of thinking outside the box -which is really good. I am impressed with your level of research and determination. What a shane this is a resubmission as otherwise I think you would be heading for at least a B grade. Just review my checklists to ensure you have covered and dealt with the essentials (including referencing)
All the best with your submission 🙂March 29, 2017 at 12:19 pm #379525elizateresa
Thank you for your reply!!! I have a better understanding now. I had included a section about bribery activities that caused a big commotion for them in China in 2014.. the marker had said that they were pleased to see this.
The marker said that my work was good in terms of research, information material and effort but it was – not structured well – and so for anybody else reading this thread..
don’t let this slide!
I was confused by what OBU required from me in terms of structure somehow and am sad that I failed over something like that after the effort and time put into it.
I looked up GSK and the NHS and it seems they were slapped with a sizeable fine last year because of their anti-competitive practices. They were accused of ” cheating the NHS and the taxpayer”.. unfortunate for them but hopefully good for the RAP. Thank you Trephena for this suggestion, I will include it in my work. You’re an angel!
Liz 🙂March 31, 2017 at 7:38 am #379703trephenaModerator
The main structure should include:
Statement of objectives
Main purpose of CG / why CG is important
Models / accounting techniques to be used (CG code and stakeholder model)
Justification of approach used (e.g. why using secondary data not primary and model) + Limitations (mainly relate information gathering but also models)
Analysis against CG principles and main issues with clear headings, sub-headings, charts and graphs including objective discussion/ debate of key areas and comparisons with other company(ies) and relevant examples
Stakeholder analysis -application of model to all relevant stakeholder groups and some of the specific issues that have affected them or could impact on them (these depend on the company chosen but the gender issue you mention could be include in employees section as could whistleblowing policy and a comparison of CEO remuneration to average employee pay)
Conclusion – Refer back to objectives and briefly summarise what you have found in relation to these -key points only not too much detail however pick up on any main failings.
Recommendations: (personally in a report such as a student RAP I find it rather silly for a student, who no doubt has mostly study book knowledge to ‘tell’ the Board of a major corporation what it should be doing! ) not really necessary – words,are better used elsewhere.
I think I have touched on everything -but if I have omitted anything no doubt someone will bring it up! 🙂April 1, 2017 at 6:24 am #379816fipelwa
Hi Trephena, am kind of confused on the accounting and business models. Am doing my research on a UK company, is it fine to talk about both the UK corporate governance code and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act .April 1, 2017 at 6:56 am #379819trephenaModerator
@fipelwa – yes as long as you explain the context of why you are using SOx: i.e you are comparing and contrasting how the Code and SOx deal with something, or explaining that as the company trades in the USA it is subject to certain aspects of the SOx legislation.April 1, 2017 at 1:21 pm #379835fipelwa
Thank you for the guidanceApril 1, 2017 at 7:39 pm #379851thegoal24
I want to use the Mendelow Matrix but I’m struggling to find the original source or reliable source from which I can reference from. How best can I find information on this? It seems some information on google scholar needs a subscriptionApril 1, 2017 at 7:41 pm #379852thegoal24
That’s very insightful thank you!April 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm #382228phillips
I must first thank you and the forum for the wealth of information that is available and how helpful it is in guiding us students.
I am currently doing Topic 17 and chose HSBC as my company for analysis, I have Barclays as the comparator but my mentor said i don’t need a comparator. I read through the forum and saw that the use of a comparator would enhance the report so might still go ahead and use it.
My main struggle right now is part 3 and deciding what information from the code to use (since the code has a wealth of information and all of it seems relevant) and how to present it. I started by using a table format to state what the code says and then what HSBC’s Annual Report says. for example re the composition of the board i wrote how the ED and NED should make up at least half of the board as well as the skills and experience and the diversity in terms of male to female percentage for the code section. Can i then go on to state that i used maybe a pie chart to show the results in figures 1 and 2 below and say something brief about the skills and experience in the table? what i am asking is if i can present part of the findings in the table itself and also as a pie chart?
Secondly, should i show the findings from my independent research directly after i compare the code to HSBC, during the comparison or as a summary in the conclusion? so far i have found that HSBC’s practices as reported in their Annual Report are consistent with the code but found articles that mentioned some fines that HSBC were giving as well as them being accused of tax evasion for example. I am thinking this analysis would serve well in the conclusion section. What are your thoughts?April 18, 2017 at 2:25 am #382248LearningLuminarium
Some thoughts to your question, hope it helps!
1) A comparator is optional for Topic 17. However, it has value in serving as a contrast and showing that the company cannot make excuses that “no one is doing it this way”. Use it judiciously though, you may not have enough words if you compare every aspect.
2) Yes, you can present the findings in the table and also as a pie chart. The examiner looks at all content.
3) Findings from independent research are CRITICAL. You would need to place them throughout your Part 3, not just at the conclusion. Without independent research supporting your Part 3 and counterchecking what is said in the annual reports, you would be relying on the annual reports for the majority of your writings. This would lead to a high risk of failure because it is difficult to assess a company’s CG based on what they say in their annual reports. Even the worst companies can have nicely worded CG reports.
P.s. – a small suggestion. While not mandatory, selecting a company that went through a public CG scandal is beneficial. This is because there would be alot of independent write-ups on the condition of the company and you could then tap on this vast pool of research.
We hope this helped!
The Learning LuminariumApril 18, 2017 at 5:31 am #382259trephenaModerator
Brief answer as I am on my hols 😀
Did you read my answers on p.15 &16 to arathy? BTW so far OBU has stuck to original title but you must avoid a ‘ tick-box approach’
You need to get plenty of critical and balanced evaluation into your work and as TLL say, this does not come from the annual report. Your own independent research is therefore vital.April 19, 2017 at 1:37 pm #382631phillips
Thanks LL and Trephena. I understand that independent research is critical. I think I am currently experiencing information overload and as a result is being confused.April 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm #382859irisc
@alfred I understand your apprehension as the list I put together sounds very daunting! Great that you have done P1 so recently as if you have access to a study text or relevant material, I hope it will pinpoint most of the relevant bits of the CIty Code for you so that should take some of the hard work out of it for you (and also explain Mendelow and other possible models) 😀 .
You may certainly use a UK company. Choose a plc as by law (the Companies Act) they have to put most of the information I have mentioned in their annual report either directly or indirectly. For example they normally have background details of their directors, their remuneration packages (as shareholders normally have to agree these) and pictures of them (so you can see if they have any women directors or not), the audit report shows the date the auditors sign off the accounts (so you can take the following day as the day they published it) etc. So you need to download a few annual reports to see what is in them before you take fright!
I don’t normally like recommending a particular company as I always feel that a student should choose one that interests and appeals to them, however to see for myself what sort of information is easily accessible I have just done an online search for Mark and Spencer with the link:
This link helpfully provides further links to the full annual report and there is even a specific quick link to the Governance section and Remuneration Reports so for this company it is easy to find most of the information that you will need. (Comparators for M & S would be Debenhams, House of Fraser or Next plc).
If I were doing Topic 17 myself I would chose one of the banks as they have in the past few years been seriously falling down on governance issues (and I would enjoy the challenge as a forensic accountant of delving into the ‘darker side’ of their operations! 🙂 This is what I mean by choosing a company that interests you – I would find M & S OK but Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds etc personally very exciting as I know some of the banks, in spite of trying to appear ‘shiny’ in their annual reports, have indulged in ‘dark deeds’ in the last 5 years or so, that in some cases is only just coming to light)
However you must also use other sources to balance up your report – such as the financial press and reuters or the BBC – here are links to the Daily Telegraph & BBC news finance pages: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/
You use the company information to compare governance facts (to the Code and with the comparator) and external sources to research more objective things to form an opinion on whether the board is acting ethically and to discover what shareholders and employees and suppliers think of the company. This part is obviously more difficult but you will need to search the external sources for relevant articles and information that may give you ideas and lead you to aspects of this.
You certainly have time to produce a good quality report for the Period 29 submission in November depending on exactly what your other commitments are. I normally think 3 months is about right for a good RAP that should more than adequately meet the assessment criteria if the student puts in the effort and appreciates and understands all of the rules and requirements.
Please read our forums on Referencing as Referencing is an area of frequent failure for the RAP and if you are aware of the rules you should learn to incorporate the principles of it in your work from the beginning. Somewhere students have posted details on the forums of how Microsoft Word will construct a reference list for you, which takes out a lot of the hard, boring work normally involved in this. Don’t just read the OBU Info pack once, ensure that you refer to it regularly and think about the SLS at the beginning NOT the end as it makes it much easier to produce a good SLS if you think about it and start planning it early. 😀
Great information @trephena tnxApril 23, 2017 at 5:04 am #383141gloriachao
I have been getting a lot of information from this forum. Thanks a lot.
I am using a MNC as my research company which is based in UK. It has subsidiaries in US and other countries (listed both in UK and US). Is it appropriate for me to just compare to the UK Governance Code?April 25, 2017 at 8:16 am #383608trephenaModerator
The topic title is ‘Quality of Corporate Governance…..’ therefore although you will mainly be expected to use the UK code it may be appropriate to refer to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in relation to the U.S. subsidiaries.May 3, 2017 at 9:26 am #384678kenjohn777
I have two issues I need quick answers on.
Firstly I want to quote a definition of corporate governance I got from the applied governance website. Since in the website there was no date, should I use n.d. or 2017?
Secondly, I have done my bar charts and I did some calculations to arrive at it. What is meant by attaching the ‘spreadsheet’ used or IT software? This is not too clear to me.
I need to package my project promptly before submission. Revert. ThanksMay 3, 2017 at 11:21 am #384691trephenaModerator
Use n.d. as you have no idea when it was written.
If you have done calculations and graphs normally you would do this via Excel (or something similar). The requirement for passing criteria 7, IT, is that you produce the spreadsheet relating to this. If it was some other software then you should upload evidence of this as the marker will be left wondering where on earth the charts came from and how did you do them?May 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm #384720kenjohn777
Thanks Trephena. I think I guessed your reply there.
One more issue bothering me. I used a bank in Nigeria. The last annual report was 2014 and they had 13 members in the board. When the Central bank of Nigeria intervened in July 2016 they – CBN appointed 8 members. The eight members can only be discovered in the bank website.
I did a bar chart stating in two parts stating 2014 and July 2016.
The referencing was :-
Source : S bank annual reports 2014 and skye bank website – board of directors, 2017
Is that good referencing or i should create different bank charts for both periods as well separating the referencing?
I did something similar as regards the Board committees.
Also how can one reduce a % to 2 or 3 decimal places in MS Excel.
Thanks in advance once againMay 3, 2017 at 11:54 pm #384781trephenaModerator
As you have created the graphs yourself stating the source would be adequate for charts and graphs.
With Excel on the home page in the number section there is the option where it shows .00 and underneath ->0 (arrow zero) if you click on this after highlighting the cell it reduces the decimal places and the other button <- increases them. (You can set up the percentage initially be clicking on the % sign)May 4, 2017 at 12:28 am #384782kenjohn777
Thanks very much TrephenaMay 4, 2017 at 5:35 pm #384870mariannajane
Hello, has anyone come across any stats what is the rate of success for shareholders voting against directors in the UK? For example, Legal & General say they voted against 89 UK board directors in 2016. Are there any stats how many directors are not re-elected?May 7, 2017 at 10:27 pm #385280trephenaModerator
Unfortunately not as far as I am aware, although you could try to see if the Institute of Institutional Shareholders has produced any stats. There is more revolt generally these days if you follow the business press there are regular articles on this – see these from the last week or so – all of which must be good for corporate governance. For example Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays has not only has his pay docked but is facing pressure from shareholders to be removed as a consequence of his efforts to hunt down an anonymous whistle-blower. (In fact a former whistle-blower, Paul Moore thinks Staley should be sacked for gross misconduct as the CEO’s purpose in seeking to discover who the whistle-blower was would have been to crush and remove the person ).
and this article about shareholders rejecting a remuneration report for Pearsons the publishers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39820637May 12, 2017 at 10:44 am #385970trephenaModerator
FOR T17 SUBMISSION CHECKLIST PLEASE SEE PAGE 12
-then scroll down.
I wrote this checklist for a previous submission period but the checklist is still valid for P34July 16, 2017 at 10:44 am #396264trephenaModerator
I am resubmitting the project on topic 17 and as you may remember, i was failed in the project due to lack of spreadsheet demonstration. In the latest info pack as you correctly guessed and the topic as changed from
” An assessment of the quality of the corporate governance within an organisation and the impact on an organisation’s key stakeholders”
“Select an organisation that has been identified as having weak corporate
governance structures within the past 5 years. Critically evaluate their
corporate governance practices including an assessment of the origins of the
corporate governance issue(s) and the organisation’s response.”
DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE TO CHANGE MY COMPANY NOW?
Not at all. When rules/ topics change they apply only to new submissions i.e. 1st submissions or where a student has decided to change organisation or topic (or as a consequence of an ACO decision has been told they must change one or both of these). A resubmission on the same company for T17 will be unaffected by the new rules for Period 35 regardless of when the resubmission is madeJuly 16, 2017 at 11:01 am #396268trephenaModerator
As a consequence of the change in title for Topic 17 I shall open a new Forum a topic for it.
If you are resubmitting under the old P34 title continue to post here but please use the new forum topic which I am calling ‘Corporate Governance (T17 NEW submissions from Period 35’ if you are attempting under the new title.
(Note some of the info and ideas on this old T17 forum may still be relevant as I have talked about scandals – these would mostly be in the second half of this forum and therefore it may be worth reading through from the end and working backwards by page)July 21, 2017 at 1:10 am #397861Stephy
Not at all. When rules/ topics change they apply only to new submissions i.e. 1st submissions or where a student has decided to change organisation or topic (or as a consequence of an ACO decision has been told they must change one or both of these). A resubmission on the same company for T17 will be unaffected by the new rules for Period 35 regardless of when the resubmission is made
My project has been referred to the ACO and the below decision was made.
“If you are eligible you may re-submit a new RAP. You may choose the same topic and research company, or change either.”
Can I please confirm that:
1. I can re-submit using the old P34 Topic 17 title using the same company?
2. If I were to change company, then I will need to re-submit using the new Topic 17 title?
Thank you.July 21, 2017 at 7:39 am #397881trephenaModerator
Sounds like your ACO offence was a relatively minor infringement of the rules as otherwise you have do a completely new report on a different topic or company.
I would take it that in your scenario:
1. This would be fine as it is being treated as a normal resubmission
2. You would be subject to the new rules as the company has been changedJuly 21, 2017 at 11:24 pm #397999rajausama007
@alfred are you around to answer a question?
Thank you.August 18, 2017 at 6:24 am #402303alfred
Hey , sure yes. Please askAugust 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm #402378rajausama007
Thank you for your response. I was wondering if it would be ok with to share you email with me and I could get in touch with you in case I need to share some material with you i need guidance on? I can’t post it here due to plagiarism issues.
- The topic ‘OLD (Pre-Period 35) Topic 17 Corporate Governance – RESUBMISSIONS ONLY’ is closed to new replies.