- November 7, 2019 at 11:35 am
So helpful. Thank you so much Gillian. You just made my life easier.November 12, 2019 at 3:40 am
I have just one day to submit my analysis but I am concerned about one thing. I chose topic 17 for my RR and have added shareholders analysis (by applying mendleow’s matrix) in it. Can you please tell me is this unnecessary?November 12, 2019 at 3:41 am
Sorry I forgot, can you please suggest me any good models that can be used in topic 17? and If the stakeholders analysis must not be part of it, what can I consider adding instead?November 12, 2019 at 1:32 pm
I also applied Mendelow’s Matrix on stakeholder analysis. I am submitting mine today.
All the bestDecember 29, 2019 at 11:10 am
Hi Gillian and Trephena!
I have decided to go with topic 17 for my obu rap for P40. I am quite interested with selecting of Nissan for my project. Is it a wise choice? Nissan seems to have quite a bit CG failures. Also can i use UK codes, OECD principals for analysis alongside Mendlows. Japan has adopted CG quite recently I only found really short codes of practice for cg by their stock exchange.
This my first research report so if you can please share some basic guides for searching for information. Also do i have adequate time for preparing a good rap?
Thanks a lot in advanceDecember 30, 2019 at 12:20 pm
Yes this sounds like it would be suitable.
What I would suggest is that you discuss the Japanese CG Code in Part 2 explaining that as it was only recently introduced that you will be focusing on the UK CG Code and the OECD Principles as examples of best practice and comparing Nissan mainly with those as the Japanese Code has its limitations (only comparatively recently introduced and because of the Japanese nature of doing things – see below).
However as you are doing a Japanese company I would advise you to research a little into some of the specifics of Japanese culture and their structure for Boards so that you show breadth of research. For example more than in any other country there is sense of ‘duty’ and ‘loyalty’ towards the company. This has both its advantages and disadvantages in that Board has strong cohesion and less independence than boards found in other countries. You could discuss this in terms of it encouraging a ‘Groupthink’ attitude and suboptimisation of decisions.
Whistleblowing is another concept that you could briefly look at because although it is an important element of good governance in the West, in Japan it conflicts with the sense of loyalty etc. and it does not come naturally to the Japanese to ‘betray’ their bosses and colleagues.
Also there is a certain amount of distrust even in Japanese companies that operate overseas, with foreign managers. (You could even perhaps if relevant make brief comparisons with what happened to the British CEO of Olympus [Michael Woodford] when he discovered severe irregularities in the accounts of the Olympus and tried to get the Board to investigate. The interesting difference with the Woodford and Carlos Ghosn is that the former was actually trying to uphold good governance whereas the latter is charged with having breached good governance. However the fact that the Board of Olympus were found guilty was quite remarkable and does show that slowly Japan is beginning to recognise that good governance is important for the long term sustainability of companies (see UK CG Code).
One final suggestion: I recommend that you arrange your work so that it is either structured mainly round the principles as set out in the UK CG Code 2016 or the OECD Prinicples as this will give you some basic headings to work with. [Note this does not mean that you ignore the OECD Code in preference to the UK Code or v.v. it is just to help you structure your work and ensure that you cover sufficient. You can still bring in the aspects of the other code under the main headings where relevant. As you are dealing with best practice this is acceptable as too it would be if you used the latest UK CG Code (2018) for clarification purposes – perhaps on what best practice sees as ‘independence’ for example.
Yes there is time to do a good RAP for May if you plan your work well and recognise that a good report needs time and effort so don’t procrastinate!March 11, 2020 at 2:10 pm
I would like to choose Sports Direct plc as a co. with weak CG but they have changed their name to Frasers Group Plc w.e.f 17th Dec 2019 but many of the CG issues arose before this date . What do I do with regards to the name change ?? Thanks in advance for replying .March 12, 2020 at 6:00 pm
I am planning on submitting my research project in May 2020. I have chosen topic 17 and Bombardier as my company. Bombardier is a Canadian based company with operations around the world including UK.
I have read this on their website “Bombardier has corporate governance policies and practices which comply with and, in certain instances, even surpass, the requirements of:
National Instrument 52-110-Audit Committees (as amended “NI 52-110”), which sets out rules regarding the composition and responsibilities of public company audit committees,
National Policy 58-201 Corporate Governance Guidelines and
National Instrument 58-101-Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices.”
I am currently using the Canadian National Policy 58-201 which outlines the guidelines that Canadian Companies should follow.
Is this appropriate or should I be using the OECD or the UK governance code?
Your response is greatly appreciated.
MahindraMarch 16, 2020 at 6:04 pm
@sufiya – Simply call your company Sports Direct and mention in your conclusion that one of the consequences of the weak governance is that they are now operating under the Fraser Group brand as the latter has a better public image.
Most of the issues occurred between about 2014 and onwards so you are fine doing this company for P40 and P41March 16, 2020 at 6:14 pm
@mahindra89 – Your report should compare what the company says it did (annual report) with what it actually did (reported in the media and/or perhaps in government reports) and make comparisons with best practice, So that means looking at the Canadian National Policy 58-201 and the principles and provisions of other Codes that have been held up as being examples of good governance potentially aspects of either or both the OECD and UK Codes where relevant.
You need to focus on what the company has done wrong and any changes that have been made in the light of this – see this for a few ideas https://businesslawblogsite.com/2017/05/11/serious-governance-problems-at-bombardier-2/
Also consider the impact of the weak governance on the various different groups of stakeholdersMarch 17, 2020 at 8:21 am
Thank you for replying @trephena
I have few doubts and highly appreciate your response.
I am wondering how to frame Part 3 of my Project. There are many issues so how do I address them ?. For eg. the mistreatment of Employees and Failure to disclose Related Party Transactions etc. Maybe a structured format as such ??
Secondly, The FY 2019 annual report is published and is the latest one. So around 2018 Sports direct acquired house of Fraser that went into administration but it was later addressed that it was a wrong move and it made a negative impact in FS. After the annual report FY 2019 was published, around December 2019 there were some positive impacts such as rise in share price due to house of fraser acquisition and it will be only reflected in 2020 Annual Report which is not yet published. Should I address this issue as initially they faced criticisms from shareholders but now the acquisition is not a bad move?
Once again, thank you for your prompt response.March 24, 2020 at 9:58 am
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
If you look through previous posts you will see that it is a good idea to use the headings from the UK CG Code (2014 or 2016 they are both very similar) to help structure your work. Use the Principles as headings and then discuss what the Code says (in brief i.e. main points), what the company says it did from its annual reports and compare these with the reality of what SP actually did. Go through each principle like this in turn.
The issues with the employees relate to poor corporate culture and leadership and weak strategy and risk analysis so you could deal with these when looking at what the Code says about each of these.
Related Party transactions would go under Principle C – Accountability
The House of Fraser issue is again poor strategy and evidence of lack of effectiveness of the NEDs and Board (Principle B) – probably as the Board of SP is not really independent no-one dared to stand up to Mike Ashley. You can also bring this point out when discussing the role of the Chairman as the Code envisages that the chairman should be independent and capable of standing up to the Board and that no-one (e.g. the CEO) should have ‘unfettered powers’.
Discuss the impacts of the ‘bad move’ both with Principle E and also when you do your stakeholder analysis (which could come towards the end just before the Conclusion)April 4, 2020 at 2:31 am
Someone please help me out, my topic was 17 in recent submittion period 17. The examiner told me that they failed me on a technical aspect that I WAS UNABLE TO SUBMIT A SPREADSHEET which was a requirement of the project. But, my mentor told me that do not need one for this topic.
Please guide me on how appeal as I have worked so hard on this project. Following are my remarks:
Feedback is provided where a criteria is a Fail
Technical and Professional Skills
1. Understanding of Accountancy/Business Models: Pass
2. Application of Accountancy/Business Models: Pass
3. Evaluation of Information, Analysis And Conclusions: Pass
4. Presentation of Project Findings: Pass
Overall Technical and Professional Skills: Pass
5. Communication: Pass
6. Information Gathering and Referencing: Pass
7. Information Technology: Fail
You have not submitted a spreadsheet. It is a project requirement to include a
spreadsheet and within it demonstrate your proficiency in generating data from the use of
Overall Graduate Skills: Fail
Research Report overall assessment: Fail
Skills & Learning Statement
8. Self-reflection: Pass
9. Communication Skills (inc Presentation): Pass
Skills and Learning Statement overall assessment: Pass
Overall RAP Result: Fail
You have produced a competent project and reflective statement but unfortunately this is
a technical fail for the lack of the submission of a spreadsheet.
Moderator agrees with Marker’s commentsApril 4, 2020 at 7:35 am
This question has been answered elsewhere
Please do NOT post the same question mote than once -it is not necessaryApril 4, 2020 at 8:31 pm
@trephena I apologize, I posted the same question to 3 forums as I wasn’t sure which forum was the correct one.May 27, 2020 at 2:48 pm
@Gillian, I am gonna be writing on Deutsche Bank as suggested by you. I remember you posted some links. I hope it wont be very hard.June 8, 2020 at 9:47 am
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
I actually think now in most cases it is easier to use a UK case because you can then use the UK CG Code [2016 or possibly the new 2018 version] as your framework – which helps make for a better structure for Part 3.
German CG is rather different from the UK system because of the duality of Boards and I don’t think the Kodex is set out in quite the same way [there is a lot of detail that I think in the UK would be covered in our legislation and/or in the company Articles and Memorandum of Association] which makes it more difficult to use as a framework.
Possibly what you could do, which is something I do if students use a US company:, is use the UK Code as the framework but then compare and contrast what the board did, what it said it did – not always the same thing [see press statements and annual reports] and compare these to the applicable national code [if there is one] but also compare this with the UK Code as an example of ‘best practice’
So whilst I wouldn’t now say don’t do Deutsche Bank I think you have to think about how you are going to structure your report so that it flows well and you cover the important issues relating to Board behaviour (culture, integrity, independence and skills & competence) and any relevant legislation such as anti-money laundering and corruption.June 9, 2020 at 11:03 am
Thanks @Gillian I think I will drop the idea of a German company now. I don’t want something that would be too complex. Would you suggest or recommend a UK company that I could use?June 13, 2020 at 3:26 pm
Hi Ms. @Gillian ,
im willing to take opic 17 for my obu thesis, it is a big 4 firm that let go a client with money laundering in dubai in 2013, the case is with courts since then, but the final 6 hearing and final word by court was out in 2020.
Is this ok to be taken as a case, considering the 5 year frame requirement by topic 17?
Your guidance will be highly appreciated.June 14, 2020 at 9:07 am
I spoke with my mentor for the first time. He said writing topic 17 would require primary data. I live in Nigeria, would I be at a disadvantage writing topic 17? I noticed the trend that most students from Nigeria writes topic 8, which uses only secondary data.June 16, 2020 at 10:50 pm
Sorry but that is nonsense. I have mentored dozens for students for Topic 17 successfully and only one student has ever used any primary data for her report.
Please go to https://www.brookes.ac.uk/acca/for-students/resources-for-rap-students/
and scroll down to the sheet on primary data and it will show exactly which topics normally require primary data – and you will see that for Topic 17 it clearly states ‘not essential’.June 17, 2020 at 10:52 am
Is the wates corporate gov principles model appropriate for using in t17 project?June 19, 2020 at 8:37 am
Hi melonny05 – I think to a point, choice of company may depend on what grade you want. For example a report done well on Deutsche Bank could get you a higher grade but would be harder to do whereas if you are happy with a just a pass and a C grade then there are some UK companies that would be ideal e.g. Carillion as you can use the UK CG Code 2016 to structure it and the information is readily available because there was a Parliamentary Report. However because Carillion is SO popular it has to be exceptionally good to get a higher grade.June 19, 2020 at 9:05 am
Hi shriyamc15 – I would suggest that you check with firstname.lastname@example.org pointing out that although the incident(s) happened earlier they mainly only came to light in the last 5 years and get their permission to use the company that you have chosen. That way you won’t have wasted any efforts in doing the company if they are then going to disallow it [also it they agree, include a copy of their email with your submission to show the marker you were permitted to submit on it]
Regarding your second question – I always recommend using a Code to help structure your work as it may focus you on main areas where there may have been weaknesses. So even if your chosen company falls outside the conditions below Wates may still provide an appropriate structure.
The Wates Principles were produced by the FRC to deal with large private companies who, because they are not listed on a stock exchange, would not have to comply with the normal UK Code (though of course they could always choose to do so). This new reporting requirement applies to all companies that satisfy either or both of the following conditions:
• more than 2,000 employees;
• a turnover of more than £200 million, and a balance sheet of more than £2 billion.
Also under the new The Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018
26. (1) The directors’ report must include a statement (a “statement of corporate governance arrangements”) which states: (a) which corporate governance code, if any, the company applied in the ?nancial year, (b) how the company applied any corporate governance code reported under sub-paragraph (a), and (c) if the company departed from any corporate governance code reported under sub-paragraph (a), the respects in which it did so, and its reasons for so departing.
26. (2) If the company has not applied any corporate governance code for the ?nancial year, the statement of corporate governance arrangements must explain the reasons for that decision and explain what arrangements for corporate governance were applied for that year.
It is hoped that the Principles together with s172-175 of the UK Companies Act 2006 will help protect broader stakeholders’ interests and not just shareholders.
So if you feel it is appropriate to use Wates for your company then by all means use it and you may also where you think it demonstrates best practice, cite from the normal Code and any appropriate legislation such as anti-money laundering
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.