- This topic has 180 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
“FaceBook making the headlines like this is demonstrating signs of weak CG – see
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46231284
It is the CEO who should be setting strategy and the Chairman scrutinising it -neither of which Mark Zuckenberg seems to be doing! It again emphasises how CG in the US lags behind the UK by not encouraging the separation of these two key roles. There are also problems in the way shareholder power is weakened in this organisation (and several major big name US companies) giving more voting weight to powerful insiders (directors and founder) to weaken any potential toshareholder dissent. See:
https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/facebook-alphabet-corporate-governance-1202869861/
Someone has to take responsibility for the Cambridge Analytica incident – It is not acceptable to be ignorant of what is going on in your own company (just like VW’s board with the emissions scandal could not escape liability as ignorance is no defence) and the buck stops at the top i.e. with the CEO
There are clearly many issues at FB both with CG and its CSR (all the tax avoidance measures it takes worldwide and the moral responsibility it has to prevent fake news, bullying and pressures on vulnerable adolescents and children) as well as the Cambridge Analytica issue. This means it could also be used quite successfully for T20 too -depending on where you yourself decide to put the focus”
Hi, I Did the T17 in period 32 and now want to resubmit, can i still submit under old topic or do i have to change my topic to new version for period 38? please advise
You can check with acca@brookes.ac.uk
Even if not mandatory, I would advise you to go with the new title. The old title was changed because the reports were very ‘wishy-washy’ whereas the new title has a more practical aspect to it. Consequently demonstrating good analysis and evaluation (the most common reason for failure) is easier and a pass more likely with the new title and requirements
Hello guys,
Sorry this may be a silly question, I’ve finished writing the RAP for next submission and having some difficulties with my mentor’s feedback. She is happy with the content in all three parts but it’s the layout that she’s suggesting that I amend. I just wanted to get a second opinion.
The first disagreement we have is how to introduce the issues at Carillion and corporate governance. In part 1 of my RAP I’ve introduced some of the key issues briefly that occurred to ‘set the scene’. I’ve then gone on to give a brief intro into how corporate governance has developed since Cadbury. She has said that I should introduce corporate governance in part 2 when I introduce the Corporate Governance Code as my business/accounting model and introduce the issues in my part 3 before the analysis.
Second is my project title. I believe from reading the information pack is that the title should follow the topic picked and have the chosen company adapted into the title ie ‘A critical evaluation of Carillion Plc’s corporate governance practices including an assessment of the origins of the corporate governance issues and the organisation’s response’ however my Mentor has said this in not the case. She has suggested a title along the lines of ‘An evaluation of the corporate governance issues at Carillion Plc that led to the liquidation of the company’.
I’m probably overthinking but I just want to get a first time pass before I fall back into the pressure of my final exams!!!
I don’t normally like to comment about another mentor’s advice unless it is clearly wrong and I think a student is being seriously misled.
I have to say on the first point I am up there with your mentor and have advised my own mentees to do a potted history of CG either in Part 2 or at the very beginning of Part 3 to set the scene and to introduce the CG Code in a logical way. This way the finindings then flow as you go on to discuss Carillion in the context of weak CG.
Regarding title I support you -this is based on having been a BSc Applied Accounting marker and an exam marker. All markers (including exam markers) are always a bit cagey about people who stretch a given topic title and twist it to suit their own preferences -time and again it comes up that students answer the question they hoped would come up rather than the one actually stipulated. I take your side especially as your emphasis should be evaluating the weak governance practices and not describing the factors that led to the liquidation -there is a subtle difference. That said, the marker will focus on your content and at the end of the day that is how they will judge your report. (Ironically in P37 I encountered this problem the other way round and had a student who insisted on using an alternative title although I warned against it!)
- The topic ‘(Archive) T17 Corporate Governance’ is closed to new replies.