- This topic has 147 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
This forum topic has been create to deal with the new title and requirements for Topic 17 from Period 39 onwards:
“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.”
Hello Trephena and Gillian, thank you for the great work you both are doing here.
I am currently working on topic 17 and plan to submit this May.
Please I have a question – should the list of references be part of the research report and, therefore, contribute to the 7,500 word count limit or should the reference list be in a separate word document all by itself and, therefore, not contribute towards the 7,500 word count limit?
On page 19 of the OBU guide, it is stated that the research report should be submitted as a Word document and it is also stated that the reference list should be submitted as a Word document. Does this mean, therefore, that there should be two Word documents, i.e. one for the research report and another one for the reference list?
Thanks for your help.
Yes it is important that before you submit that you ensure that the reference list is replicated in a separate file (in fact it is often easier for you to check your references if this is how you set out your work from the beginning) and delete the version in the repot document.
The word count includes the in text references but excludes the actual reference list (basically the count is that for the whole report document but if you have a lot of graphs and diagrams pasted as images you need to allow some words for these).
The markers can get a bit uptight if you do not remove the reference list as you will be making their task harder – first they will have to ascertain what the actual word count is and then when they check the references they will be forced to keep scrolling up and down in the report. As these take up precious marking time you will not be endearing yourself to them!
Hello,
I’m about to start my dissertation and I want to know if I can use Carilion Plc for my dissertation. Just wanted to know since the company as liquidate.
Thanks
Yes Carillion may be used for Topic 17.
If you are intending to submit in Period 38 you need to really get on with things -5 weeks is cutting it very fine and my advice would be to take your time and go for Period 39 instead as there is not really sufficient time left now to do the report now plus SLS and Presentation.
BTW it is a report NOT a dissertation.
Thank you, i will be submitting for period 39
@trephena said:
Yes Carillion may be used for Topic 17.If you are intending to submit in Period 38 you need to really get on with things -5 weeks is cutting it very fine and my advice would be to take your time and go for Period 39 instead as there is not really sufficient time left now to do the report now plus SLS and Presentation.
BTW it is a report NOT a dissertation.
I had 3 students use Carillion in P37 and at least 6 in P38 (their choice not me pushing them into it I hasten to add – though I do specialise in Topic 17)
Whilst it is a suitable company my fear when it is so popular is that it makes it harder to get a higher grade – though as there is such an abundance of material on it and so many CG issues it should make for a very interesting report.
Good luck!
Hi
I’m doing my RAP on topic 17 (Carillion)
I’m confused as to what “including an assessment of the origins of the
corporate governance issue(s)” really means. What does the marker expect to see with regard to this part of the topic?
I have explained the weaknesses of the company and related it to the CG code.
Shall I explain how these weaknesses came into existence in the first place?Thanks for your help.
The origins of the corporate governance issues lie with poor strategies and it was the responsibility of the Chairman and NEDs to challenge these. These strategies impacted on cash flow and debt. Inappropriate accounting policies implemented by the CFOs added to the problems resulting in over statement of profits and overpayment of dividends and bonuses which were financed by further debt. Meanwhile KPMG Sat idly by and did not identify the existing risks and either through incompetence or collusion assisted the Board in hiding the precarious position the company had been in for since at least 2015.
Thank You so much Gillian!
I have highlighted those points as corporate governance issues. Will try to connect everything together in a paragraph.
Also, I have another question.
I was wondering if it is a must to include the recommendation section in Part 3. Since the company has already gone into liquidation I’m not sure if a recommendation is necessary.
I was thinking of giving a general recommendation on how to avoid another case like Carillion. Will that be alright?
Thank you
The requirement is for ‘recommendations if appropriate’. Not all topics need them and certainly as Carillion collapsed there is nothing to recommend – although if you want you could do something along the lines you suggest, however anyone who doesn’t do recommendations shouldn’t be penalised.
(Most of my students aren’t doing any because they are already struggling with word count)!
Hi,
I’m struggling with word count (doing my RAP on topic 17-Carillion). I decided to skip the recommendation but am now struggling to fit the conclusion within word count.
What would be an ideal word count for the conclusion?
What should I cover in the conclusion? A conclusion of the whole project (starting from part 1) or a conclusion of part 3 only?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
Hello,
I am working on Volkswagen and facing difficulties in presenting accounting and business model used as I could not find enough data for German Code of corporate governance to explain its theoretical framework and limitations.
I would highly appreciate if anyone can guide me regarding this.
Thanks
Sorry for the delay in replying but I am busy mentoring my students who are submitting in P38.
A copy of the German corporate governance code (the German Kodex) should be available online, however as this topic is about weak governance generally in a company and applying best practice you could also bring in aspects of the OECD corporate governance code and / or the UK Code (the OECD one has 6 principles but most of them are similar to the UK Code)
You should aim to indicate weak aspects of governance in VW and although none of my mentees are doing this company the principle that Boards are responsible for the long term sustainability of a company would apply. I would expect a focus on inappropriate strategies and lack of scrutiny of these strategies (in particular the decision to try to break laws and the lack of ethics in designing equipment to circumvent emission records) which is normally the duty of the Board. If they didn’t know about these then they had not instilled the relevant culture in the company – again their responsibility.
When we talk about corporate governance, these are the powers given to the incumbent to make certain decisions in a way that adds value to the company within prescribed frameworks.I have worked in risk advisory and when you want to objectively identify the weaknesses of corporate governance, you have to dig deep. I will give you some few real examples I have come across in my career(in generic form)
1. The CEO invested $12million in buying a farm with the intent to convert it into a residential area as the city was expanding. In the jurisdiction concerned, land is highly regulated with even a more tricky, yet complex legal framework. My observation was that the agreements of sale were signed exactly on the same day the board sat to approve this investment(according to the board minutes, this might have been anywhere 4 hours after the board meeting). So what went wrong? Only one legal procedure missed stalled a multimillion investment for several years of course later on leading to the dismissal of the CEO. What was the root cause? Too much powers in the hands of the CEO and executive management. Any predecessor could have come in and made exactly the same mistake. Even though there was a board investment committe specifically formed to deal with issues of investment, there were no prior minutes to indicate that the committee was ever involved in the investment decison which later on became a highlly costly one.The firm had an independent legal counsel which could have been consulted for legal perspective regarding all intricacies relating to the Land Act, but this was never done. The Real Estate industry has no shortage of qualified experts who could have provided valuable advice regarding the questionable value of the property(market related), but none was consulted. Guess what?The Board sat for three hours and still approved this investment. Rings the bells? There is a very famous case in South Africa which dates back to 1994. It`s called the Pharmaceuticals Case, would lay down the principle that, when an incumbent is charged with a duty of fiduciary responsibility, there is a duty on that incumbent to exercise such authority in a fair and judicious manner, taking into consideration all complexities which come with making such decisions. The ignorance to the complex legal framework, too much powers at operations, disyfunctional investment committee made up of board members,no proper due diligence procedures actually make the case why this company is in dire straits.
2. A server failed due to wear and tear regardless of several reports written by the systems administrator stating that this issue had to be a priority. IT was never at all represented in the board and executive meetings. Partly represented in executive meetings by a Finance Manager whose capability maturity levels were questionable. All what the board did was to move IT risk from amber to red. No way! What failed here is lack of governance of enterprise IT. That is the root cause. Digging deep, there wasn`t even any IT portifolio management system and therefore any asset could still age and fail.
3.The once lucrative investment property made head lines for wrong reasons 3 years later. 63% of the land was deemed a wetland and the judge who heard the case ruled in favour of lobbying groups and the regulator. Only 37% of the $6m worth of a property could be developed for the benefit of the client`s business model. The risk matrix even after this did not include regulatory risk as a significant risk.
The mentor will never teach you the underlying technicalities of any topic. That’s what you should know yourself. You must have a detailed understanding at finger tips on what is the authority, responsbility and powers of the board and executive management and all applicable frameworks e.g ERM which are designed to assist the board in achieving its objectives. Weaknesses could easily emanate from disyfunctional frameworks, abuse of powers, too much powers on one individual e.g Carlos Ghosn of Nissan. Ghosn held the position of CEO and Chairman in the same group and his unfettered powers would lead to opportunities( one of Donald Crisy’s cause of fraud in the fraud triangle) for fraud. I could go further to question the logic behind one person being the CEO and Chairperson as these executive and non executive board members respectively. Infact one can also mention that this is still aproblem today at corporate.
@tinaboy -a very interesting post and I agree with your avatar badge -that yes, corruption does indeed hurt all and I thoroughly condone and applaud the work of Transparency International in their continued fight against fraud, bribery and corruption worldwide.
However as far as the Oxford Brookes RAP goes your comment “The mentor will never teach you the underlying technicalities of any topic” is not really appropriate in this context. I cannot of course speak for all, but I am sure many like me, aim to encourage wider reading and awareness of issues relevant to the particular RAP topic chosen and develop critical thinking skills. However students come to us to guide them through what for many of them is their first piece of academic work with no real appreciation of semi-formal report writing, are ‘distant-learners’ and with whom, because of the nature of the task, we spend very little face to face time.
With campus based students on Masters courses in Corporate Governance I certainly introduced Cressey’s Fraud Triangle and Transparency International and the focus of my lectures was always examples of worldwide corruption and financial scandals. I aimed to help students recognise the serious threat that such crimes pose to society. ‘White Collar Crime’, Bribery and Corruption are never victimless crimes and we all pay the price for them. The horrific fact is that the proceeds of these fuel further crimes and undermine society -as you say yourself “Corruption hurts all”
I hear what you are saying. Let me rephrase it. In my opinion, the mentor is not expected to teach a student what is corporate governance and the understanding of the concepts overarching a research topic is what the student must have before they choose the topic. What you are saying about guidance towards further reading is all true and I just wanted to put this point across so it can be understood within context.
I am very cautious when I apply certain models or theories and the reason why I picked OPPORTUNITY as a driver of fraud from the fraud triangle is because the research topic is about weaknesses of CG. One of the duties of the board of directors is to design an effective system of internal controls to reduce risks like fraud to an acceptable level. We all agree that the system does not always work due to factors like conspiracy etc, but now when it comes to opportunities , these are a product of weak or dysfucntional governance practices.
Dear Trephena,
Firstly thank you so much for setting up this website its been tremendously helpful.
My questions is, for the first part of evaluation of my company based in UK, my plan has been to list each CG area and analyze how the company does in each area eg. Leadership, effectiveness etc.
Then 2nd part will be management reaction to the weaknesses identified above
And part 3 to use mendelows matrix to identify stakeholders, then analyze how weaknesses affect them.Is this an OK structure? Is this wide enough research?
For part 1, is it OK to list CG area 1 by 1 and evaluate or better to only focus on areas where CG weakness is suspected.
Is using one business model sufficient?
Lastly how would I use graphs for CG? A lot of it seems like theory compared to Topic 8 where lots of calculations are required. Sorry if I’m asking too much. Appreciate any help u can give
Yes that might be an appropriate framework and structure to work your way through the main principles of the CG Code. Bearing In mind that some areas of the Code may not be particularly relevant, you should focus on the ones where weak governance is prevalent.
Alternatively you can outline each point of weak governance and compare with the Code and best practice.
Normally there is some scope for numerical calculations e.g. percentage fall in share price. The IT requirements are minimal currently – the spreadsheet needs to show actual use of formulae. Just a couple of these and a few graphs will suffice.
Looking for s suitable company for this Topic? Then Deutsche Bank could be the answer. Here are a couple of articles to help get you started.
,https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46382722
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48898234BTW if looking for a grade higher than a C, I would advise against choosing Carillion now as it is has become the ‘vanilla’ company for Topic 17. Still a good choice if you want an easy route to a pass though, it will require a report that demonstrates a good approach and excellent critical thinking to achieve an A grade.
Hello trephena
hope you are doing well
I have finally decided to go with topic 17 CG and can you please help me out with structuring the project as in for source of information
what should I include in this section ?
and for ethical issues what should be written on this section as welland also would like to know
can we put pictures from google in the project ?There is a basic structure for the report set out in the Information Pack. Unlike with Old Topic 17 it is not possible to prescribe an exact structure or layout. However depending on the organisation it may be possible to use a CG Code as a framework and use the principles as headings and evaluate the company’s weak governance against it. Alternatively you set out the weaknesses and then compare them with best practice (Code and/or legislation) and discuss implications.
The main sources will be the CG Code, the company’s annual reports (including the CG report and if appropriate, its Risk Assessment statement) + articles from the business press
You may put in pictures but these should be used sparingly (over use of photos makes the report look less professional). Graphs and diagrams are also usually necessary.
Hello everyone
I would to like clear some queries regarding my project.
I have start doing the project and tried to use some heading and then explaining them in details with information.My headings are like this
* Sources used to collect information
* Methods use to collect information
*limitation of information gatheringand the other one is
* methodology and it’s limitationsis it all the same, or If I just put this * methodology and it’s limitations instead of all other three would it still work out ?
Your comments are highly appreciated
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.