Analyse the corporate governance practices of a given organisation and identify challenges in terms of sustainability and risk. Interpretandcritically analyse organisationa
Analyse the corporate governance practices of a given organisation and identify challenges in terms of sustainability and risk. Interpretandcritically analyse organisational risk and sustainability practice, prepare a report, and deliver a presentation that addresses challenges and opportunities.
Assessment Description
As the capstone unit, this subject requires students to bring together their accounting and governance knowledge and techniques developed within prior subjects and throughout this course and apply these to the interpretation, analysis and critique of present-day business and governance practices to identify problems and to propose solutions. Building on students’ in-depth understanding of relevant theories and practices already developed in accounting and governance and their proficiency in the tools and techniques, this assessment further develops research, analytical, critical thinking and problem-solving skills demanded by the accounting profession in the 21st Century.
Specifically for this assessment, using a given case study, students will analyse the corporate governance practices of an organisation, identify, and explain stakeholder concerns, and recommend appropriate actions to address the issues and contribute to the business strategy and goals. Students will be required to continue with the same case study assigned for Assessment 1.
Assessment Instructions
Critically analyse and evaluate the policies, sustainability, risk and remuneration practises of an assigned company case.
Based on your analysis and evaluation, prepare a written business report of 1,500 words (+/-10%) to those responsible for governance. In your report:
1. Identify any problems/issues of concern facing stakeholders.
2. Provide advice and recommend good corporate governance practices which will resolve these issues and positively contribute to the business strategy and goals of your company. 3. Provide a summary of the significance, benefits, and challenges of producing sustainability reports for your company and the specific industry within which it operates.
Support your advice and recommendations with intext referencing. Use a variety of sources including accounting standards, ASX corporate governance principles and recommendations, academic journal articles, textbooks and any other sources relating to “best practice corporate governance,” “sustainability,” and “risk management practices.”
Submit the report to Turnitin by the Sunday of Week 10.
Using the report findings, prepare a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation to the stakeholders. This will be presented in the class of Week 11.
• Assume the audience to be stakeholders who may not have the same level of accounting and governance knowledge as you.
• Use intext references and provide a reference list (last PP slide). You must reference each source as per KBS referencing guidelines.
This is an individual assessment that requires an out of class preparation of a report for submission by Turnitin Sunday, Week 10 (20 Marks), and the subsequent delivery of a 5-minute summary presentation of the report in-class Week 11 (20 Marks).
This assessment will be marked according to the “Assessment Marking Guide” on page 6.
Instructions to use GenAI/ChatGPT for the memorandum and presentation. This assessment is level 2. For this assessment, using GenAI is optional. (see page 5)
You CAN:
✓ Use GenAI/ChatGPT to understand concepts, create ideas, and generate content. You must present your own reflection and understanding.
✓ Use the ideas/information generated by GenAI after cross-referencing them with other reliable sources. You must reference all resources used including GenAI (Referencing)
You CAN NOT:
🗴 Copy and paste the response generated by GenAI in your submission.
🗴 Copy and paste assessment instructions into GenAI as it is KBS’s intellectual property. 🗴 Depend only on the responses provided by GenAI.
Attention: Directly copying responses without critical engagement, no proper citation, or using GenAI against assessment instructions, will be penalised.
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
Please read the policy to learn the answers to these questions:
• What is academic integrity and misconduct?
• What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
• How can I appeal my grade?
Late submission of assignments (within the Assessment Policy)
Length Limits for Assessments
Penalties may be applied for assessment submissions that exceed prescribed limits.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Further details can be accessed at
Generative AI Traffic Lights
Please see the level of Generative AI that this assessment has been designed to accept:
Traffic Light
Amount of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI) usage
Evidence Required
This
assessment (✓)
Level 1
Prohibited:
No Generative AI allowed
This assessment showcases your individual knowledge, skills and/or personal
experiences in the absence of Generative AI support.
The use of generative AI is prohibited for this assessment and may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment.
Level 2
Optional:
You may use Generative AI for research and content generation that is
appropriately referenced.
See assessment instructions for details
This assessment allows you to engage with Generative AI as a means of expanding yourunderstanding, creativity, and idea
generation in the research phase of your assessment and to produce content that enhances your assessment. I.e., images. You do not have to use it.
The use of Gen AI is optional for this assessment.
Your collaboration with Generative AI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference Generative AI.
In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your Generative AI
collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment
instructions in the section above.
✓
Level 3
Compulsory:
You must use Generative AI to complete your assessment
See assessment instruction for details
This assessment fully integrates Generative AI, allowing you to harness the technology’s full potential in collaboration with your own expertise.
Always check your assessment instructions carefully as there may still be limitations on what constitutes acceptable use, and these may be specific to each assessment.
You will be taught how to use generative AIand assessed on its use.
Your collaboration with Generative AI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference Generative AI.
In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI
collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment
instructions in the section above.
Assessment Marking Guide
CASE ANALYSIS AND REPORT (20 MARKS)
HD (High Distinction)
8.5 – 10 marks
D (Distinction)
7.5 – 8.25 marks
CR (Credit)
6.5 – 7.25 marks
P (Pass)
5 – 6.25 marks
F (Fail)
0 – 4.75 marks
Analysisof case.
10 Marks
All areas addressed with clear analysis provided.
The main points are
logically ordered, with a sharp sense of structuring and arranging key
information.
Supporting details are
specific to the main points, with sufficient facts and other evidence provided and well-articulated.
Most areas are addressed with clear analysis provided.
Evidence of a suitable
structuring of paper that enables readers to
understand key points.
Supporting details are
related to the main points, with facts and other
evidence provided.
Some areas either not addressed or analysis unclear.
Evidence of structure
sufficient to enable some understanding by
readers.
Supporting details are
mostly related to the main points, with other
evidence provided.
Some evidence of
analysis, some areas not addressed.
Unclear structure does
not enhance
understanding by
readers.
Other details provided
with an attempt to support main points.
Little evidence of either addressing or analysing required areas.
Unsatisfactory structure which detracts from or prevents understanding by readers.
Main points unclear or
unsupported.
Identification and
explanation of
accounting theories,
guidelines and
principles relevant to
the case AND
referencing.
10 Marks
Clearly identifies and
discusses the relevant theories, guidelines and principles.
Discussion includes
reference to academic
journals/articles,
professional guidelines and reporting standards.
A strong reference list and relevant and credible
sources are used with
evidence of extensive
research.
Clearly identified and
discussed the relevant
accounting theories.
Discussion includes
reference to academic journals/articles,
professional guidelines and reporting standards.
A good reference list and with sound evidence of research.
Identified and discussed the relevant accounting theories.
Discussion includes
some reference to
academic
journals/articles,
professional guidelines and reporting standards.
Reference list is provided with some evidence of research.
Not completely identified and discussed the relevant accounting theories.
Discussion occasionally references academic
journals/articles,
professional guidelines or reporting standards.
References used are not adequate and limited
evidence of research.
Did not identify or vaguely considers theories,
guidelines and principles.
Discussion does not
reference academic
journals/articles,
professional guidelines or reporting standards.
Minimal evidence of
research or referencing.
Page 6 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline 2024 T3
IN CLASS PRESENTATION (20 MARKS)
HD (High Distinction)
4.25 – 5 marks
D (Distinction)
3.75 – 4 marks
CR (Credit)
3.25 – 3.5 marks
P (Pass)
2.5 – 3 marks
F (Fail)
0 – 2.25 marks
Delivery – use of
visual aids.
5 Marks
Delivery integrates graphics and text well into
presentation.
Delivery is appropriately concise for the content and, together with visuals,
provides clear context for the audience.
Delivery integrates graphics and text well into presentation.
Delivery is mostly concise and provides clear context for audience
Delivery integrates mostly text
Delivery provides context but without conciseness. OR
Delivery is concise but without clear context.
Delivery includes minimal integration
Delivery provides minimal context and lacks clarity and conciseness
No evidence of
integration
Delivery is unable to be understood by audience. OR
Slides not used
Delivery – verbal / non verbal
5 Marks
Presenter demonstrates clear enthusiasm for both their audience and her own work.
Uses a clear voice and correct, precise
pronunciation of terms.
Presenter delivers with a high level of
professionalism.
Presenter demonstrates clear enthusiasm for both their audience and their own work.
Uses a consistent voice
including volume and
cadence.
Presenter delivers with a good level of professionalism.
Presenter demonstrates some awareness of
audience.
Voice impacted by cadence (rushed speech) or regular reading.
Presenter demonstrates a reasonable attempt at professional delivery.
Presenter mostly absorbed in delivery rather than
audience or content.
Voice significantly impedes delivery or involves
consistent reading.
Satisfactory delivery
Presenter demonstrates disregard of audience
Monotoned or unintelligible voice
Inappropriate delivery
Alignment with
memorandum
5 Marks
Presentation clearly aligns with memorandum
provided by presenter (i.e., it addresses all key points and only key points
included).
Presentation primarily aligns with memorandum provided by presenter (i.e., it
addresses most of the key points and follows structure and emphasis).
Presentation demonstrates some alignment with
memorandum provided by presenter (i.e., it addresses several of the key points; may also introduce
additional content/opinion).
Presentation demonstrates attempt at alignment with memorandum provided by presenter (i.e., some of the key points are
recognisable).
Alignment not evident (the presentation does not
appear to be based on the memorandum provided).
Presentation content5 Marks
Presentation is technically correct.
Presentation supported by relevant sources.
All sources correctly
referenced.
Presentation is technically correct.
Presentation mostly
supported by relevant
sources.
Most sources correctly
referenced.
Presentation is mostly
correct technically.
Presentation mostly
supported by sources.
Referencing errors evident.
Presentation is partially
correct technically.
Presentation partially
supported by sources.
Referencing is often omitted.
Presentation includes
material technical errors
Presentation is unsupported by sources.
Referencing does not relate to sources used in
presentation; or entirely
omitted.
Academic Integrity
Engaging in any form of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism, collusion, falsification of research or data, and improper use of
