This is Accounting Society
Background: In a 2018 article titled “Nightmare for RFG Franchisees and shareholders is just getting started.” by Adele Ferguson (The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March 2018) she states: “RFG has presided over a deeply flawed business model in an industry that has lost its way thanks to soft regulation and a franchise code that clearly isn’t working… In a nutshell, RFG has put profits before franchisees and it is now paying the price… Instead of fulfilling a dream to own their own business, franchisees were gouged every way they turned. Franchising fees, royalties, training, marketing fund fees and paying top dollar to RFG for supplies left them with little or no money to pay themselves of their workers…” Required: Assume you are a management consultant for the Australian Shareholders’ Association and have been tasked with preparing a submission to a Parliamentary Inquiry into Food Franchising. Your submission should focus on the following: a) Applying arguments developed from an agency theory approach, discuss whether the RFG business model considered the interests of shareholders. You should review the RFG business model and refer to RFG’s financial statements to find relevant examples to support your analysis; and b) In the context of the managerial branch of stakeholder theory, identify RFG’s key stakeholders discuss whether the RFG business model considered their interest, providing examples to justify your response. c) Provide recommendations on how existing regulation could be enhanced to better protect all stakeholders. MAA310 Accounting and Society Assessment Task 1 Marking rubric – Written submission T3 2018 Marking Criteria 50 N P C D HD Executive Summary /5 0-2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0-5.0 A correctly structured executive summary is included in the submission. The submission does not include an executive summary, or the submission includes an executive summary, but it does not provide a summary of the contents of the submission. The submission includes an executive summary, but it includes very limited information on the content of the submission. The submission includes an executive summary that logically summarises some of the contents of the submission. The submission includes an executive summary that logically and coherently summarises all aspects of the submission, but also includes irrelevant information or extraneous detail. The submission includes an executive summary that logically and coherently summarises all aspects of the submission. Introduction /5 0-2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0-5.0 The purpose and background of the submission is briefly introduced. Little or no evidence of the purpose of the submission or background of RFG; The purpose of the submission and background are present but limited. The purpose of the submission and background are generally clear and appropriate. The purpose of the submission and background are clear and appropriate. A sophisticated awareness of the purpose of the submission and background is evident. Response to task /25 0-12.0 12.5-14.5 15.0-17.0 17.5-19.5 20.0-25.0 a) Identifies and discusses the RFG business model and evaluate whether the management acts in the best interest of shareholders, applying arguments developed from agency theory approach. /10 0 - 4.5 5 - 5.5 6 - 6.5 7 - 7.5 8 - 10 RFG business model is not identified; Agency theory is not defined. The submission does not evaluate the impacts of the current business model on RFG’s shareholders applying an agency theory approach. RFG business model is identified but incomplete. The submission defines agency theory. The submission does not evaluate the impacts of the current business model on RFG’s shareholders applying an agency theory approach. RFG business model is identified. Agency theory is defined. The submission evaluates at least one impact of the current business model on RFG’s shareholders. Application of the agency theory is not linked to the business model or the links to the theory are vague. RFG business model is identified. Agency theory is defined. The submission evaluates two impacts of the current business model on RFG’s shareholders. Application of the agency theory is linked to the business model makes general and consistent links between the identified arguments and the theory. RFG business model is identified. Agency theory is defined. The submission evaluates all the impacts of the current business model on RFG’s shareholders. Application of the agency theory is explicitly, logically, consistently and correctly linked to the business model. 15 b) Evaluates the RFG business model and the impacts of this model applying arguments developed from a stakeholder theory approach. (Note: There is no requirement to repeat the RFG business model) /15 0 – 7.5 8 - 9 10 -11.5 12 -13 14 -15 Stakeholder theory is not defined. No identification of RFG stakeholders. The submission does not evaluate the impacts of the RFG business model applying a stakeholder theory approach. Stakeholder theory is defined and at least one (1) of the stakeholders are identified. The submission does not evaluate the impacts on the RFG business model applying the stakeholder theory approach. Stakeholder theory is defined and at least two (2) of the stakeholders are identified. The submission evaluates the impacts on the RFG business model applying the stakeholder theory, but the arguments are not linked to the theory or the links to the theory are vague. Stakeholder theory is defined, and all of the stakeholders are identified. The submission evaluates the impacts on the RFG business model applying the stakeholder theory Stakeholder theory is defined, and all the stakeholders are identified. The submission evaluates the impacts on the RFG business model applying the stakeholder theory explicitly, logically, consistently and correctly links the identified arguments to stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory is precisely defined. Conclusion /5 0-2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0-5.0 Conclude and reflect whether the RFG business model is in the best interests of shareholders and other stakeholders. No conclusion is drawn for the submission, or a mere summarization of discussion. Ambiguous conclusion is drawn for the submission. No further reflection on the issue. A clear conclusion is drawn however without any further reflection on the issue. A clear conclusion is drawn with some reflection on the issue. A clear conclusion is drawn with excellent reflection on the issue. Submission communication and referencing /10 0-4.5 5.0-5.5 6.0-6.5 7.0-7.5 8.0-10.0 Appropriately structured response Appropriate use of references (at least three (3) academic journal articles) Correct referencing and citing Appropriate grammar, and language Little or no evidence of relevant research and/or poor use and acknowledgement of sources. Texts selected may be inappropriate and/or poorly integrated and cited. Referencing may be uniformly poor. There are numerous Errors and inaccuracies in written expression. Evidence of basic research, but some sources may be inappropriate or irrelevant. Use of readings to support position may be inconsistent. Citation and referencing is attempted but may be faulty. Written expression may be of variable standard and have significant grammatical errors. Academic and professional sources are used appropriately to support position, but they may be limited in scope and quality. There are some errors in citation and referencing. Expression is generally grammatically clear and uses a professional tone. Well selected academic and professional sources that shows evidence of wide reading are well-utilised to support argument. Citation and referencing is generally appropriate and accurate. Expression is clear and grammatically correct, and professional in tone with only an occasional error. Clear evidence of a wide variety of quality academic and professional reading. Skilful engagement and deployment of sources to enrich argument. Accurate citation and referencing. Information is clearly organised and expressed in concise, grammatically accurate and engaging language with an appropriate professional style. Total marks 50 Contribution to final result 20