Conduct a critical review of the published sustainability and/or integrated reports of Coles and Woolworth two Australian companies/organisations. In your review compare and contrast the two reports and evaluate the extent to which the reports achieve the objective of providing relevant information for stakeholders.
Professional Accounting Capstone assignment assignment task: 1. written report 2. presentation online assignment: · Submit the report addressing the assignment outlined below. · Word limit is 2,000 words (not including the cover sheet, table of contents or reference list). Reports not within +/- 10% of 2,000 words will be penalised. · Attach a cover sheet (as provided on Moodle) to each assignment, listing student name and student number and submit through Turnitin . · Follow the Report format as outlined in the document “Example Business Report Structure” provided on Moodle. · Reference in accordance with the Harvard referencing system, as outlined in the document “Top’s quick guide to the Harvard referencing system” provided on Moodle. · The written assignment will be worth up to 20 marks. · Each student will present a 10-15 minute presentation via zoom in class time, week 10 (Wednesday 21 October). Each presentation should include a powerpoint presentation or similar. Assignment Conduct a critical review of the published sustainability and/or integrated reports of Coles and Woolworth two Australian companies/organisations. In your review compare and contrast the two reports and evaluate the extent to which the reports achieve the objective of providing relevant information for stakeholders. Refer to the Rubrics on the next pages for the mark allocation. You are expected to refer to at least 6 references in your essay. Report Rubric for group assignment Assessment Criteria and Performance Standards for written assignment Assessment criteria 20 marks Performance Standard Low – Learning outcome not achieved Low but some evidence of attainment of required learning outcome Learning outcome achieved as required but some inaccuracies and errors Learning outcome achieved as required with very few inaccuracies or errors Exceptional attainment of learning outcome with additional outcomes and information provided Introduction /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 No clear introduction provided Brief introduction but incomplete and inaccurate Introduction provided but could be more concise and clear Clear introduction provided too wordy Clear, concise and well expressed introduction provided Body /11 0-1 2 3 4 5 Very little or no evidence of understanding of the topic Some understanding of the topic evident but with little evidence of analysis Understanding of the topic evident–some critical thinking with analysis and synthesis of available literature Good understanding of the topic with evidence of critical thinking with deep analysis and synthesis of information Very high level of understanding of the topic with insightful evaluative comments and conclusions Conclusion /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 No clear conclusion provided Brief conclusion provided but not particularly clear or relevant Well summarised but not totally relevant to context Well summarized clear, relevant and concise conclusion Exceptional conclusion - clear, concise and insightful Report Structure, writing style & grammar /3 0-1 2 3 4 5 Very poor structure, grammatical expression and spelling errors Some evidence of desired structure with low levels of writing ability evident, simple expression with many spelling and grammatical errors Structured report with average levels of writing ability with some spelling and grammatical errors Good structured report with high level of writing ability– clear concise expression with few grammatical or spelling inaccuracies Very good structured with very high level of writing ability with no grammatical or spelling errors. Referencing /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 None or few references, citations or appendices Some references but lacking in accuracy or proper use of a referencing style Appropriate but some inaccuracies in the use of a referencing style Appropriate references, very few inaccuracies in the use of a referencing style References fully accurate and go well beyond suggested by lecturer Presentation Marking Rubric Assessment Criteria and Performance Standards for Presentations Assessment criteria 10 marks Mark Performance Standard Low level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated Limited level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated Acceptable level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated High level of knowledge and understanding evident and demonstrated Exceptional level of knowledge and understanding evident and demonstrated Theoretical overview and application /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 No clear evidence of understanding or knowledge of the theory Some evidence of understanding of the theoretical applications but lacks clarity Good level of understanding of theoretical applications, clearly demonstrated High level of understanding of theoretical applications, clearly demonstrated Very high level of understanding of theoretical applications clearly demonstrated and articulated; easily understood by participants Depth of research /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 No clear evidence of any research Some evidence of research but limited to secondary research Evidence of adequate research with some evidence of primary research Evidence of high level of primary and secondary research Very high level analysis and research clearly demonstrated and integrated Presentation structure, delivery and audience engagement /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 Poor – presented without structure with unclear voice, no eye contact, no audience engagement, and no evidence of rehearsal Low –presentation lacks strong structure with little or no audience engagement limited eye contact, and limited evidence of rehearsal Good –presentation structured with attempts to engage audience, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with good flow Very good – structured, clear presentation, easy to understand with some audience participation, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with logical flow Excellent -structured, clear presentation, easy to understand with engaged audience, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with clear, logical flow Presentation aids and creativity /2 0-1 2 3 4 5 No use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids and poor visibility Poor creativity and limited use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids Evidence of some creativity with good use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids but limited and could be better developed Very creative use of resources very good use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids to facilitate audience understanding Original and outstanding exhibition of creativity with excellent use colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids to facilitate audience understanding Timing of Presentation /1 0-1 2 3 4 5 Poor use of available time leading to incomplete presentation or finishing too early Limited use of available time, needs improvement Good use of available time but limited and could be better managed Very good use of available time to facilitate audience understanding Excellent use of available time to facilitate audience engagement and understanding Responses to questions /1 0-1 2 3 4 5 Poor – none or few questions solicited, little audience engagement Some questions posed but responses vague, unclear or confusing Questions posed with adequate but limited responses All questions answered clearly and confidently Audience fully engaged – all questions answered clearly and concisely with additional information provided with confidence