the attached file has all the assignments but please do only assignment 2 which is of 25%also our...

Question

the attached file has all the assignments but please do only assignment 2 which is of 25%also our professor has given us some istructions which are

Hi, please make this assignment as a letter

To ,

AICD (Australian institute of company directors)

From:- my name

SUBJECT:- choose subject according to the matter.

Please make a point and the each point should be properly explained with key problem/issue with “evidence”, “Example” and “recommendations” with proper citation and harward style referencing.

In the end ; conclusion should support your recommendations. Please read the point of “Required” in the end which will give you the proper information of this assignment.

ACC03043: Assessment 2 Marking Rubric Grade F P C D HD Percent Less than 50 50 - 64 65- 74 75 -84 85 -100 Knowledge (25%) Demonstrates poor, limited or confused knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides little to no pertinent examples. Demonstrates sound knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides adequate pertinent examples. Demonstrates competent knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides appropriate pertinent examples. Demonstrates very good knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides frequent pertinent examples. Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the topic and issues. Provides numerous pertinent examples. Application (25%) Inability to apply knowledge or synthesise issues. Examples are limited and do not clearly relate to task. Sound ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are useful and mostly relate to task. Competent ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are suitable and relate to task. Very good ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are sound and clearly relate to task. Excellent application of knowledge to the issue demonstrating original thinking skills, insight and creativity. Examples are insightful and clearly relate to task. Judgement (20%) Inability to demonstrate capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations. Sound demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Competent demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Very good demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Excellent demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations. Communication (20%) Poor writing skills demonstrating little clarity, coherence and cogency. Frequent grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and poor report format and presentation. Sound writing skills demonstrating adequate clarity, coherence and cogency. Minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and satisfactory report presentation. Competent writing skills demonstrating moderate clarity, coherence and cogency. Minimal grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and quality report presentation. Very good writing skills demonstrating consistent clarity, coherence and cogency. Virtually no grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and very good report presentation. Excellent writing skills demonstrating sustained clarity, coherence and cogency. No grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors. Professional report presentation. Referencing (10%) Inadequate sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. Less than 5 credible sources. Sound sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. At least 5 credible sources. Competent sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style At least 7 credible sources. Very good sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. At least 9 credible sources. Excellent sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. More than 10 credible sources. ACC03043 Assessment Session 2 2018 Overview of Assessment Assessment in this unit comprises four tasks:  Assessment Task 1 5% · Assessment Task 2 25% · Assessment Task 3 30%  Examination 40% Assessment to Meet National Accounting Learning Standard The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) has issued Learning Standards for Business, Management and Economics to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework Act 2011. The Learning Standards Statement for Accounting was issued in June 2016 (replacing the first edition of the Accounting Learning Standard issued in February 2011). The 2016 version can be accessed from the following web link. http://www.abdc.edu.au/pages/learning-standards.html The unit ACC03043 Corporate Governance is covered by the Accounting Learning Standard This unit is offered at the Master Degree standard and is equivalent to the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) Level 9 award requirements. In this unit you will focus on meeting the requirements relating to four primary learning outcomes. · Knowledge · Critical analysis and problem solving skills · Judgement · Communication These learning outcomes will be assessed in the assessment tasks. The four learning outcomes for ACC03043 have been adapted from the national standard for the Accounting Discipline to apply to Corporate Governance. 1 1. KNOWLEDGE The foundation learning outcome is KNOWLEDGE. In this unit you will need to demonstrate knowledge of a significant amount of information relating to corporate governance and related areas of management theory and practice. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Knowledge: Integrate advanced theoretical and technical corporate governance knowledge (which includes a selection of accounting, auditing and assurance, finance, economics, quantitative methods, information systems, commercial law, corporation law and taxation law) in a business context. 2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS The secondary learning outcome is the development of CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge about corporate governance in a range of corporate governance settings. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard of Critical analysis and problem solving skills: Critically apply advanced theoretical and technical corporate governance knowledge and skills to provide possible solutions to emerging and or advanced corporate governance problems. 3. JUDGEMENT The tertiary learning outcome is the development and exercise of professional JUDGEMENT. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to make professional judgements about corporate governance matters in a range of professional, business and corporate settings. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Judgement: Exercise judgement under minimal supervision to provide possible solutions to emerging and/or advanced corporate governance problems in complex contexts using where appropriate social, ethical, economic, regulatory, sustainability, governance and / or global perspectives. 2 4. COMMUNICATION The final learning outcome assessed in this unit is the development of skills in COMMUNICATION. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to prepare written reports that communicate complex corporate governance issues and advice to both professionals and non-professionals in the corporate governance field. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Communication. Justify and communicate corporate governance advice and ideas in complex collaborative contexts to influence specialists and non-specialists in the corporate governance field. As you work on your assessment tasks make sure you consider and seek to demonstrate that you can meet the standard for each of the above national learning outcomes for Master graduates. 3 Assessment Task 1 Due Date: Sunday 22 July 2018 Length: 250 words total (+/- 10%) Reference list and cover sheet details are not included in this word-limit total. Weighting: Assessment Criteria: 5% of total unit marks · Demonstration of knowledge of the issues · High quality written communication of corporate governance concepts · Structure and professional presentation of the report Required: Assume you are employed in a management consulting firm and have expertise as a corporate governance specialist. Your client is a public company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange that has requested a one page brief (maximum 250 words) specifying the essential criteria for a non-executive director to be appointed to the company’s board. The client has said; ‘Make it brief, I’m too busy to read a long document. You should follow the ideas of former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill who stated: ‘To do our work, we all have to read a mass of papers. Nearly all of them are far too long. This wastes time, while energy has to be spent in looking for the essential points. I ask my colleagues and their staff to see to it that their reports are shorter. The aim should be reports which set out the main points in a series of short, crisp paragraphs…’ Winston Churchill, Memo to UK War Cabinet, 9 August 1940, During the Battle of Britain. 4 Assessment Task 2 Due Date: Sunday 5 August 2018 Length: 2,000 words total (+/- 10%). Reference list and cover sheet details are not included in this word-limit total. Weighting: 25% of total unit marks Assessment Criteria: · Demonstration of knowledge of the issues and evidence of wide reading to support your analysis · Demonstration of your ability to apply the knowledge to identify keys issues leading to your recommendations · Evidence of sound reasoning and the exercise of professional judgement to support your recommendations · Development and statement of concise recommendations for presentation to the AICD · Overall structure and professional presentation of the report to the AICD · High quality written communication of concepts and terms in ordinary English as not all readers of the report can be assumed to be specialists competent in corporate governance Case Study ‘As a separate legal person, a corporation has two basic objectives: To survive and to thrive. Shareholder value is not the objective of the corporation; it is an outcome of the corporation’s activities. While shareholders entrust their stakes in a corporation to the board of directors, shareholders are just one audience among others that the board may consider when making decisions on behalf of the corporation. These audiences, typically called stakeholders, may also include other financial stakeholders, such as bondholders, and nonfinancial stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and NGOs representing various concerns of civil society. In the face of limited resources, no matter how large the corporation, directors must make choices regarding the significance of the corporation’s many audiences.’ Source: Robert G Eccles and Tim Youmans (2015) ‘Why Boards Must Look Beyond Shareholders’, MIT Sloan Management Review http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-boards-must-look-beyond-shareholders/ 5 Required Assume you have been employed as a corporate governance consultant by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD). The AICD is concerned that many company directors hold the opinion that the company’s board of directors has a responsibility to place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests. Your assignment is to prepare a report to be submitted to the AICD evaluating the evidence that the responsibility of a company director is to place shareholder interests above those of other stakeholders. Specifically, the AICD has requested that your report contain evidence, examples and recommendations for company directors that will guide them when making board decisions so they are responsive to diverse stakeholder audiences. The AICD has advised you that they intend to make your report a public document and it will be uploaded to the website so it can be read by both corporate governance specialists and non-specialists. 6 Assessment Task 3 Due Date: Sunday 9 September 2018 Length: 2,400 words total (+/- 10%) Reference list and cover sheet details are not included in this word-limit total. Weighting: 30% of total unit marks Assessment Criteria: · Demonstration of knowledge of the issues and evidence of wide reading to support your analysis · Demonstration of your ability to apply the knowledge to identify keys issues leading to your recommendations · Evidence of sound reasoning and the exercise of professional judgement to support your recommendations · Development and statement of concise recommendations for presentation to the Chairman · Overall structure and professional presentation of your report to the Chairman · High quality written communication of concepts and terms as the Chairman can be

unifolks_636686886637610193_119971_1.docx unifolks_636686886637610193_119971_2.doc

Sangeeta · Accepted Answer

Introduction
To start with, great fraction of the traditional Company Law doctrine holds that companies need to be managed for promoting, above all, shareholders’ rights (Armour et. al., 2003). Practices in support of non-shareholder sector like suppliers, customers, staff members or the society as a whole could be considered like a means of Management for increasing its personal prestige and power (Vincent, 2001). The interests of the Stakeholders could be understood as conflicting Shareholders rights for obtaining reasonable proceeds for their investment (Blair, 2005). Further, taking the above discussion into consideration this particular paper attempts to provide a report to be submitted to the AICD evaluating the evidence that the responsibility of a company director is to place shareholder interests above those of other stakeholders. As provided in the case, AICD is concerned that many company directors hold the opinion that the company’s board of directors has a responsibility to place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests.
Shareholders’ Value Approach
The traditional sight of the company has largely been a shareholder directed one. Additionally, this acts like an important concept in the development of the corporate governance means within the Anglo American society (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). As per this concept, the company is managed for the good of the shareholders who are owed a fiduciary responsibility through the board of directors (BOD) performing like their representatives during the development of strategies that need to be taken up through the corporation. The board of directors is selected through the shareholders for acting on their behalf and ensuring that the functions of the company are well in line with their stated interests (Armour et. al., 2003). Moreover, the shareholders are considered as being the owners of the company for the reason that they uphold to be the continuing risk carriers of the company’s proceeds as well as the strategy arrangements are aligned with their welfares. Moving ahead, the shareholder value concept is assisted by the connection of the contracts approach that in disproportion to the organic approach, asserts that all stakeholders are protected through means of agreement with the company and require no additional safety (Gamble and Kelly, 2011).
Together with the several advantages associated with the shareholder value concept, two that hold chief importance include the effectiveness argument along with development of a sound accountability means. Considering the effectiveness argument, it is stated that this particular approach develops the most appropriate condition for wealth maximization and offers a sense of impetus for companies to develop the products and services needed by the customers (Turnbull, 2007). Needing the management to handle the social impacts of operating the business would lead to inadequacies and decline of the company (Armour et. al., 2003). Additionally, in context to the development of an effective accountability model, the solitary task of the directors' is basically profit maximisation for its shareholders. As a result, they are accountable to the shareholders for the company’s outcome (Armour et. al., 2003). This isn’t the situation under the stakeholder value concept where the board of directors are thought to look after the interests of several diverse groups. Consequently, this leads to being accountable to nobody. Since the shareholders are the residual bearers of the risk, they hold the important reason for keeping a watch upon the management (Gamble and Kelly, 2011).
Stakeholder Value Approach
The stakeholder vision of the company is seen as being a growing concept, which challenges the assertions of the shareholder value concept. Supporters of this approach assert that the shareholder value concept has become an out-dated concept. The objectives and aims of the company are varied within present day’s modern sphere where human capital holds higher significance as compared to the physical assets value (Armour et. al., 2003). Moreover, the chief stakeholders under this approach are basically staff members, vendors, creditors, buyers and lastly, the atmosphere (Deakin, 2005). Additionally, the approach asserts that the hard efforts of all stakeholders enthusiastically associated with the corporation’s outcome must be seen consistently. No other group must be offered control in excess of another. Consequently, the approach asserts that shareholders are too one among the constituencies within the wider stakeholder group as well as must be treated as such rather than being offered the exclusive authority of controlling the corporation (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). Supporters of this approach also hold the view that shareholders aren’t the only residual bearers of the risk, in addition to them it’s also the other stakeholders who share an important part of this risk (Freeman, 2004). Whilst, the shareholders face the likely loss of investments, employees deal with the modifications in the terms as well as conditions of the agreement and perhaps end up dropping their job. Consumers experience cost hikes and decreased quality of the product whereas the local society might suffer from hostile ecological impact occurring from company practices (Armour et. al., 2003). Hereafter, shareholders shouldn’t be offered the special power in the development of company objectives and policies. Instead, a more stakeholder directed concept must be considered for dealing with such issues.
Moving ahead, for flourishing, corporations are constantly searching for skilful and dedicated workforce, accountable vendors, sound relationships with the local society and government and lastly, brand faithfulness from the buyers (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). The stakeholder value concept offers the company with the chance of achieving these goals and motivates stakeholders to make investment towards in lasting relation development measures with the corporation (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). Additionally, stakeholder value approach motivates a long term model for operating an organization (Deakin, 2015). While, shareholder value lays high emphasis upon the price of share as well as short term productivity, stakeholder value concentrates upon developing a sustainable company holding lasting motivating connection with several stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, opponents of stakeholders approach assert that the approach might perhaps result in lacking managerial course and postponements in decision forming. With augmented groups of stakeholder whose interests must be taken into consideration, managers might see themselves in a situation of predicament. As a result, an ordinary responsibility means would also require being devised. Additionally, in establishing the corporation’s goals the representations belonging to different stakeholder groups would need to be such that it doesn’t harm the corporation with respect to postponed decision forming. As timing sense is seen as being an important factor in running an effective project (Gamble and Kelly, 2011).
Enlightened shareholder value approach
Subsequent to the corporate outrages that occurred during the period of past several years like WorldCom and Enron, legislators within several diverse countries have made an effort to devise means, which could eliminate the possibility of these occurrences recurring during the coming years (Deakin, 2015). Although, the United States brought forward the Sarbanes Oxley legislation, the United Kingdom - through the reference of the Company Law Review Steering Group - moved a little away from the absolute shareholder value concepts towards an approach termed as ESV (Enlightened Shareholder Value) concept (Letza et. al., 2006). The outlooks of the Steering Group were integrated into the 2006 Company Law Reform Bill, discussed within the Parliament and afterwards accepted. The ESV concept upholds profit maximization as being the chief aspect of the company, nevertheless different from the shareholder prevalence argument it doesn’t dismiss there (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). Moreover, the ESV concept persists to lay emphasis upon the importance of decision forming, which leads to long term value generation of the company through offering respect to the interests of the company’s stakeholders as well as through building lasting relations of faith with them (Armour et. al., 2003).
Moving ahead, after this particular Bill was approved, it brought about the successive modifications in the 2006 Companies Act by the systematization of directors responsibilities that were before un-organized. The highly significant modification that was brought about through the institution of Section 172 was the duty of promoting the company’s success (Stapledon, 2006). This particular segment of the Act levies a duty, which necessitates the director to perform in the manner he/she regards, in good faith, will be most expected to encourage the company’s success and this responsibility is even now owned by the members in general (Gamble and Kelly, 2011). While exercising this responsibility the director must, to the level he/she considers practically appropriate to do so, offer respects to the interests of the corporation’s staff members, the relation with the vendors, consumers, the atmosphere and the overall society. Even though, this list isn’t exhaustive, it targets a reasonable overview of what exactly the ESV concept signifies and possibly a step towards the correct course (Deakin, 2005). This is the foremost time that the rule has clearly needed the directors of the corporation to offer respects to the stakeholders’ interests. 
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be clearly stated from the above discussion that the chief responsibility of a company director is to place shareholder interests above those of other stakeholders. Many company directors hold the opinion that the company’s board of directors has a responsibility to place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests. Together with the several advantages associated with the shareholder value concept, two that hold chief importance include the effectiveness argument along with development of a sound accountability means (Deakin, 2005). Considering the effectiveness argument, it is stated that this particular approach develops the most appropriate condition for wealth maximization and offers a sense of impetus for companies to develop the products and services needed by the customers. Needing the management to handle the social impacts of operating the business would lead to inadequacies and decline of the company (Armour et. al., 2003). Additionally, in context to the development of an effective accountability model, the solitary task of the directors' is basically profit maximisation for its shareholders. As a result, they are accountable to the shareholders for the company’s outcome (Armour et. al., 2003). This isn’t the situation under the stakeholder value concept where the board of directors are thought to look after the interests of several diverse groups. Consequently, this leads to being accountable to nobody. Since the shareholders are the residual bearers of the risk, they hold the important reason for keeping a watch upon the management.
Moving ahead, stakeholders approach might perhaps result in lacking managerial course and postponements in decision forming. With augmented groups of stakeholder whose interests must be taken into consideration, managers might see themselves in a situation of predicament. As a result, an ordinary responsibility means would also require being devised. Additionally, in establishing the corporation’s goals the representations belonging to different stakeholder groups would need to be such that it doesn’t harm the corporation with respect to postponed decision forming (Chemla, 2005). As timing sense is seen as being an important factor in running an effective project. Shareholder control of companies tags along from the private property rights as well as the need that allotted agents carry out their contractual obligations. In simple terms, it originates from liberty and self-ownership in economic engagements. Companies, being agents for shareholders, need to live up to their willingly approved contractual responsibilities towards consumers, vendors, staff members and lastly, owners (Armour et. al., 2003). Thus, they all gain advantage from such arrangements. Apart from that, an organization’s chief obligation towards others is refraining from threatening or involving in initiatory ferocity against them as well as their lawfully possessed assets.
Further, as stated in the above sections the traditional sight of the company has largely been a shareholder directed one. Additionally, this acts like an important concept in the development of the corporate governance means within the Anglo American society. As per this concept, the company is managed for the good of the shareholders who are owed a fiduciary responsibility through the board of directors (BOD) performing like their representatives during the development of strategies that need to be taken up through the corporations.
References:
Armour, J., Deakin, S. and Konzelmann, S. (2003) Shareholder Primacy and the Trajectory of UK Corporate Governance, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 531-555.
Blair, M. (2005) Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century, The Brookings Institution: Washington DC.
Chemla, G. (2005) Hold-ups, Stakeholders and Takeover Threats, Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 14, pp. 376-397
Deakin, S. (2015) The Coming Transformation of Shareholder Value, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 13, pp. 11-18
Freeman, E. (2004) Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman, Boston
Gamble, A. and Kelly, G. (2011) Shareholder Value and Stakeholder Debate in the UK, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1
Letza, S., Sun, X. and Kirkbride, J. (2014) Shareholding vs. Stakeholding: A Critical Review of Corporate Governance, An International Review, Vol. 12, pp. 242-246.
Stapledon, G. (2006) Institutional Shareholders and Corporate Governance, Oxford: Clarendon press
Turnbull, S. (2007) Stakeholder Corporation, Journal of Cooperative Studies, Vol. 9, pp.18-52.
Vinten, G. (2001) Shareholder vs. Stakeholder - Is there a governance dilemma? Corporate Governance, Vol. 9, pp. 36-47
5

the attached file has all the assignments but please do only assignment 2 which is of 25%also our professor has given us some istructions which are Hi, please make this assignment as a letter To ,...

Answer To: the attached file has all the assignments but please do only assignment 2 which is of 25%also our...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment