complexity of ethical and legal issues
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
complexity of ethical and legal issues
Module Learning Outcomes In relation to the specialised area of study, students will, with minimal / no guidance be able to: Subject-Specific Knowledge, Understanding & Application a) Contextualize and critically evaluate financial data, recognizing, analyzing and responding to the complexity of ethical and legal issues whilst evaluating competing risks. b) Critically appraise a range of approaches to corporate governance, accountability and regulatory environments across different countries and cultures. c) Calculate, analyse and interpret financial information such as income statements, statements financial position, cash flow statements, budgets, product / service costing and capital budgets, appraising and communicating the results in an effective and reflective manner. d) Rigorously compare and contrast the various sources of finance available to an organization, the impact on and relevance of cost of capital within the decision-making process. Employability & Changemaker Skills e) Independently apply multiple appropriate resources, strategies, and approaches. f) Justify chosen solutions and associated decisions to address complex problems / tasks. This assessment requires students to produce an individual report analysing the performance and operations of a company listed on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange within a selected sector. A list of companies is provided for students to select from. This assessment represents 50% of the total marks.
The aim of this assignment is to test students’ knowledge and understanding of key accounting, corporate finance concepts, theories and tools that can be used to critically analyse organisations. It will also test the ability to present financial and non-financial information and justify chosen solutions and associated decisions to address complex problems/tasks.
Required:
You have been asked to write a report to the board of directors of one of the selected companies below as part of the interview process for your first appointment as a Finance Director of a company listed on AIM (which is the Alternative Investment Market for small companies) within the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The board of directors have asked you to write a report about your vision and strategic financial goals for the company.
The companies are within a selected sector of the AIM. Assume that your selected company has ambitions and plans to become a FTSE 100 company (the Main Market for UK listed companies) in the near future (3 to 5 years).
Guide:
The report should be maximum 2,000 words (+/- 10%). Remember you need to make an impression on the board of directors for you to be considered for the critical post of Finance Director. The essence of this assignment is to test your knowledge and understanding of key accounting and corporate governance concepts, theories and tools and ability to present data in a concise manner.
Structure of Report:
You need to introduce the company, discuss the product or services, location, turnover, number of employees, the contribution of the sector to the UK economy.
To analyse, you need to compare the financial data / ratios of your selected company with either a competitor within the sector or the average of the sector.
As part of the environmental analysis of this sector, use of theories such as SWOT or PESTEL to explain issues that your companies may need to overcome within a competitive market.
Remember you need to make an impression on the board of directors for you to be considered for the critical post of Finance Director.
Please note that you must select a company from the list below for AY2021/22
List of companies to select from for AY2021/2022
Companies on London Stock Exchange 31 July 2021 Admission Date Company Name ICB Super-Sector Country of Incorporation Market Company Market Cap (£m) 06/11/2018 RENALYTIX PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 812.59 25/09/2012 CLINIGEN GROUP PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 797.51 13/09/2007 CRANEWARE PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 786.91 12/10/2005 CARETECH HOLDINGS PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 719.62 30/04/2002 ADVANCED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS GROUP PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 606.22 15/07/2014 ERGOMED PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 600.47 17/12/2015 ALLIANCE PHARMA PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 556.72 05/01/2010 SILENCE THERAPEUTICS PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 556.05 30/12/2015 BENCHMARK HOLDINGS PLC Health Care United Kingdom AIM 371.96 1a.
Please read this Office of National Statistics Covid 19 Background Report: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/theimpactofthecoronavirussofartheindustriesthatstruggledorrecovered/2020-12-09
1b.
Analyse the performance (this should include detailed critical analysis – not description) of your chosen company using relevant financial and non-financial ratios (for at least 3 years). Your analysis should include profit ratios, efficiency, liquidity and other ratios that you consider relevant (see Chapter 6 of the core eText book (Accounting and Finance for 6 Analysing and interpreting financial statements).
2.a Review this LinkedIn Video on Corporate Governance
2b. Review this guide to Corporate Governance of Listed Companies on the AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange
2c.
Critically evaluate the company’s corporate governance compliance and its impact on the brand and reputation as reported in the press (print, online and social media, Annual Reports taken from your chosen company’s web site).
2d.
Discuss the proposed medium term financial strategies for your selected company to become a FTSE100 company or for your company to become dominant in the industry/sector.
Please note: If you select a company outside of the list above, you will automatically fail this part of the assignment, unless you get a prior written approval from your tutor.
Consider using data from within the University of Northampton Library Data Sets to collect, Sort and Present your data in detail in an Appendix to your report. Investigate ORBIS (Company Data by year), MarketLine Advantage (MarketLine Advantage includes macroeconomic data, strategic and company information, city statistics, company SWOT analyses, country PESTLE analyses and industry Five Forces analyses). You can use www.northcote.co.uk, pro-share and the FT to identify companies within their sectoral classifications. It is essential that all sources of information are correctly referenced using the UoN Harvard system.
Word Limits – The word limit for this assignment is 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Where the submission exceeds the stipulated word limit by more than 10%, the submission will only be marked up to and including the additional 10%. Anything over this will not be included in the final grade for the assessment item. Abstracts, bibliographies, reference lists, appendices and footnotes are excluded from any word limit requirements.
Where a submission is notably under the word limit, the full submission will be marked on the extent to which the requirements of the assessment brief have been met.
Assessment Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes to be addressed through this assignment are:
(a) Demonstrate a critical understanding of the nature and role of the finance professional and how financial control processes impact on the organisation and its stakeholders.
(b) Critically evaluate the impact of the external context on the financial domain, both domestically and internationally.
(c) Identify, critically appraise and analyse the content, relevance and use of key financial accounting information and techniques, both within organisations and by reference to relevant research.
(d) Demonstrate the ability to evaluate critically and communicate effectively the financial performance of an organisation by reference to internal or published financial information.
Generic Grading Criteria for Level 7
See grading criteria below
Assessment Support/Feedforward
Please look out for announcement on NILE on additional support to help with your work. We are unable to provide individual review of the draft of your work.
Assessment Submission
To submit, please go to the ‘Submit your work’ area on the NILE site and use the submission points to upload your work as requested. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local time) on the date of submission.
The work will be subject to Turnitin anti-plagiarism detection software. Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources and its own proprietary database.
N.B Work emailed directly to your tutor will not be marked.
Extensions
Feedback and Grades
Your grade and overall summary feedback will be available in Grade Centre. Please also click through to Turnitin for within text comments.
Academic Practice and Integrity
This is an individual assignment.
The University of Northampton policy will apply in all cases of copying, plagiarism or any other methods by which students have obtained (or attempted to obtain) an unfair advantage. Support and guidance on assessments and academic integrity can be found on: SkillsHub: https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/ . If a case of academic misconduct is suspected the tutor will apply a ZZ grade in NILE.
For guidance on Mitigating circumstances please go to https://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/governance-and-management/university-policies-procedures-and-regulations/ where under Student Issues you will find detailed guidance on the policy as well as guidance and the form for making an application.
Please note, however, that an application to defer an assessment on the grounds of mitigating circumstances should normally be made in advance of the submission deadline or examination date.
GENERIC GRADE CRITERIA
These are the criteria required to achieve each classification at:
Level 7
An outstanding Distinction A+ Work which fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but at an exceptional standard
A very strong Distinction A Work of distinguished quality which is evidenced by an authoritative comprehensive, detailed and systematic knowledge base and understanding for specialised area of study. A key feature will be the ability to work with creativity and originality using knowledge and insights at the forefront of the area of study. There will be a confident grasp of disciplinary methodologies for the discipline/area of study which will be consistently reflected in both own research and advanced scholarship, effectively integrating advanced skills of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application on a firm foundation of critical facility. Work will be characterised by strong technical expertise to high professional standards, and there will be sustained evidence of confident, autonomous operation and judgment in complex and unpredictable professional situations both in relation to working with others and in relation to own functioning. Self-direction, creativity, practical understanding will be combined to demonstrate the qualities expected of an effective self-critical independent learner exercising excellent measured judgment and will be a consistent feature of work. A clear Distinction A- Work of very good quality which displays most but not all of the criteria for the grade above. An outstanding merit B+ Work of highly commendable quality which clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant advanced intellectual or specialised skills. A very strong Merit B Work of commendable quality demonstrating a detailed and systematic knowledge base and understanding in specialised areas, informed by critical awareness of current issues, research based/theoretical insights at the forefront of the area of study. This will be supplemented by a good comprehensive understanding of disciplinary methodologies relevant to own research or advanced scholarship, which will be reflected in work which integrates skills of advanced analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application with critical awareness. There will be some evidence of originality in application of skills/knowledge, underpinned by good technical expertise which permits confident, autonomous operation in a range of complex and unpredictable professional situations. The ability to work autonomously, as a self-critical independent learner exercising good and considered judgment, will be a consistent feature of work. A Merit B- Work of good quality which contains most, but not all of the characteristics of the grade above.
An Outstanding Pass C+ Work which clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant advanced intellectual or specialised skills. A Very Good Pass C Work of capable quality which clearly demonstrates a systematic understanding of knowledge in specialised areas and a critical awareness of current issues, research based/theoretical knowledge at the forefront of the area of study, together with a sound understanding of methodologies applicable to own research or advanced scholarship. There may be limitations to the application of this knowledge and/or conceptual understanding of advanced scholarship, but there will be evidence of critical awareness in relation to analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application. The ability to exercise initiative as an independent and self-critical learner in complex and unpredictable professional contexts will be demonstrated, as will threshold levels of technical expertise, although the scope of expertise may be limited. A Pass C- Work of satisfactory quality which contains most, but not all of the characteristics of the grade above. Fail F+ Work which indicates some evidence of a systematic, coherent and analytical engagement with key aspects of the field of study, including familiarity with current scholarship, and evidence of ability to utilise specialised skills, but which also contains significant limitations. F Work that falls well short of the threshold standards in relation to one or more of knowledge, intellectual, subject based or key skills at this level. F- Work of poor quality which is based on only minimal understanding, application or effort. It will offer only very limited evidence of familiarity with knowledge or skills appropriate to the field of study at this level. AG Work submitted but academic misconduct proven, and penalty given was to award AG grade LG Work submitted but given an LG grade due to late submission NG Work submitted but work comprises no value G Nothing presented Assessment Grading Criteria
The marking criteria
Criteria Exceptional 70-100% A- to A+ Good B- to B+ Pass C- to C+ Fail F- to F+ Introduction, presentation and refereeing of the report 10%
7-10 Exceptional report. The introduction is exemplary and provides evidence of a complete understanding of the company’s activities. The industry and the company analysed are outline and justified clearly. The significance of the industry and comparative report is presented clearly. There is clear evidence of originality and ability to justify the research effort. Compelling evidence of research.
6 -6 points Good: The introduction is relevant and illustrates an attempt to address the assessment requirements. The industry and company are described in detail. The rationale and comparative data is limited. Good rationale, but lacks the details expected to score top marks probably due to general unsupported statements or grammatical / spelling mistakes.
5 to 5 points Satisfactory: The introduction shows some correlation with the project requirements. There is irrelevant information. The rationale and objectives are not vague. Generally descriptive. There is very limited evidence of research.
1 to 4 points Fail. The introduction is descriptive and irrelevant. The work lacks clear justification of the report purpose. Industry and company choice are not justified. Limited support for the information given. The student selected a company not on the list without approval
Application of the theories underpinning the report 20%
16to 20 points Exceptional. A clear demonstration of complete grasp of knowledge of the key factors that drive performance in the chosen company and the industry in general. Critical relevant theories are identified such as the application of PESTEL or any other competition or management theories to support your argument must apply and critically appraise the theories. Industry examples and published literature are used to develop a logical case on the relevance of the sector, its importance and some key financial indicators such as the GDP contribution of the sector or contribution to the country’s economy over the past five years.
Theories such as the SWOT analysis (strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) within the sector or PEST analysis (Political, economic, social and technological) impact of the industry or sector
13 to 15 points Good: The analysis demonstrates adequate knowledge of a fair range of the factors that affect company performance. There is intermittent evidence of an appreciation of the significance of the factors to the industry being analysed. Critical success factors are outlined. Some examples and limited literature are used. Contributions of the sector to the county’s economy may be missing
10 to 12 points Satisfactory: The analysis is largely descriptive and narrative with little evidence of analysis. There is no clear evaluation of how the identified factors affect the selected company. Critical success factors are vague. Limited evidence of research. Lack of concrete supporting evidence
1 to 9 points Fail: The analysis is not linked to the company. The analysis is descriptive and generally irrelevant to the company. Critical success factors are not clear or missing. No relevant examples are presented. Little evidence of research
The student selected a company not on the list without approval.
Depth of research including the use of appropriate ratios / explained 30%
22 to 30 points Exceptional. The selected financial ratios are clearly justified within the context of the industry being analysed. Selected financial ratios for the past five years are shown and clearly presented and labelled in appendices. Comparison to the competitors financial and non-financial data or the sector figures. The use of examples and published literature to justify choice of ratios is compelling. The interpretation of financial ratios and their importance demonstrates complete grasp of knowledge. Relevant examples and references used in discussion
18 to 21 points Good: Financial ratios are selected and outlined clearly. Most of the financial ratios for the past five years are presented in appendices. The interpretation and justification of financial ratios lack consistency. There is intermittent evidence of an understanding of the significance of the financial ratios. Some examples and references are used in discussion.
15 to 17 points Satisfactory: Financial ratios are stated but not clearly justified. Incomplete financial ratios for the past five years are presented in appendices. A basic argument is evident but lacks clarity and coherence. Limited examples and references used in discussion
1 to 14 points Fail: Financial ratios are defined and described with no justification. Financial ratios for the past five years are incomplete or missing. Insufficient evidence of knowledge and research. No examples and lack of cited published work.
The student selected a company not on the list without approval
Formulation of an effective summary of key issues and potential actions/ changes
30%
22 to 30 points Exceptional. The report summarises the key elements and brings out the compelling reasons why potential investors and other stakeholders should be keen to invest in the company.
The strategic direction (Explain the Strategy) of the company and key advice on competitor’s analysis and the future of the company when compared to other sectors within the economy.
The main CG rules (of the company and its quality expectations within the industry) and the analysis of the company’s compliance with corporate governance rules such as rules on diversity, effectiveness, control, directors’ attendance at board meetings
The arguments are logical and backed up with supporting evidenced that are within the report. Exceptional comparisons with competitors and advantages are enumerated and clearly stated including plan for future financial strategy for the company.
18 to 21 points Good: A good attempt to construct a coherent and logical discussion of the relevant issues. The report shows some relevance and justification but does not give details on corporate governance compliance by the selected company
There is a lack of focus and consistency in the discussion. There is tendency to narrate and lacks analysis. Some examples and limited literature are used.
15 to 17 points Satisfactory: Basic understanding of the report is understood but lacks coherent and logical flow of the discussion. Some of the analysis are not customised to the selected company or comparison made to the industry.
Very descriptive outline of company. Limited analysis with no links to industry. No or limited CG compliance issue
1 to 14 points Fail. Intermittent and vague description of the report requirements and their impact on the industry. The writing rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase on the essential elements of the requirements of the report without adequate justification or any convincing demonstration of essence of the report
No discussion of CG rules or application of the rules to the selected company
Conclusion 10%
7 to 10 points Excellent. The conclusion is a summative review of the report. The evaluation is compelling, interpretation is accurate, and the discourse is clear. Citation and referencing is accurate, up-to-date and well presented.
Justification for appointment into the FD role.
6 to 6 points Good:. The conclusion is a good review of the report. The discussion is clear and orderly. Citation and referencing is clear throughout. No details on the justification for the post
5 to 5 points Satisfactory: The conclusion is descriptive and lacks analysis and critical evaluation. Citation and referencing is good in some parts. Lacks the reason for the appointment as FD
1 to 4 points Fail: The conclusion show a lack of understanding of the report requirement and material presented in the document. Conclusion has some information that is irrelevant to the report. Citation and referencing is incorrect / missing in most parts
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow