the attached file has all the assignment of this unit but please do assignment 2 only which is of 25% and this is whAt our professor told us to do in assignment Hi, please make this assignment as a...

1 answer below »
the attached file has all the assignment of this unit but please do assignment 2 only which is of 25%
and this is whAt our professor told us to do in assignment

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 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 assumed to be professionally competent in corporate governance Case Study ‘Countering cyber risk presents a significant strategic challenge to leaders across industries and sectors but one that they must surmount in order to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the vast technological advances in networked technology that are currently in their early stages. Over the past decade, we have significantly expanded our understanding of how to build secure and resilient digital networks and connected devices. However, board-level capabilities for strategic thinking and governance in this area have failed to keep pace with both the technological risks and the solutions that new innovations provide. Boards have a vital governance function, determining overall company behaviour and setting a company’s risk appetite. For boards, action means effectively exercising oversight by asking managers the right questions to ensure that the boards’ strategic objectives are met. This function is no different in the area of cyber resilience. By offering the following principles and tools, the Forum hopes to facilitate useful dialogue between boards and the managers they entrust with the operation of the companies to which they owe their fiduciary obligations.’ 7 Source: World Economic Forum (2017), Advancing Cyber Resilience: Principles and Tools for Boards, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2017/Adv_Cyber_Resilience_Principles- Tools.pdf Required Assume you have been employed as a corporate governance consultant by a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and ranked within the ASX 200. The Chairman of the company has decided to address the issue of cyber security at the company board level. As an initial step in the process of improving the cyber resilience of the company the Chairman has employed you to prepare a report that critically analyses how the company can best integrate its cyber security and resilience protocols to ensure continued corporate survival and improved business performance. The Chairman has requested that you submit a report providing examples of best practice and a clear set of recommendations on how the company should initiate a cyber resilience policy at the corporate board level. Your report will be tabled at the next board meeting for board members to review and evaluate your recommendations. (End of assessment details) 8 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
Answered Same DayAug 01, 2020ACC03043Southern Cross University

Answer To: the attached file has all the assignment of this unit but please do assignment 2 only which is of...

Sarabjeet answered on Aug 02 2020
135 Votes
ACC03043 Assessment
Responsibility of a company director    
Responsibility of a company director    
ACC03043 Assessment
Assessment Task 2
Student Name
University Name

Executive Summary
Many traditional corporate law principles hold that companies should be managed to promote the shareholder civil liberties. An activity that benefits non-shareholders constituencies may be seen as a means for an organization to increases its personal reputation and power. The interest of stakeholders may be interpreted as opposing the right of a shar
eholder to attain fair income for their investments. The interests of stakeholders and shareholders are very compatible as well as contribute to the long-term efficiencies moreover progress of the company. It’s further argued that it’s important to reach a broad consensus on how to manage organization action to support the interests of the stakeholders. This report highlights how directors hold opinion that firm’s board of directors has a responsibility to place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests. Finally, recommendations for directors that will direct them when they are making board decisions so that they are responsive or quick to different stakeholder audiences is also discussed in this report.
Contents
Introduction    4
Place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests    4
The responsibility of a company director is to place shareholder interests above those of other stakeholders    5
The Residual Claimants Argument for Shareholder Primacy    6
Recommendations for company directors that will guide them when making board decisions so they are responsive to diverse stakeholder audiences    8
Conclusion    10
References    11
Introduction
As take apart the legal entity, the company has the two basic goals: survival as well as development. Shareholder value is not the company's goal; this is the result of company activity. While shareholders delegate their shares in the firm to the board of directors, the shareholders are one of the audiences that the board can consider when making a decision on the behalf of the company. This audiences (often referred to as stakeholders) can also include other economic stakeholders, for example, bondholders or non-financial stakeholders for example workers, clients, suppliers moreover NGOs also representing different concern of civil societies. In face of restricted assets, no matters how large company is, directors should choose the importance of company's most audiences. Problems in company law relate to the purpose of the company's merger and management. Courts often interpret the interests of business as meaning interests of existing shareholder.
Place the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder interests
Company regulations need directors to “fulfill best interests of business” to perform their duties. Traditionally, this sentence has been interpreted as extending only to “shareholders as a whole”. However, directors often face many competing interests when making decisions. In recent years, some courts have been prepared to allow directors to have more room to consider the interests of different people affected by corporate actions without infringing on the company's best interests (Areni, 2017). The court recognizes that taking action for the better interest of the businesses do not means that the directors should disregard interests of the “stakeholders”, for example, workers, creditor, and communities and countries in which the company operates can be affected through actions of a business. Taking into account this advantage is usually in long-term better interests of the company. However, no courts have acknowledged the responsibility of these stakeholders. As corporate governance advisor to the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), AICD is also concerned that lots of company director believe that company's board directors are responsible for placing the interest of shareholder above all the other stakeholders.
The responsibility of a company director is to place shareholder interests above those of other stakeholders
A lot of executive around the world also believe that the company's BOD’s have the responsibility to put the interest of shareholders first. Nevertheless, these views of shareholder supremacy are ideology, not a law (Bridoux and Stofberg, 2015). The study of the board's fiduciary duties to the shareholders shows that numerous countries' laws reject the primacy of the shareholders' interest. As take apart a legal entity, the companies have two essential goals: survival moreover development. The shareholder values are not the company's goal; this is the result of company activity. While shareholders delegate their shares in the company to the board of director, shareholders are just one of the audiences that the board can assume when decisions making on the behalf of the organization. The AICD is a member of the board of directors devoted to making a helpful impact on the financial system as well as society by promoting specialized leadership and better governance (D'Silva, 2010). Shareholders are looking for greater investment in the governance and certain key decisions of the companies they invest in. This is especially true for long-term institutional investors who want to provide insights and feedback on corporate matters, especially the rise of shareholder activism...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here