Assessment 1 Information
| Subject Code: | MBA 402 | |
| Subject Name: | Governance, Ethicsand Sustainability | |
| Assessment Title: | Analysis of Corporate Governance Information | |
| Assessment Type: | In-class worksheet (Part A); Recorded Oral Presentation (Part B) | |
| Assessment Length: | 5 | Minutes (+/-10%) |
| Weighting: | 30 % (10% + 20%) | |
| Total Marks: | 30 | |
| Submission: | Via Moodle(Part A); viaKaltura (Part B) | |
| Due Date: | Week 4 | |
Part A (10 Marks): You will complete a worksheet during your Week 2 workshop. This worksheet is designed to assist with your Oral Presentation planning.
Part B (20 Marks): Record a video presentation in which you compare, analyse and critically evaluate the disclosed corporate governance information provided by two prominent Australian companies listed in the ASX.
Selecting, analysing and assessing information provided by companies online displays advanced Critical Thinking skills that are highly valued in business professionals.
The Learning Outcomes you will demonstrate in performing this assessment include:
| LO1: | Evaluate the success (or lack thereof) of an organisation's governance responsibilities |
| LO2: | Analyse the legal and regulatory environment in Australia with a view to understanding its impact on business strategy |
| LO3: | Analyse the role of the board in the assessment of strategy and risk, and the way in which this expertise can be better utilised |
Part A Worksheet (10 marks): During the Week 2 workshop, you will spend 30 minutes completing a worksheet in-class in preparation for your Assessment 1 video presentation. Instructions for completing the sheet will be provided on the worksheet, and in-class by your workshop facilitator.
Your Part A worksheet should be submitted through Moodle in MyKBS no later than 10 pm the day of your Week 2 workshop. In addition, your facilitator will ask you to provide a copy of your work at the end of the workshop session.
Page 1 2024 V1 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline
Part B Video Presentation (20 marks):
https://www.bendigoadelaide.com.au/investor-centre/ https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/who-we-are/our-company
https://www.medibank.com.au/about/
https://www.wesfarmers.com.au/who-we-are/who-we-are
Use the links provided to explore the disclosed corporate governance information for both companies in your comparison group. You will use this information to consider how well your case study organizations are following the ASX CGC Principles 1 and 2.
Based on the above, your final slides should provide reasons to show which of your two case companies displays the better combination of Corporate Governance structure plus Corporate Governance disclosure. Ideally, one slide should display the two research questions (criteria) that you developed for Part A (Week 2 workshop). This slide should help inform your overall verdict on relative corporate governance performance.
Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy
https://www.kbs.edu.au/admissions/forms-and-policies
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
Please read the policy to learn the answers to these questions:
https://www.kbs.edu.au/admissions/forms-and-policies
Penalties may be applied for assessment submissions that exceed prescribed limits.
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Further details can be accessed at https://elearning.kbs.edu.au/course/view.php?id=1481
Please see the level of Generative AI that this assessment has been designed to accept:
Traffic Light | Amount of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenerativeAI) usage |
Evidence Required | This assessment (✓) |
Level 1 |
Prohibited:
No GenerativeAI allowed
This assessment showcases your individual knowledge, skills and/or personal experiences in the absence of Generative AI support. |
The use of generative AI is prohibited for this assessment and may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. |
ü |
Level 2 |
Optional:
You may use GenerativeAI for research and content generation that is appropriately referenced.
See assessment instructions for details
This assessment allows you to engage with Generative AI as a means of expanding your understanding, creativity, and idea generation in the research phase of your assessment andto produce content that enhances yourassessment. I.e., images. You do not have to use it. |
The use of GenAI is optional for this assessment.
Your collaboration with Generative AI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used.Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing -other-sources/referencing-other- sources-generative-ai In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above. | |
Level 3 |
Compulsory:
You must use GenerativeAI to complete your assessment
See assessment instruction for details
This assessment fully integrates Generative AI, allowing you to harness the technology's full potential in collaboration with your own expertise.
Always check your assessment instructions carefully as there may still be limitations on what constitutes acceptable use, and these may be specific to each assessment. |
You will be taught how to use generative AIand assessed on its use.
Your collaboration with GenerativeAI must be clearly referenced just as you would reference any other resource type used. Click on the link below to learn how to reference GenAI. https://library.kaplan.edu.au/referencing -other-sources/referencing-other- sources-generative-ai In addition, you must include an appendix that documents your GenerativeAI collaboration including all prompts and responses used for the assessment.
Unapproved use of generative AI as per assessment details during the content generation parts of your assessment may potentially result in penalties for academic misconduct, including but not limited to a mark of zero for the assessment. Ensure you follow the specific assessment instructions in the section above. |
| Criteria | F (Fail) 0% -49% | P (Pass) 50% - 64% | C (Credit) 65%-74% | D (Distinction) 75%-84% | HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% | Mark |
| Completion of Week 2 Worksheet | Table provides at most 1-2 entries for online evidence. Research Questions/Criteria maybe missing or fail to consider the table. Evidence column and Chat GPT conclusions provided in Week3. | Table provides 3 entries foronline evidence. At most, completes 1 Research Question/Criterion; OR Research Questions/Criteria fail to consider either the table Evidence column, or the Chat GPT conclusions, or both. | Table provides 3 or moreentries for online evidence. Offers 2 Research Questions/Criteria flowing from the table Evidence column and ChatGPT conclusions (provided in Week 3). Research Questions/Criteria couldbe stated moreclearly. | Table provides at least 4 entries foronline evidence. Offers two fluent Research Questions/Criteria that flow well from the table Evidence column and Chat GPT conclusions. | Table provides 5 or moreentries for online evidence, with a clear, succinct summary of some key ASX Recommendations. Offers at least two highly effective Research Questions/Criteria that flow well from the table Evidence column and ChatGPT conclusions. | /5 |
| Use of Research Questions/Criteria in theoral presentation (PartB) | Research Questions/Criteria neverappear in theOral Presentation. Final Corporate Governance verdict may be missing or highly defective. | One Research Question/Criterion is mentioned during the Oral Presentation butfails to contribute to the final Corporate Governance verdictin Part B. | One or both Research Questions/Criteria appear in the Oral Presentation. However, their relationship to the Part B Corporate Governance verdict is onlyweakly convincing. | The two Research Questions/Criteria from Week 3 are restated in the presentation slides and convincingly support the final Corporate Governance verdict. | Student’s Research Questions/Criteria fromWeek 3 are restated in the presentation slides and used to powerfully support the final Corporate Governance verdict. | /5 |
| Comments: | /10 |
Assessment Marking Guide, Part B (Video Presentation)
| Criteria | F (Fail) 0% -49% | P (Pass) 50% - 64% | C (Credit) 65%-74% | D (Distinction) 75%-84% | HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% | Mark |
| Knowledge of ASX Principles 1 and 2 pluslikely Corporate Governance (CG) implications. | Very weak grasp of either Principle (1, 2) and the CG structures predicted for Board and Management. No, or little appreciation of likely website evidence confirming each company’s adherence to one or bothPrinciples. | Adequate grasp of one ASX Principle, and the CG structures predicted for Board and Management, OR Displays theoretical understanding only of both Principles, with littlegrasp of theirCG implications for Board andManagement. | Adequately graspshow each ASX Principle structures the roles/responsibilities ofBoard and Senior Management. Detects some but not all companywebsite features pointing to each company’s adoption of good CG structures. | Strong graspof both ASXPrinciples, and their CG implications for Board and Senior Management. Identifies key indicators of adherence to ASX Principles and to good CG structures, across both company websites. | Masterly graspof both ASX Principles, and their practical CG implications. Exhaustively identifies key indicators of adherence to ASX Principles and to good CG structures, across both company websites. | /5 |
| Comparing Corporate Governance performance (CG structure and disclosure) across the chosen case companies | Forms no verdict regarding the comparative strength of the companies’ CG performances; OR provides an opinion unsupported by the companywebsites or otherevidence. | Verdict regarding the relative strength of the companies’ performances is either poorly expressed and/or only weakly supported with website evidence. | Verdict regarding the relative strength of the companies’ performances is supported through website evidence plus the proposed Research Questions/Criteria. | Verdict regarding the relative strength of the companies’ performances is cogently expressed. Verdict is supported withconsiderable website evidence plus the proposed Research Questions/Criteria. | Verdict regarding the relative strength of each company’s performance is both nuanced andcogently expressed. Verdict is supported with considerable website evidence, utilizing well the proposed Research Questions/Criteria. | /5 |
Oral Presentation Skills | Weak use of vocabulary and non- fluencies in the delivery (ums, ahs) render intended meaning difficult to follow. The speaker seems unprepared or is readingby rote fromnotes or the screen. | Poor word choices undermine the clarity of some ideas. Spoken and written (slide) content mirror one another, creating a monotonous presentation. Speaking paceis too fast or too slow and fails to consider audience needs. | Word choicesadequate for conveying ideas. Could be more variation between spoken and written (slide) content. Speaking pacedoes not always consider the audience’s needs. The speaker attempts some eye contact with the audience, ratherthan continuously reading from a script. | Good vocabulary covers key concepts succinctly. Spoken content complements written (slide) information Speaking pace is audience-friendly (neither too fast nor too slow). The speaker makes eye contactwith the audience as s/he presents. The speaker is animated and makes the audience careabout the topic. | Ideas cogently and succinctly presented usinga wide vocabulary. Spoken content complements and supplements written (slide) information. Speaks at an audience friendly pace (neither toofast nor too slow). The speaker is bothanimated and persuasive. | /5 |
| PowerPoint, Format & Referencing | Fewer than 5 PowerPoint slides used, OR slideswere not clearly visible during the presentation. Text content per slide was poorly judged (too many or too few words). There is no References list, OR, reference citations lack important details (e.g. name of journal). | An adequate number of slides was prepared and presented. Slides show little awareness of good slide construction (e.g.volume of text per slide). References list does not follow KBS Harvard. | An adequate number of slides was delivered. Slides show moderate awareness of good slideconstruction (e.g., volume of text per slide and per dot pointetc.). References list follows KBS Harvard, withsome variations. | Good judgement shown in the lengthof slide deck(relative to running time). Slides display sound understanding of the principles of good slidepreparation. References list follows KBS Harvard, with a fewexceptions. | Excellent judgement shown in the ratio between length of slide deckand running time. Slides display strong understanding of the principles of good slidepreparation. Judicious use of images addsvariety and interest to the slides. References accurately follow KBS Harvard. | /5 |
| Comments: | /20 |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
