UK's No.1 Assignment Help, Trusted Since 2018
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Accounting |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Sheffield Hallam University | Module Title | 44-710052 International Auditing and Professional Ethics |
| Word Count | 2500+/- 10% |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Coursework |
| Academic Year | 2025-26 |
Your coursework must be based on one of the FTSE 100 companies that you will be allocated. This will be found in the BlackBoard folder called “Your Coursework Company…”
Your coursework submission must cover these three areas:
| Component | Description | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Reflective Discussion | Submit a 2,500-word reflective discussion that draws on the data, analysis, and evidence presented in your LEP. The discussion should address four specified areas of the module and demonstrate appropriate application of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), relevant ethical frameworks, and auditing theory, all applied to the specific context of your allocated company. See the four specific areas below: | 60% |
| 2. Learning Evidence Portfolio (LEP) (Appendix 1) | Submit a completed learning evidence portfolio (LEP) based on the allocated company. Use the instructions for the weekly seminar on the blackboard to complete the task. This should be included in Appendix 1. | 30% |
| 3. Accounting and Auditing Standards (Appendix 2) | Submit documentation of all Accounting and Auditing standards used in your discussion, explaining how each has been applied. This should be included in Appendix 2. | 10% |
Using relevant accounting and auditing standards, reflect on the LEP you have completed for your allocated company over the course of the semester. Your reflection should cover the following areas:
1. Using the business risks identified in your LEP, discuss at least FIVE audit concerns relating to how these business risks may translate into inherent risks at the financial statement and assertion level; Clearly identify affected accounts, disclosures, and audit assertions; Explain why these areas are particularly susceptible to material misstatement. (15 Marks).
2. Using the financial statement data, ratios, and trend analysis contained in your LEP: Discuss FIVE areas of the financial statements that may have represented significant audit concerns; Discuss unusual trends, volatility, or inconsistencies and their implications for audit risk. (15 Marks)
3. With reference to your allocated company, its business nature, size, customers, etc.: Critically discuss potential threats to auditor independence, create an example to explain these threats; Evaluate the acceptable limits of these threats under professional and ethical standards; Discuss the effectiveness of safeguards in mitigating independence risks. (15 Marks)
4. Assuming an audit failure occurred in your allocated company: Critically analyse the potential consequences for different stakeholder groups, including:
Support this discussion with previous audit failures and how they affected stakeholders of the companies, and possibly the auditors, too. (15 Marks)
You are expected to complete LEP activities over the 10-week seminars. There are 74 points available in total across these 10 weeks of activities. These 74 points together make up 30% of your overall course grade. Your score out of 74 will be converted proportionally into that 30%. For example:
| Summary | Point Available |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | 8 |
| Week 2 | 8.5 |
| Week 3 | 6 |
| Week 4 | 7 |
| Week 5 | 11 |
| Week 6 | 7.5 |
| Week 7 | 10 |
| Week 8 | 7 |
| Week 9 | 9 |
| Week 10 | 11.5 |
| 74 |
See the ALL of the week's LEP on the Blackboard.
You are expected to complete a table that documents all the accounting and auditing standards you have used in the discussion. This table must contain how you have applied the standards to your discussion. The table format below:
| Standards | Title of the Standards | How have you applied the standards to your Reflective Discussion |
|
|
|
|
| Criteria | Very Low, Low or Mid-Fail 0–39% | Borderline Fail 40–49% | Low, Mid or High Pass 50–59% | Low, Mid or High Merit 60–69% | Low, Mid or High Distinction 70–92% | Exceptional Distinction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. Business Risk → Inherent Risk & Assertions (15 Marks) Using the business risks identified in your LEP, discuss at least FIVE audit concerns; link business risks to inherent risks at the financial statement and assertion level; identify affected accounts, disclosures and assertions; explain susceptibility to material misstatement. |
Very few or irrelevant risks identified. Fewer than five concerns. No clear linkage between business risk and inherent risk. Accounts/assertions missing or incorrect. Highly descriptive. Poor structure. | Some relevant risks were identified, but superficial discussion. Weak linkage to inherent risk. Limited or unclear identification of accounts and assertions. Minimal explanation of material misstatement risk. | Five concerns were identified. Basic explanation of inherent risk and affected accounts/assertions. Some linkage is evident, but mostly descriptive. Limited critical evaluation. Adequate structure. | Clear and logical discussion of five audit concerns. Good linkage between business risks and inherent risks at both FS and assertion levels. Correct identification of accounts and assertions. Good justification of misstatement risk. | Wide-ranging, insightful and technically accurate analysis. Strong integration of the business environment and audit risk model. Clear explanation of complexity, judgment, and susceptibility to misstatement. Well-structured and analytical. | Exceptional depth and originality. Sophisticated integration of risk assessment, professional judgement, and assertion-level analysis. Nuanced and authoritative discussion demonstrating professional-level insight. |
|
2. Financial Statement Analysis & Audit Concerns (15 Marks) Using financial data, ratios and trend analysis from LEP: identify FIVE significant audit concern areas; analyse unusual trends and implications for audit risk. |
Minimal or incorrect ratio/trend analysis. Fewer than five areas identified. No meaningful audit implications. Highly descriptive and fragmented. | Basic ratios discussed, but with limited interpretation. Audit concerns are weakly justified. Limited link to audit risk. | Five areas were identified with adequate explanation. Some discussion of trends and volatility. Basic link to audit implications. Mostly descriptive. | Good analytical discussion of trends and inconsistencies. Clear linkage to potential misstatement and audit planning implications. Demonstrates understanding of analytical procedures. | Strong analytical depth and professional scepticism. Insightful evaluation of volatility, inconsistencies and business drivers. Clear integration with audit risk assessment and planning decisions. | Exceptional financial and risk analysis. Integrates quantitative and qualitative factors. Identifies earnings management indicators and estimation risk. Highly critical and authoritative. |
|
3. Auditor Independence & Ethical Evaluation (15 Marks) Critically discuss independence threats; provide examples; evaluate acceptable limits under professional standards; assess safeguards. |
Very limited understanding of independence threats. No clear example. No meaningful reference to ethical standards. Descriptive and poorly structured. | Some threats were identified, but the explanation was weak. Limited example. Minimal evaluation of safeguards or standards. | Key threats identified (e.g., self-interest, familiarity). Basic example provided. Some discussion of safeguards. Limited critical depth. | Good, company-specific discussion of threats. A clear example illustrating risk. Evaluates safeguards and ethical standards effectively. Balanced and structured. | Insightful and critical evaluation tailored to the company context. Strong application of a professional and ethical framework. Evaluates the effectiveness and limitations of safeguards. | Exceptional and original analysis. Evaluates structural and systemic independence risks. Integrates regulatory reform debates and demonstrates authoritative professional judgement. |
|
4. Consequences of Audit Failure (15 Marks) Critically analyse consequences for investors, management, regulators, employees, creditors and society; support with real audit failure examples. |
Limited stakeholder coverage. No or weak real-world examples. Highly descriptive with no critical analysis. | Some stakeholder impacts were discussed, but superficially. Limited examples. Weak evaluation. | Adequate coverage of stakeholder groups. Some relevant examples are used. Mostly descriptive with limited depth. | Good critical discussion of stakeholder consequences. Relevant audit failure examples are used effectively. Shows understanding of accountability and regulatory implications. | Strong, well-supported and critical evaluation. Insightful discussion of economic, reputational and regulatory consequences. Good integration of theory and practice. | Exceptional, nuanced and authoritative analysis. Evaluates systemic consequences for trust, governance reform and the audit profession. Highly original and critically sophisticated. |
| Learning Evidence Portfolio (LEP) – 30% of Final Grade (74 points over 10 weeks) | Few activities completed. Minimal engagement. Little evidence of improvement or application. | Inconsistent completion. Limited engagement or development. | Most activities completed. Adequate engagement. Some improvement over time. | Consistent completion with good quality contributions. Clear evidence of applying feedback and development. | All activities were completed to a high standard. Strong engagement, clear progression, and consistent application to the final assessment. | Outstanding and consistent engagement. Demonstrates continuous improvement, deep integration with final assessment, and professional-level commitment. |
|
Accounting & Auditing Standards Documentation Table Must document standards used and explain how applied in the discussion. |
Few or incorrect standards are listed. No clear application to the discussion. | Some relevant standards are listed, but limited explanation of their application. | Relevant standards identified. Basic explanation of how applied. Limited integration into analysis. | Good range of standards clearly applied to the discussion. Demonstrates understanding of requirements. | Wide-ranging and accurately applied standards integrated into arguments. Strong technical understanding. | Comprehensive, technically precise and critically applied documentation. Demonstrates authoritative command of accounting, auditing and ethical standards. |
| Class | Category | Mark range | % | General Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distinction | Exceptional Distinction | 93 - 100 | 96 | Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding evidenced by own independent insight and critical awareness of relevant literature and concepts at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of extensive and appropriate independent inquiry operating with advanced concepts, methods and techniques to solve problems in unfamiliar contexts; Cogent arguments and explanations are consistently provided using a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a variety of formats using a sophisticated level of the English language in an eloquent and professional manner to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to all aspects of the tasks is evidenced; academic work extends boundaries of the disciplines and is beyond expectation of the level and may achieve publishable or commercial standard. |
| Distinction | High Distinction | 85 - 92 | 89 | Excellent knowledge and understanding evidenced by some clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of appropriate independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve complex problems in mostly familiar contexts; Arguments and explanations are provided that is well-supported by the literature and in some cases uses a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a limited number of formats using own style that is suited to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to most aspects of the tasks is evidenced; one or more aspects of the academic work is beyond the prescribed range and evidences a competent understanding of all of the relevant taught content. |
| Mid Distinction | 78 - 84 | 81 | ||
| Low Distinction | 70 - 77 | 74 | ||
| Merit | High Merit | 67 - 69 | 68 | Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced as the student is typically able to independently relate taught facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some competent independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve familiar problems; Arguments and explanations are provided that are typically supported by the literature and in some cases may challenge some received wisdom; competently uses all taught media and communication methods to communicate effectively in a familiar setting; an academically rigorous approach applied to some aspects of the tasks is evidenced; some beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning. |
| Mid Merit | 64 - 66 | 65 | ||
| Low Merit | 60 - 63 | 62 | ||
| Pass | High Pass | 57 - 59 | 58 | Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical and mostly confined to concepts that are not at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some independent reading and research to advance work and inform arguments and approaches; Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although some are adequately supported by the literature albeit descriptively rather than critically; competently uses at least one taught media and communication method to communicate appropriately in familiar settings; although the approach applied to some aspects of the tasks may lack academic rigour, there are some clear areas of competence within the prescribed range. Relies on set sources to advance work/direct arguments and communicated in a way which shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent. |
| Mid Pass | 54 - 56 | 55 | ||
| Low Pass | 50 - 53 | 50 | ||
| Fail | Borderline Fail | 40 - 49 | 45 | Knowledge and understanding is insufficient as the student only evidences an understanding of small subset of the taught concepts and techniques; fails to make sufficient links between known concepts and facts to adequately solve relevant aspects of the brief/problem; little ability to independently select and eSMHate reading/research with almost total reliance on set sources and unsubstantiated arguments/methods; communication/presentation may be competent in places but fails to demonstrate structure, clarity and/or focus; inability to adequately define problems and make reasoned judgements; the general approach to tasks lacks rigor and competence. |
| Mid Fail | 30 - 39 | 35 | ||
| Low Fail | 20 - 29 | 25 | ||
| Fail | Very Low Fail | 6 - 19 | 10 | Knowledge and understanding is highly insufficient as the student is unable to evidence any meaningful understanding of taught concepts or methods; very limited evidence of reading and research to advance work; inadequate technical and practical skills as the student is unable to use and apply such skills to address problems or make judgements; limited or lack of understanding of the boundaries of the discipline and does not question received wisdom; approach to learning lacks autonomy and approach to tasks is not sustained; inability to communicate coherently. |
| Zero | Zero | 0 - 5 | 0 | Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases. |
Academic integrity – why is it important?
We recognise that students can feel a variety of pressures and stresses whilst preparing a piece of coursework.
However, we also recognise that a degree from Sheffield Hallam University has significant SMHe in the marketplace. This SMHe is due—in part—to the quality standards that SHU upholds.
It is your responsibility as a student to demonstrate academic integrity in the preparation of this coursework. This integrity will protect you and ensure that the quality of all SHU degrees is maintained in the marketplace.
Academic integrity - the use of other sources and referencing
The simple rule is that if you use another source to help you write something, you must (Cite) and Reference the source.
Even if you change, alter, improve, translate, or even paraphrase the words, you must still (Cite) and Reference the source in every paragraph where you rely upon that source.
Further guidance about how reference can be found at: Referencing Guide - Library Online - LibGuides at Sheffield Hallam University (shu.ac.uk)
General SHU guidance about assessments
Further guidance about assessments in general can be found at: Assessment 4 Students (shu.ac.uk)
Housekeeping issues and clarification about divisional policy
Where do I submit this work?
Upload all of your files to the relevant Submission Point on BlackBoard. This will be in the Assessment or Re-Assessment folder on BlackBoard.
Timing of the release of marks and feedback
The university policy is that you will receive your mark and feedback on your work within 15 working days of the submission date. Where this is not achievable, you will be notified of the revised date and the reasons for the change.
The marks that are released are technically drafts because they have not been moderated by the external examiner. However, only in exceptional circumstances do external examiners request that the published marks be modified.
Clarification about hand-in rules
Before 3 pm means that if BlackBoard says 3:01 pm, you have handed in late.
There are no excuses for IT issues, internet issues, or lost data problems. It is your responsibility to back up your work as you develop your coursework. It is also your responsibility to manage the timing of your hand-in so that you have sufficient time to resolve any unexpected problems encountered whilst uploading your work.
Markers can—and will only—mark what was handed in before 3:00 p.m. It is your responsibility to make sure you upload all of your work before the deadline.
Requesting an extension
If you wish to request an extension, you should submit a request through your My Student Record account. Do not assume that you will always be granted an extension, and remember that the student support officers need a reasonable amount of time to process your request.
What if you are struggling to complete your work due to well-being issues
If your well-being is impacting your ability to complete your work, you should talk to a student support adviser. Use this link to book an appointment: Schedule Appointment • Customer Self-Service (shu.ac.uk)
Clarification about the name of the assessment
The SHU software is very sensitive to the assessment's name. Don’t worry if the BlackBoard upload point uses a slightly different name than the one on this form.
Order Custom Answer for 44-710052 International Auditing and Professional Ethics Assignment
Order Non-Plagiarised AssignmentStruggling with your 44-710052 International Auditing and Professional Ethics at Sheffield Hallam University? Get expert Auditing Assignment Help designed to support your academic success. Our specialists understand the practical and theoretical aspects of work-based learning and provide well-researched, structured guidance. With reliable Online Assignment Help, you can manage tight deadlines while maintaining high academic standards. We also offer high-quality Assignment Samples Solutions to help you understand the expected format and analysis techniques. Improve your learning outcomes, strengthen your concepts, and submit confidently with professional support tailored to the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University students. Achieve better grades with confidence.
Hire Assignment Helper Today!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
