| Category | Assignment | Subject | Accounting |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Huddersfield (UOH) | Module Title | BMA0094 Contemporary issues in Accounting and CSR |
| Word Count | 2,500 words |
|---|
Critical Analysis of CSR & Audit Issues and Recommendations for Improvement
Annual reports include non-financial information such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) information and independent reports from auditors. CSR has a perspective of how organisations should act towards their stakeholders to be regarded as ethical and socially responsible. The role of the auditor is to issue an Independent Auditor’s Report.
Accordingly, you are required to prepare a report in which you systematically and critically analyse the CSR and audit reporting practices for two companies. This represents 100% of the module mark.
The deadline for this assessment is Friday 15 December 2023 (by 3pm)
Obtain the full annual reports of Tesco Plc (year-end 25 February 2023) and J Sainsbury Plc (year-end March 2023) from each company's official website. A link is also provided under the Brightspace assessment button. Please refer to the Appendix 1 assessment rubric to structure your work. You will find a template for your individual coursework under the Brightspace Assessment button.
The report should include the following:
(a)(i) Identify and cross-reference the audit and CSR issues present within the annual reports (including the Sustainability Report and the Auditor’s Report). You should incorporate them into a tabulation for your appendices (proforma at the end of the assessment brief – Appendix 3). The template is provided in Appendix 3 to facilitate your systematic analysis of the company reports and evidence the source of your chosen issue. The appendix is not part of your word count but should be cross referenced to the main body of your written submission.
(ii) Critically analyse the audit and CSR issues identified within the reports by comparing the Tesco Plc and J Sainsbury Plc reports using your systematic analysis from part (i), considering how they meet stakeholder expectations. You should consider ethical, regulatory and governance issues in accounting.
(b)With reference to applicable theories, make and critically discuss two recommendations for improvement of non-financial information to meet the expectations and needs of stakeholders.
Duration: N/A Word Count Limit: 2,500 words
Do You Need BMA0094 Assignment of This Question
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentThis section is for information only.
The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.
On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:
Knowledge and Understanding
Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.
Submission information
Word Limit: 2,500
Submission Date: 15/12/2023
Submission Time: 15.00
Submission Method: Electronically via module site in Brightspace. Paper/hard copy submissions are not required. For technical support, please contact: busvle@hud.ac.uk
Feedback Date: 18/01/2024
|
|
Fail (0-34) A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability |
Refer Some knowledge of core material but limited critical ability |
Pass A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles |
Merit A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation |
Distinction An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
|
||||
|
|
0-9 |
10-19 |
20-34 |
35-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
10% Identify and cross reference the CSR and audit issues in the annual reports in the tabulation part a (i) |
Irrelevant issues were identified and cross-referenced. |
Issues of little relevance were identified and cross-referenced. |
Some relevant issues were identified and cross-referenced. |
Limited identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues. |
Good identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues. |
Very good identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues. |
Comprehensive identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues used selectively to support argument.
|
Excellent identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues used selectively to support and enhance argument. |
Exceptional identification and cross-referencing of relevant issues used selectively and skilfully to support and enhance argument. |
|
Critically analyse the audit issues identified within the reports by comparing the Tesco PLC reports and J Sainsbury PLC using your systematic analysis from part (i), considering how they meet the stakeholder expectations. You should consider, ethical, regulatory and governance issues in accounting. |
Entirely lacking any evidence of knowledge and understanding. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range. Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Display of knowledge is marginally insufficient. There is adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment. Some insight into the problem or topic. |
A systematic understanding of knowledge, demonstrating critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights. Critically evaluates current research and evaluates methodologies. Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. |
Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence. Independent, critical evaluation of full range of theories with some evidence of originality. |
Excellent display of knowledge. Demonstrates high levels of accuracy. Evidence of the potential to undertake research and analyse primary sources critically. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis. |
Outstanding display of knowledge. Demonstrates excellent research potential and flexibility of thought. Possibly of publishable quality. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new insights. |
Striking and outstanding display of knowledge of publishable quality. Demonstrates exceptional research potential, originality and independent thought. Ability to make informed judgements is evident. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new and profound insights. |
|
25% Critically analyse the CSR issues identified within the reports by comparing the Tesco PLC reports and J Sainsbury PLC using your systematic analysis from part (i), considering how they meet the stakeholder expectations. You should consider, ethical, regulatory and governance issues in accounting. |
Entirely lacking any evidence of knowledge and understanding. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range. Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. Limited insight into the problem or topic. |
Display of knowledge is marginally insufficient. There is adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment. Some insight into the problem or topic. |
A systematic understanding of knowledge, demonstrating critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights. Critically evaluates current research and evaluates methodologies. Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. |
Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence. Independent, critical evaluation of full range of theories with some evidence of originality
|
Excellent display of knowledge. Demonstrates high levels of accuracy. Evidence of the potential to undertake research and analyse primary sources critically. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis. |
Outstanding display of knowledge. Demonstrates excellent research potential and flexibility of thought. Possibly of publishable quality. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new insights. |
Striking and outstanding display of knowledge of publishable quality. Demonstrates exceptional research potential, originality and independent thought. Ability to make informed judgements is evident. Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new and profound insights. |
|
20% With reference to applicable theories, make and critically discuss two recommendations for improvement of non-financial information to meet the expectations and needs of stakeholders.
|
Limited insight into the problem or topic. Lacking in evidence of academic research. Lacking evidence of innovative solutions. |
Limited insight into the problem or topic. Minimal evidence of relevant academic research. Lacking evidence of innovative solutions. |
Limited insight into the problem or topic. Limited evidence of relevant academic research. Lacking evidence of feasible innovative solutions. |
Some insight into the problem or topic. Evidence of relevant academic research but omits important areas. Minimal evidence of innovative solutions. |
Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. Evidence of relevant academic research covering the essential areas. Evidence of innovative solutions. |
Independent, critical evaluation of full range of theories with some evidence of originality. Evidence of relevant academic research covering more than essential areas and includes some critical appraisal of evidence. Evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate assessment of the situation and effectiveness of the solutions. |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis. Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes well developed critical appraisal of evidence. Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate an assessment of the situation and the effectiveness of solutions. |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new insights. Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate an assessment of the situation and critical evaluation of the effectiveness of solutions. |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new and profound insights. Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes a very well-articulated comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate a full assessment of the situation and extensive critical evaluation of the effectiveness of solutions. |
|
10% Development of ideas and conclusion |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. No conclusion |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. Conclusion is not clear and difficult to understand. |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. Conclusion does not reflect arguments developed. |
Argument not fully developed and may lack structure. Concluding ideas are not clearly presented. |
The argument is developed but may lack fluency. Some presentations of some final thoughts but not effectively. |
Argument concise and Explicit. Rational summary of arguments presented.
|
Coherent and compelling argument which is well presented. Ideas are rounded off clearly and commendably
|
Coherent and compelling argument which is very well presented. Arguments are very clear and logically summed up.
|
Coherent and compelling argument which is exceptionally well presented and persuasive. Clear flow of logical ideas summed up coherently. |
|
10% Referencing and Presentation |
Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. Little or no referencing. |
Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. Little or no referencing, |
Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility Little or no referencing. |
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Some errors in language. Some limited referencing. |
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language. Reasonable relevant referencing. |
Good standard of presentation. Length requirement met and academic conventions followed. Good relevant referencing. |
Very good standards of presentation. Good relevant referencing. |
Professional standards of presentation. Considerable and relevant referencing. |
Highest professional standards of presentation. Considerable and relevant referencing |
These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.
Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.
|
|
Unacceptable |
Unsatisfactory |
Pass |
Merit |
Distinction |
||||
|
0 – 9 |
10-19 |
20-34 |
35-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
|
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes |
Not met or minimal |
Not met or minimal |
Not met or partially met |
Not met or partially met |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
|
Response to the question /task |
No response |
Little response |
Insufficient response |
Adequate response, but with limitations |
Adequate response |
Secure response to assessment task |
Very good response to topic; elements of sophistication |
Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach |
Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity |
|
|
Unacceptable A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability |
Unsatisfactory Some knowledge of core material but limited. |
Pass A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles |
Merit A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation |
Distinction An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
|
||||
|
|
0-9 |
10-19 |
20-34 |
35-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary / seminal knowledge in the subject |
Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding |
Typically, only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts |
Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts |
Marginally insufficient. Adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment |
A systematic understanding of knowledge; critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights; can evaluate critically current research and can evaluate methodologies |
Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake Research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence |
Excellent. Displays (for example): high levels of accuracy; evidence of the potential to undertake research; the ability to analyse primary sources critically. |
Insightful. Displays (for example): excellent research potential; flexibility of thought; possibly of publishable quality. |
Striking and insightful. Displays (for example): publishable quality; outstanding research potential; originality and independent thought; ability to make informed judgements. |
|
Presentation |
Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility |
Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility |
Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility |
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language |
Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language |
Good standard of presentation; length requirement met, and academic conventions followed |
Very good standards of presentation |
Professional standards of presentation |
Highest professional standards of presentation |
|
Understanding |
Limited insight into the problem or topic |
Limited insight into the problem or topic |
Limited insight into the problem or topic |
Some insight into the problem or topic |
Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline |
Independent, critical evaluation of full range of theories with some evidence of originality |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis |
|
Use of evidence and sources to support task |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources |
Limited sources |
Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship
|
Complex work and concepts presented, key texts used effectively |
Full range of sources used selectively to support argument
|
Full range of sources used selectively to support argument
|
Full range of sources used selectively to support argument
|
|
Development of ideas |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent |
Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent |
Argument not fully developed and may lack structure |
The argument is developed but may lack fluency
|
Argument concise and explicit
|
Coherent and compelling argument well presented
|
Coherent and compelling argument well presented
|
Coherent and compelling argument well presented
|
|
Personal perspective |
No evidence of any attempt or consideration of a personal perspective. |
Attempts to express a personal perspective lack any relevance. |
Attempts to express a personal perspective are only loosely relevant |
Personal perspective is expressed and has some relevance. |
Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and some justification is provided. |
Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning. |
Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning which provides clear assumptions and strength of position in relation to others. |
Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning which provides clear assumptions and strength of position in relation to others. |
Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning. |
|
Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility (subject area) |
Not considered or no relevance |
Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject. |
Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject. |
Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject. |
Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject. |
Wide consideration relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject. |
Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail. |
Full consideration of implications for subject with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. |
Full consideration of implications for subject with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
APPENDIX 1
(No limit, not inclueded in the word count)
|
Document |
Page ref |
Tesco |
Page ref |
Sainsburys |
|
First: Audit Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
xx |
e.g. Materiality levels |
xx |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second: CSR |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
xx |
e.g. Food waste |
xx |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hire Experts to solve your Assignment before Deadline
Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentFacing challenges with your BMA0094 Contemporary issues in Accounting and CSR Assignment? Well! Stop worrying now. You are at the right place. Our platform provides assignment help. We have experienced writers who provide high-quality, no-plagiarism assignments with 100% original content, and we are assured that our Business Management Assignment Help will make you productive and help you achieve high grades in your academic year. And we also provide University of Huddersfield Assignment Samples that content has been written by the phd expert writers Contact us now!
See the solutions of this brief click here: BMA0094 Assignment Sample
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
