Strategic Business

Leader (SBL)
March/June 2022
Examiner’s report
The examining team share their observations from
the marking process to highlight strengths and
weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to
offer constructive advice for those sitting the exam
in the future.

Contents
General comments .......................................................... 2
Format of the exam ...................................................... 2
Exam performance ....................................................... 3
Specific comments .......................................................... 7
Task 1 .......................................................................... 7
Task 2(a) ...................................................................... 8
Task 2(b) ...................................................................... 9
Task 3 ........................................................................ 10
Task 4 ........................................................................ 12
Task 5 ........................................................................ 14

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 1

General comments
This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published March /June
2022 sample exam which can be found on the ACCA Practice Platform.
In this report, the examining team provide constructive guidance on how to answer the
tasks whilst sharing their observations from the marking process, highlighting the
strengths and weaknesses of candidates who attempted these tasks. Future
candidates can use this examiner’s report as part of their exam preparation, attempting
question practice on the ACCA Practice Platform, reviewing the published answers
alongside this report.

Format of the exam

The examination consisted of a 4-hour exam with a single compulsory section,

comprising five main tasks, about a yacht manufacturer called Yexmarine. The
candidate’s role throughout the exam was as a member of a team of consultants,
assisting Yexmarine’s board and chief executive.
The marking scheme included 80 Technical marks for the correct use and application
of technical knowledge. For every element of technical content, answers needed to be
applied to the case. Repetition of rote learned knowledge attracted few, if any, marks.
In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for Professional skills and
competencies. The skill being examined in the requirement should have been evident
in how candidates answered the task, although candidates should draw on other
relevant skills when answering. When awarding Professional skills marks, markers
looked primarily at the professional skill being tested in the task requirement, but also
considered the general professionalism that candidates demonstrated (which included
whether answers were logical and well-presented, avoided unnecessary repetition and
answered the task set). Markers also considered whether answers had an appropriate
tone for the recipient.
As candidates take the exam on computer, they are strongly recommended to take
mocks on computer first, to gain experience of dealing with different types of exhibits
and to estimate how much they can write in the time allowed. It is important to use and
assimilate the guidance produced by ACCA for the Strategic Business Leader CBE
exam.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 2

Exam performance
The following exhibits, were presented to candidates which provided information
relevant to the case study:
1. An overview – an overview of Yexmarine Co (Yexmarine)
2. Yexmarine and its competitors – an article in Yacht Owner magazine
comparing Yexmarine with its two principal competitors
3. Strategy committee proposal – a letter to you, the consultant, from the chief
executive detailing his proposal to create a strategy committee
4. Employee satisfaction survey results – an email from the human resources
director to the chief executive about the findings of an employee satisfaction
survey
5. Overview of investment projects – a summary of proposals for product
development
6. Risk assessment and mitigation – an assessment by the operations
manager of significant risks and mitigating activities
7. Marketing services offer – a summary of a proposal from Seeyachts Co
marketing agency offering marketing services to Yexmarine

Overall, the standard of candidates’ answers for the March 2022 sitting was in line with
other recent sittings. The biggest weaknesses were lack of depth and explanation in
the points candidates made and failing to consider the context of Yexmarine.
The most competent candidates integrated and used information from the case study
materials throughout their answers, selecting relevant technical knowledge to support
the applied points they were making. They also demonstrated professional skills
through analysis, evaluation and sound commercial awareness, and through how they
structured and presented their answers.
• It was apparent that some candidates had not used and assimilated the guidance
and resources produced by ACCA for Strategic Business Leader. It is worth
remembering that this is an important part of exam preparation.
Analysing the exhibits
Candidates must spend sufficient time reading and assimilating the information within
the exhibits which make up the case study materials. Often answers failed to make
sufficient reference to the exhibits or failed to make use of the full range of material in
the exhibits.
Candidates should read the exhibits carefully, whilst keeping the requirements of each
task in mind, as this will help them to identify which tasks will be drawing on the
material in each exhibit. Candidates need to remember that material from more than
one exhibit may be relevant when answering each task.
The exhibits:
• Provide the material which underpin the applied points that candidates should be
making.
• Include necessary background information and explanation to provide context to
candidates’ answers.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 3

• Help candidates to decide how to structure their answers.
• Highlight the most important issues that answers should cover.
However, candidates must remember that merely reproducing material from the
exhibits without commenting on it or developing points further will not score marks.
Planning
Candidates must also spend sufficient time on planning, to ensure that their answers
are:
• Structured logically
• Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of points to
be made
• Covering the most important points
• Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements
• Not making the same point two (or more) times
• Not overlapping
When taking the exam on computer it may be useful to copy and paste the task
requirements into the word processor answer area. Candidates then do not need to
keep looking at the task tabs and it may help them to remain more focused on the
tasks as they answer them.
Time management
Most candidates answered all five tasks and there was no real indication that they had
run out of time or stamina on this examination. This suggests that candidates are
improving their time management skills. Candidates are strongly recommended to
take mock exams under full exam conditions before the actual exam, to get used to
the demands on concentration, thinking and writing that a four-hour exam requires.
Candidates also need to be aware of how time can be poorly used in this exam:
• Wasting time by including material not relevant to the task requirements.
• Writing elaborate and lengthy plans.
• Making the same point twice or more in slightly different ways, particularly in Task
2a in this exam. Markers will not give additional marks for points which are repeated
or re-stated, even if they are slightly reworded.
Reasons for failure
In most cases, those candidates who failed this exam did so because of:
• Lack of development of the points made (that is, not fully explaining why the point
was relevant/important in the context of the task requirements).
• Lack of analysis skills (demonstrated through an inability to select, and then
appropriately use, relevant information to answer task requirements).
• Failure to provide what the requirements specified.
• Failure to respond to the requirements in a professional/commercially sound

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 4

 manner.
• Lack of understanding of what was strategically significant for the company.
• Lack of commercial acumen.
• Poor level of technical knowledge.
• Wasting time making irrelevant points.
It was particularly disappointing to see candidates not reading the task requirements
carefully enough, resulting in them not answering the task that had been asked or not
providing everything that the requirements specified. This demonstrates poor
examination technique and a lack of professionalism.
Technical marks
Demonstration of technical knowledge alone or explanation of theory does not score
marks in the Strategic Business Leader exam. To gain each technical mark,
candidates needed to:
• Make points that addressed the requirements of the task, considering the scope of
answer required and what the task verb indicated should be provided.
• Show the marker why the points being made were significant/relevant in the
context of Yexmarine.
• Consider issues that were specific to the decision or issue covered in the task
requirement.
Up to two marks were sometimes available for a well-developed point made. However,
candidates are reminded that two marks will only be awarded when the candidate has
successfully identified/explained a relevant point AND has then developed this point
by:
• Evaluating how significant the point is.
• Using the information provided that relates the point directly to the company.
• Explaining the consequences for the company.
• Supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.
In this sitting, candidates often reproduced information taken from the exhibits without
explaining WHY the information was important or made assertions without supporting
them with reasons. Examples included:
• Stating that the strategy committee should meet regularly, without justifying this
statement in terms of the tasks that it needed to carry out regularly (Task 1).
• Stating that the payback period for luxury yachts was six years without explaining
why this was significant in the context of risk or the chief executive’s time horizon
(Task 3).
• Stating that the suggested risk mitigation activities were inadequate without giving
reasons (Task 4).
Weaker candidates often just repeated case material. This happened particularly in
Task 5 in this sitting, where candidates were asked to consider the potential benefits
that using the services offered by the advertising agency could provide for Yexmarine.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 5

Many candidates merely copied and pasted information from Exhibit 7 without showing
how the services offered would fulfil Yexmarine’s needs.
Candidates who presented very generic answers were awarded limited marks. Again,
in Task 5, some answers discussed e-marketing in general without referring to the
advertising agency’s services or the needs of Yexmarine.
Professional skills marks
Many candidates had clearly thought about professional skills marks and attempted to
present their answers in an appropriate format, as requested in each task requirement.
Whatever the format requested, the recipient will be helped by an answer that is
presented and structured clearly, with headers throughout the answer and which
avoids repetitive information. Candidates should remember that they are carrying out
a professional task that has a particular purpose(s) for a defined user or stakeholder.
Faults seen on a number of scripts included:
• Overlong paragraphs, with aspects of a task (for example, problems with a
proposal), discussed in a single paragraph containing multiple points. This shows
poor exam technique and lack of professionalism.
• Not paying attention to the format required. Some candidates continue to produce
essay-type answers no matter what format was required.
• Not considering who was receiving the document produced. For example, in Task
2b candidates were asked to produce a letter addressed to the employees. Talking
throughout the letter about the employees in the third person rather than trying to
communicate directly with them in the language used would not help persuade
employees that management cared for their interests.
• Poor tone and comments made, for example in Task 1 when challenging the
integrity of the executive directors on the strategy committee in a letter addressed
to the chief executive, one of the directors.
• Failing to demonstrate sound commercial acumen in making suggestions for risk
mitigation activities in Task 4, for example suggesting moving all Yexmarine’s
operations to high ground. Task 4 was a good illustration of a professional skill
(commercial acumen) being important, even though another skill (scepticism)
gained the professional skills marks.
Candidates must read the technical and professional requirements together, as this
will assist them in formulating their answers in the correct style, tone and with the
correct level of professionalism.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 6

Specific comments

Task 1

Yexmarine’s chief executive is drafting plans to establish a number of board sub-

committees, to fulfil the business needs of Yexmarine as well as meeting
corporate governance best practice requirements. The first committee he wishes
to establish is a strategy committee and he has set out his proposal for it. He
wants your views on the benefits of, and problems with, his proposal. He wants
your consideration of the problems to include discussion of any omission from
the proposal.
Write a letter replying to the chief executive of Yexmarine which assesses
his proposal to establish a strategy committee.
(14 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating analysis skills in
considering the benefits of, and problems with, the proposal.
(3 marks)

This task required a systematic approach to going through the letter from the chief
executive (Exhibit 3) and linking the proposals in it to Yexmarine’s situation, in order
to be able to explain why the proposals were beneficial or problematic. Candidates
needed to link the proposals to the important issues that Yexmarine had to address
over the next few years (achievement of increased profit margins, lagging behind
competitors, investment decisions) and the need for reappraisal of governance
structures if Yexmarine sought a listing.

Candidates also needed to take a step back and identify what was missing from the
proposals, particularly as regards the committee’s membership.

Candidates generally limited their marks here through failure to develop points. They
did not consider the needs of Yexmarine given its strategic, commercial and
governance situation. Omissions, such as those of non-executive directors from the
committee’s membership, were simply stated without explaining their significance,
such as the contribution non-executive directors could make. Candidates also often
stated that the strategic committee should meet regularly without justifying the
recommendation in terms of the aspects of its role that required continued attention.

Answers to this task also seemed to contain more irrelevant material than other tasks,
with candidates discussing general governance issues such as the overall composition
of the board and other board committees.

Other weaknesses included:

• Failing to identify the finance director as missing from the committee’s

membership. This was surprising given the need for the committee to discuss
investment proposals with considerable financial implications as shown in Exhibit
5.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 7

• Not identifying the lack of human resource expertise on the committee. The
current problems with employee relations and the operational need for
experienced staff indicated the need to consider the human resource implications
of strategies.
• Failing to consider possible organisational complexities, particularly unclear split
of responsibilities between the board and strategic committee, and how the
corporate strategies discussed by the committee would link to operational
strategies.
• Not considering the implications of listing, for example the need to give
confidence to investors that strategy was being developed within a coherent
framework.
• Stating as benefits information that had just been cut and pasted from Exhibit 3.
• Talking about current shareholders as if they were external shareholders – all the
shares were currently owned by the executive directors.
• Writing about the pros and cons of strategies rather than the strategic committee.

To score higher professional marks, candidates had to assess whether the proposals
would fulfil the governance needs of Yexmarine in relation to the direction of strategy,
bearing in mind also the requirements Yexmarine would have to fulfil if it became listed.
Professional marks were often limited due to failure to identify any omissions as
required by the chief executive. Responding to instructions given is an important
requirement across the Strategic Professional level.

Task 2(a)

Yexmarine’s chief executive is concerned about the results of the recent

employee satisfaction survey. He feels that a lack of motivation from staff could
jeopardise the success of the planned programme of changes. He believes that
Yexmarine must fully utilise its employees’ skills and experience and regards a
high level of employee retention as a vital factor in his plans for expansion. The
chief executive therefore believes that the board must address employees’
concerns and reward them, as appropriate, for their contribution to introducing
the proposed changes.
(a) Prepare briefing notes for the board which advise how employee
dissatisfaction may impact upon each stage of the organisational
change process.
(10 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating analysis skills by
linking evidence about employee dissatisfaction to consequences for the
organisational change process.
(3 marks)

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 8

This task provided a good example of how a model could be used in the Strategic
Business Leader exam. The reference in the task requirements to stages of the
organisational change process suggested use of a change model such as Lewin’s
three stage model. Although technical marks were not awarded for stating the model,
it could provide a structured framework for organising the answer. A change model
could also be a source of ideas for specific activities during the change process. These
activities could be linked to staff concerns expressed in the employee survey. For
example, using Lewin’s model:
• Staff feeling that their opinions would be ignored might make them reluctant to offer
their views during the consultation that would be part of the unfreezing stage.
• Staff reluctance to work overtime because they believed that they would not be
paid for it could delay the change stage as it might require staff to make extra
efforts.
• Staff attachment to old ways of working and the likelihood they would revert back
to them might be a major problem during the refreezing stage.
However, many candidates did not use a change model. This meant that although they
identified relevant staff concerns, they struggled to come up with specific impacts
these concerns could have on the change process. The impacts stated were often
repeated, vaguely expressed, or related to business operations generally rather than
the change process.
Some candidates who did use Lewin’s model described its stages but failed to apply
it to Yexmarine’s circumstances and the issues raised by employees.
Some answers also spent time discussing what could be done to deal with employees’
concerns. This shows the importance of being aware of what all task requirements
contain, as addressing employees’ concerns was clearly required in Task 2b.
Professional marks were often low as candidates failed to link clearly evidence of
employee dissatisfaction with specific aspects of the change process.

Task 2(b)

(b) Prepare a letter, to be sent by the chief executive to all employees,

explaining to them the steps which will be taken to address the
concerns which they have about the proposed changes.
(8 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating communication skills
by persuading employees that Yexmarine will take effective steps to address
their concerns.
(3 marks)

This task was generally done quite well. Candidates needed to go through the points
raised in the employee satisfaction survey (Exhibit 4) and suggest appropriate and
sensitive responses to each concern. Many candidates did this. Stronger candidates

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 9

appreciated the particular need for better communication and feedback from
employees.
The main weaknesses were:
• Suggesting vague actions rather than specific steps that addressed employee
concerns.
• Spending too much time on the flooding issue – only a few employees had raised
this and it was not relevant to the changes in organisation and working practices
that were the main concerns raised in the employee survey.
• Listing in detail the benefits to Yexmarine, often at the start of the letter, which
suggested that they were what really mattered to the board.
• Writing a letter to the chief executive from the consultant rather than from the chief
executive to staff.
Encouragingly, many candidates made a good attempt at adopting a persuasive,
positive tone that could convince staff that their concerns would be addressed, and
therefore earned higher professional marks. They used the appropriate letter format.
Professional marks were occasionally limited for untactful comments (for example,
about the need for redundancies). More often though, professional marks were low
because answers:
• Talked about the employees in the third person rather than addressing them
directly.
• Adopted a defensive tone about the changes.
• Focused on the benefits to Yexmarine of the changes rather than employee
concerns.
• Failed to address important concerns of employees (overtime, training and skills
development).

Task 3

Yexmarine’s board is considering two investment projects (a new range of

sailing dinghies versus a new range of luxury yachts) which have been
summarised by the finance director. Yexmarine will use the excess funds from
the sale of its sites to finance any investment it makes. However, it will not have
sufficient resources to choose both options. The chief executive believes that a
successful significant investment could have a large impact on the success of
Yexmarine over the next few years and is seeking your view on whether either of
the proposed investments should be chosen.
Prepare a report to the board which:
• Advises on the financial and non-financial benefits and drawbacks of
each of the investment projects; and
• Recommends, with reasons, which, if any, should be chosen.
(24 marks)

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 10

 Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating evaluation skills by
making justified recommendations which are based on a balanced assessment
of both projects.
(4 marks)

This task was often crucial in determining whether candidates passed or failed the
exam. There were some very good answers that scored a high proportion of the marks
available.
The length of answers compared with others in the exam sometimes suggested that
candidates may have spent less time on this task than would be expected given the
28 marks available.
Candidates who followed the approach indicated in the task requirements of
discussing each option separately, splitting their answers between benefits and
drawbacks and splitting benefits and drawbacks into financial and non-financial were
often able to generate plenty of ideas. The requirements did not specify a direct
comparison was needed and candidates who compared the two options on a point-
by-point basis seemed to have more difficulty generating ideas. In addition, some
comparisons:
• Added no value (the sales price of the two boats).
• Were not appropriate (direct comparison of the two NPVs failed to take into account
the difference in initial investment amounts, which was significant as financial
capital was limited to the sale proceeds of the sites).
Financial analysis was the biggest weakness in many answers. Candidates simply
stated figures without explaining their significance:
• Profit margins were stated to be high or low without a meaningful comparison being
made (the obvious comparison being with the chief executive’s target).
• Payback for the luxury yachts was stated to be high at six years, without explaining
that this was a potential indicator of risk or comparing it to the chief executive’s
five-year time horizon.
Whilst querying revenue and cost estimates was legitimate as sales price and profit
margins were given, candidates wasted time questioning other aspects of the net
present value calculation (cost of capital, taxation) for which no details were supplied.
Some candidates also forgot that the initial investment is included in a net present
value calculation, so net present value does not have to be greater than the initial
investment for it to be acceptable.
Similarly, some candidates stated relevant non-financial factors without evaluating
their significance. Candidates could have identified more non-financial factors if they
had considered Yexmarine’s current positioning (Yexmarine’s cruising yachts not
matching Kelabby’s for comfort and style suggesting it would be challenging for
Yexmarine to produce luxury yachts). Discussing future intentions could also have
generated marks, particularly as there appeared to be a conflict:
• The move towards increased automation and standardisation suggesting the
simple design dinghies would be a more appropriate choice.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 11

• The need to demonstrate innovation, motivate employees by utilising their
craftmanship skills and have a high revenue product to show when listing was
sought inclining the decision towards luxury yachts.
Factors which few candidates discussed for the dinghies option:
• Demand being less vulnerable to fashion changes.
• Dinghies being a potential long-term steady earner.
• Low starting price being seen as an indication of lower quality.
• Customers trading up to cruising yachts in time.
And for the luxury yachts option:
• Customers not being affected by economic conditions.
• The figures being sensitive to a few, large sales.
• Incurring foreign exchange risk.
• Incorporating features developed for luxury yachts into cruising yachts.
Generally, candidates included a recommendation section. However, some failed to
make the required clear recommendation. Some recommendation sections were also
quite long, containing points that had not been previously made, instead of highlighting
which factor should be most important in determining the decision.
Professional marks were often correlated to technical marks, with answers scoring
limited technical marks not showing the balance required for an evaluation.
Professional marks were also restricted when there was no clear recommendation.
Answers that scored higher professional marks provided a reasoned and justified
recommendation, with appropriate balance between, and evaluation of, the two
projects and their financial and non-financial aspects.

Task 4

Yexmarine’s chief executive wishes to obtain independent assurance that the

company is taking sufficient steps to manage significant risks effectively. The
chief executive has selected two risks about which he has concerns and has
asked the operations manager to assess them and recommend how they should
be managed. The chief executive wants you to evaluate the assessments which
the operations manager has supplied.

Prepare a report for the chief executive which:

• Evaluates the assessment made of each risk and its potential impacts;
• Evaluates the adequacy of the risk mitigating activities for each risk;
and
• Recommends any further mitigating activities which may be required.
(12 marks)

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 12

 Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating scepticism skills by
questioning the assessments of the level and impacts of the risks, and
questioning the adequacy of the risk mitigation activities.
(3 marks)

Generally, candidates organised their answer as specified in the task requirements.

Answers were generally stronger on flooding risk than product obsolescence risk. Most
candidates picked up from Exhibit 4 the recent flooding record of Lympool appearing
to contradict the assessment of flooding risk as non-serious. However, candidates
often failed to score marks on the adequacy of existing risk mitigating activities
because they simply stated that the activities were adequate or inadequate without
giving reasons.
A surprising number of candidates failed to suggest that Yexmarine should take some
precautions itself – a contingency plan was certainly required. Some precautions
suggested were impractical or not in line with Yexmarine’s circumstances. Per Exhibit
1 the purchase of the site at Lympool had already been agreed, so Yexmarine could
not move to an alternative site.
Answers on product obsolescence risk were weaker, as many candidates did not
grasp that product obsolescence meant here falling behind market taste. Few
candidates queried the assessment of risk as serious, which was questionable in the
short-term given the nature of Yexmarine’s products. Very few considered whether
the risk would differ between existing and new products.
Few answers picked up that the risk mitigation activities suggested were reacting to
competitors – Kelabby was emphasising its additional features per Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2
also indicated that Yexmarine appeared old-fashioned. These issues had to be
addressed by a strategic change emphasising innovation across Yexmarine and
underpinned by investment in technology and design capability. Instead, the additional
measures suggested often related to existing inventory or quality management.
Many candidates failed to criticise the labelling of risks as serious or non-serious and
suggested that stating their likelihood and impact would have been better.
It was sometimes difficult for markers to assess professional marks, as scepticism was
more strongly shown for flooding risk than product obsolescence risk. Answers often
scored lower marks because candidates failed to give reasons to support their
assertions.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 13

Task 5

Yexmarine’s chief executive is looking at the ways in which Yexmarine’s boats

are marketed. Yexmarine’s board intends to continue to use traditional
marketing methods such as boat shows but believes that e-marketing of
Yexmarine needs to be enhanced. The board has received a proposal from an
advertising agency, Seeyachts Co, which the chief executive would like you to
assess. You should not consider the cost of the services of the advertising
agency as an issue.
Prepare briefing notes for the board which assess the potential benefits
that using the services offered by the advertising agency could provide for
Yexmarine.
(12 marks)
Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating commercial acumen
skills by assessing how the services offered could enhance Yexmarine’s
competitive position.
(4 marks)

Most candidates wrote a reasonable amount for this task, suggesting time pressure
was not an issue.
The way to approach this task was to work systematically through the services offered
by the Seeyachts advertising agency and relate them to Yexmarine’s commercial
needs. However, many answers cut and pasted from the agency’s promotional
material in Exhibit 7 and failed to provide value-added comments that related to
Yexmarine’s circumstances. Alternatively, some candidates produced generic
answers about e-marketing, simply listing the uses and benefits of websites and social
media, without linking their answer to Yexmarine or the advertising agency’s services.
Other weaknesses included:
• Failing to consider the general provision of services by the advertising agency, it
acting in the short-term instead of the marketing director that Yexmarine did not
currently have, and possible advantages from using it for longer-term consultancy
or outsourcing marketing activities to it.
• Use of the 6Is framework – this did not seem to add value generally when used to
structure answers. Sometimes answer content seemed forced into the framework,
meaning the points made were not clear.
Professional marks were generally low, often due to the failure to relate the advertising
agency’s services to Yexmarine’s requirements and competitive position. Some
candidates made good use of their own experiences of websites and social media and
scored higher professional marks as a result.

Examiner’s report – SBL March/June 2022 14