ASSESSMENT: Corporate Governance Individual Assignment (100%)

Module Code: BMA0096

Module Title: Corporate Governance
Assessment Type
Individual assignment
Academic Year 2023/24 Block 6

Assessment Task
You are required to select a company from the FTSE100 list on the London Stock
Exchange and answer the following questions. Support your answers with
appropriate examples, publicly available information, and relevant academic
research articles.

Required documents, including your assignment in the Word document file and the
company's latest annual report, must be submitted via module site in Brightspace.

Task:
Question 1

Referring to ‘Section 3: Composition, succession and evaluation’ of the 2018 UK

Corporate Governance Code, identify three main principles or provisions of the
section and critically evaluate how those principles have been applied by the
company.
(30 marks, 750 words max)

Question 2

Referring to the company’s governance report, identify and examine two main
roles of the board of directors.
(20 marks, 500 words max)

Question 3

Critically analyse the company's executive remuneration components and discuss

the strengths and weaknesses of those pay components.
(30 marks, 750 words max)

Question 4

Several theories have been put forward to explain the relationship between pay
and performance of executives. Identify and critically evaluate one theory that
supports the company’s executive pay policy.
(20 marks, 500 words max)

PG Assessment Brief and Assessment Criteria 23-24

Level of AI-Use permitted for this Assessment
Level 2 – Some use Permitted. Some use of AI tools is permitted in the
research/early stages of this assignment but you must ensure that the work you
submit is your own. If you use AI tools, you should acknowledge or reference this
in your work. Use the Text reference builder to learn how to reference AI
generated ideas. The sorts of questions to consider when using AI are:
 Is it accurate?
 Are the references genuine?
 Has it reproduced bias?

Duration: N/A Word Count: 2,500 words

Task specific guidance:

 Avoid mere description of the content of material referred to – critical

evaluation is required where specified.

 Pay close attention to the Assessment task-specific marking criteria at the end
of this document – this lists the specific criteria to the requirements of this
assignment. These specific criteria will be used to provide feedback on your
marked assignment.

 The reference list and appendixes are not part of your word count.

General study guidance:

 Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to
ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your
work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

 Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the
University’s chosen referencing style. For specific advice, you can talk
to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can
access library guidance via the following link:
o APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

 The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including

plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise
and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic
misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

 If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or

presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation
Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to
arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written
a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

 Do not exceed the word limit.

2
Assessment criteria

 The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document. Your tutor
will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how
the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work. These criteria have
been designed for your level of study.

 These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the
electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before
submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of
the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the
marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the
marking criteria.

 The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand

and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them
on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on
busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

Learning Outcomes

This 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

On completion of this module students will:
1. Demonstrate a conceptual and critical understanding of theories, codes and
models of contemporary corporate governance in an international context
2. Identify, interpret and critically analyse cases and events related to managerial
incentives and board structures.
3. Identify, interpret and critically discuss research and current issues on
corporate governance such as socially responsible investment and board
diversity.

Ability
On completion of this module students will:
4. Express and justify an individual perspective on key discourses associated
with corporate governance
5. Identify, propose and critically discuss what constitutes a good and effective
corporate governance practice within an international context
6. Communicate effectively in writing, explaining and justifying solutions to
questions incorporating corporate governance issues

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

3
Submission information
Word Limit: 2,500 words
Submission Date: 26/04/2024
Feedback Date: 20/05/2024
Submission Time: 15.00
Electronically via module site in Brightspace.
Submission Method: Paper/hard copy submissions are not required. For
technical support, please contact: busvle@hud.ac.uk

4
Appendix 1 PGT Assessment Criteria

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.

PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

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 Not met or Not met or Not met or Not met or Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
relevant learning minimal minimal partially met partially met
outcomes

Response to the No Little Insufficient Adequate Adequate Secure Very good Clear Full command of
question /task response response response response, but response response to response to command of assessment task;
with limitations assessment topic; assessment imaginative
task elements of task; approach
sophistication sophisticated demonstrating flair
approach and creativity

PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Merit Distinction
A superficial answer with only peripheral Some A coherent A coherent An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding
knowledge of core material and very little critical knowledge of and logical answer that knowledge of material and critical ability
ability core material answer which demonstrate
but limited. shows s critical
understanding evaluation
of the basic
principles
0-9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Conceptual Entirely lacking Typically, only Knowledge of Marginally A systematic Approachin Excellent. Insightful. Striking and

5
and critical in evidence of able to deal concepts falls insufficient. understanding g excellence Displays (for Displays (for insightful.
understanding knowledge and with short of Adequate of knowledge; in some example): example): Displays (for
of understanding terminology, prescribed knowledge of critical areas with high levels of excellent example):
contemporary basic facts range concepts within awareness of evidence of accuracy; research publishable
/ seminal and concepts Typically only prescribed current the potential evidence of potential; quality;
knowledge in able to deal range but fails problems to undertake the potential flexibility of outstanding
the subject with to adequately and/or new Research. to undertake thought; research
terminology, solve problems insights; can Well- research; the possibly of potential;
basic facts posed by evaluate developed ability to publishable originality and
and concepts assessment critically relevant analyse quality. independent
current argument, primary thought;
research and good sources ability to
can evaluate degree of critically. make
methodologies accuracy informed
and judgements.
technical
competence
Presentation Length Length Length Length Length Good Very good Professional Highest
requirements requirements requirements requirement met requirement standard of standards of standards of professional
may not be may not be may not be and academic met and presentation presentation presentation standards of
observed; does observed; observed; conventions academic ; length presentation
not follow does not does not mostly followed. conventions requirement
academic follow follow Minor errors in mostly met, and
conventions; academic academic language followed. academic
language conventions; conventions; Possibly very conventions
errors impact language language minor errors in followed
on intelligibility errors impact errors impact language
on on
intelligibility intelligibility
Understanding Limited insight Limited Limited Some insight Practical Independent Authoritative, Authoritative, Authoritative,
into the insight into insight into into the problem understanding , critical full full full
problem or the problem the problem or topic of how evaluation understanding understanding understanding
topic or topic or topic established of of all the of all the of all the
techniques of full range of issues with issues with issues with
research and theories originality in originality in originality in
enquiry are with some analysis analysis analysis
used to create evidence of
and interpret originality
knowledge in
the discipline
Use of Some Some Some Limited sources Comprehensiv Complex Full range of Full range of Full range of
evidence and irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant e work and sources sources sources
sources to and/or out of and/or out of and/or out of understanding concepts used used used
support task date date date of techniques presented, selectively to selectively to selectively to
Sources Sources Sources applicable to key texts support support support
own research used argument argument argument
or advanced effectively
6
 scholarship

Development Argument not Argument not Argument not Argument not The argument Argument Coherent and Coherent and Coherent and
of ideas developed and developed developed fully is developed concise and compelling compelling compelling
may be and may be and may be developed and but may lack explicit argument well argument well argument well
confused and confused and confused and may lack fluency presented presented presented
incoherent incoherent incoherent structure
Personal No evidence of Attempts to Attempts to Personal Personal Personal Personal Personal Personal
perspective any attempt or express a express a perspective is perspective perspective perspective perspective perspective
consideration personal personal expressed and expressed is expressed expressed is expressed is expressed is
of a personal perspective perspective has some clearly is clearly clearly clearly clearly
perspective. lack any are only relevance. relevant and relevant and relevant and relevant and relevant and
relevance. loosely some justified with justified with justified with justified with
relevant justification is critical critical critical critical
provided. reasoning. reasoning reasoning reasoning.
which which
provides clear provides clear
assumptions assumptions
and strength and strength
of position in of position in
relation to relation to
others. others.

7
Appendix 2 Assessment task-specific marking criteria (Marking rubrics)

Unacceptable Unsatisfactor Pass Merit Distinction

A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of y Some A coherent and A coherent An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding
core material and very little critical ability knowledge of logical answer answer that knowledge of material and critical ability
core material which shows demonstrates
but limited understanding critical
critical ability of the basic evaluation
principles

0-9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

30% Limited insight Limited insight Limited insight Some insight into Practical Independent, Authoritative, full Authoritative, full Authoritative, full
Referring to into three main into three main into three main three main understanding of critical evaluation understanding of understanding of understanding of
‘Section 3: principles/provisio principles/provisio principles/provisio principles/provisio three main of three main three main three main
ns of the UK CG ns of the UK CG ns of the UK CG ns of the UK CG principles/provisio three main principles/provisio principles/provisio principles/provisio
Compositio
code in Section 3 code in Section 3 code in Section 3 code in Section 3 ns of the UK CG principles/provisio ns of the UK CG ns of the UK CG ns of the UK CG
n, and its and its and its and its code in Section 3 ns of the UK CG code in Section 3 code in Section 3 code in Section 3
succession compliance. compliance. compliance. compliance. and its code in Section 3 and its and its and its
and Entirely lacking in Typically, only Knowledge of Marginally compliance. A and its compliance. compliance. compliance.
evaluation’ evidence of able to deal with concepts falls insufficient systematic compliance. Well- The ability to Insightful. Full Striking and
of the 2018 knowledge and terminology, basic short of knowledge of understanding of developed analyse primary range of sources insightful. Full
UK understanding. facts and prescribed range. concepts. Limited knowledge. relevant sources critically. used selectively to range of sources
Corporate Some irrelevant concepts. Some Some irrelevant sources. Comprehensive argument. Full range of support used selectively to
and/or out of date irrelevant and/or and/or out of date Argument not understanding of Complex work sources argument. support
Governance
Sources. out of date Sources. fully techniques and used selectively to Coherent and argument.
Code, Argument not Sources. Argument not developed and applicable to own concepts support compelling Coherent and
identify developed and Argument not developed and may lack research or presented, key argument. argument well compelling
three main may be confused developed and may be confused structure. advanced texts used Coherent and presented. argument well
principles or and incoherent. may be confused and incoherent. Personal scholarship. effectively. compelling Personal presented.
provisions No evidence of and incoherent. Attempts to perspective is The argument is Argument concise argument well perspective Personal
of the a personal Attempts to express a personal expressed and has developed and presented. expressed is perspective
perspective. express a personal perspective are some relevance. but may lack Explicit. Personal clearly relevant expressed is
section and
language errors perspective lack only loosely Minor errors in fluency. Personal Personal perspective and justified with clearly relevant
critically impact on any relevance. relevant. language. perspective perspective expressed is critical reasoning. and justified with
evaluate intelligibility. language errors language errors expressed is expressed is clearly relevant Professional critical reasoning.
how those impact on impact on clearly relevant clearly relevant and justified with standards of Highest
principles intelligibility. intelligibility. and some and justified with critical reasoning. presentation. professional
have been justification is critical reasoning. Very good standards of
applied by provided. Possibly Good standard of standards of presentation.
the very minor errors presentation. presentation.
in language.
company.

20% Limited insight Limited insight Limited insight Some insight into Practical Independent, Authoritative, full Authoritative, full Authoritative, full
Identify and into the main into the main into the main the main roles of understanding of critical evaluation understanding of understanding of understanding of
critically roles of boards. roles of boards. roles of boards. boards. the main roles of of the main roles of the main roles of the main roles of

8
 examine Entirely lacking in Typically, only Knowledge of Marginally boards. A the main roles of boards. boards. Insightful. boards. Striking
two main evidence of able to deal with concepts falls insufficient systematic boards. Well- The ability to Full range of and insightful. Full
roles of the knowledge and terminology, basic short of knowledge of understanding of developed analyse primary sources range of sources
understanding. facts and prescribed range. concepts. Limited knowledge. relevant sources critically. used selectively to used selectively to
board of
Some irrelevant concepts. Some Some irrelevant sources. Comprehensive argument. Full range of support support
directors. and/or out of date irrelevant and/or and/or out of date Argument not understanding of Complex work sources argument. argument.
Sources. out of date Sources. fully techniques and used selectively to Coherent and Coherent and
Argument not Sources. Argument not developed and applicable to own concepts support compelling compelling
developed and Argument not developed and may lack research or presented, key argument. argument well argument well
may be confused developed and may be confused structure. advanced texts used Coherent and presented. presented.
and incoherent. may be confused and incoherent. Personal scholarship. effectively. compelling Personal Personal
No evidence of and incoherent. Attempts to perspective is The argument is Argument concise argument well perspective perspective
a personal Attempts to express a personal expressed and has developed and presented. expressed is expressed is
perspective. express a personal perspective are some relevance. but may lack Explicit. Personal clearly relevant clearly relevant
language errors perspective lack only loosely Minor errors in fluency. Personal Personal perspective and justified with and justified with
impact on any relevance. relevant. language. perspective perspective expressed is critical reasoning. critical reasoning.
intelligibility. language errors language errors expressed is expressed is clearly relevant Professional Highest
impact on impact on clearly relevant clearly relevant and justified with standards of professional
intelligibility. intelligibility. and some and justified with critical reasoning. presentation. standards of
justification is critical reasoning. Very good presentation.
provided. Possibly Good standard of standards of
very minor errors presentation. presentation.
in language.
30% Limited insight Limited insight Limited insight Some insight into Practical Independent, Authoritative, full Authoritative, full Authoritative, full
Critically into the into the into the the components understanding of critical evaluation understanding of understanding of understanding of
analyse the components of components of components of of remuneration the components of the components the components the components
remuneration remuneration remuneration packages. of remuneration the components of remuneration of remuneration of remuneration
company's
packages. Entirely packages. packages. Marginally packages. A of remuneration packages. packages. packages. Striking
executive lacking in Typically, only Knowledge of insufficient systematic packages. Well- The ability to Insightful. Full and insightful. Full
remunerati evidence of able to deal with concepts falls knowledge of understanding of developed analyse primary range of sources range of sources
on knowledge and terminology, basic short of concepts. Limited knowledge. relevant sources critically. used selectively to used selectively to
component understanding. facts and prescribed range. sources. Comprehensive argument. Full range of support support
s and Some irrelevant concepts. Some Some irrelevant Argument not understanding of Complex work sources argument. argument.
discuss their and/or out of date irrelevant and/or and/or out of date fully techniques and used selectively to Coherent and Coherent and
strengths Sources. out of date Sources. developed and applicable to own concepts support compelling compelling
Argument not Sources. Argument not may lack research or presented, key argument. argument well argument well
and
developed and Argument not developed and structure. advanced texts used Coherent and presented. presented.
weaknesses may be confused developed and may be confused Personal scholarship. effectively. compelling Personal Personal
. and incoherent. may be confused and incoherent. perspective is The argument is Argument concise argument well perspective perspective
No evidence of and incoherent. Attempts to expressed and has developed and presented. expressed is expressed is
a personal Attempts to express a personal some relevance. but may lack Explicit. Personal clearly relevant clearly relevant
perspective. express a personal perspective are Minor errors in fluency. Personal Personal perspective and justified with and justified with
language errors perspective lack only loosely language. perspective perspective expressed is critical reasoning. critical reasoning.
impact on any relevance. relevant. expressed is expressed is clearly relevant Professional Highest
intelligibility. language errors language errors clearly relevant clearly relevant and justified with standards of professional
impact on impact on and some and justified with critical reasoning. presentation. standards of
intelligibility. intelligibility. justification is critical reasoning. Very good presentation.
provided. Possibly Good standard of standards of
very minor errors presentation. presentation.
in language.
9
 20% Limited insight Limited insight Limited insight Some insight into Practical Independent, Authoritative, full Authoritative, full Authoritative, full
Identify and into the theories into the theories into the theories the theories of understanding of critical evaluation understanding of understanding of understanding of
critically of executive of executive of executive executive the theories of of the theories of the theories of the theories of
incentives. incentives. incentives. incentives. executive the theories of executive executive executive
evaluate
Entirely lacking in Typically, only Knowledge of Marginally incentives. A executive incentives. incentives. Full incentives.
one theory evidence of able to deal with concepts falls insufficient systematic incentives. Well- The ability to range of sources Striking and
that knowledge and terminology, basic short of knowledge of understanding of developed analyse primary used selectively to insightful. Full
underpin understanding. facts and prescribed range. concepts. Limited knowledge. relevant sources critically. support range of sources
executive Some irrelevant concepts. Some Some irrelevant sources. Comprehensive argument. Full range of argument. used selectively to
pay and/or out of date irrelevant and/or and/or out of date Argument not understanding of Complex work sources Coherent and support
incentives. Sources. out of date Sources. fully techniques and used selectively to compelling argument.
Argument not Sources. Argument not developed and applicable to own concepts support argument well Coherent and
developed and Argument not developed and may lack research or presented, key argument. presented. compelling
may be confused developed and may be confused structure. advanced texts used Coherent and Personal argument well
and incoherent. may be confused and incoherent. Personal scholarship. effectively. compelling perspective presented.
No evidence of and incoherent. Attempts to perspective is The argument is Argument concise argument well expressed is Personal
a personal Attempts to express a personal expressed and has developed and presented. clearly relevant perspective
perspective. express a personal perspective are some relevance. but may lack Explicit. Personal and justified with expressed is
language errors perspective lack only loosely Minor errors in fluency. Personal Personal perspective critical reasoning. clearly relevant
impact on any relevance. relevant. language. perspective perspective expressed is Professional and justified with
intelligibility. language errors language errors expressed is expressed is clearly relevant standards of critical reasoning.
impact on impact on clearly relevant clearly relevant and justified with presentation. Highest
intelligibility. intelligibility. and some and justified with critical reasoning. professional
justification is critical reasoning. Very good standards of
provided. Possibly Good standard of standards of presentation.
very minor errors presentation. presentation.
in language.

10