ASSESSMENT BRIEF    

Academic year and term:	2021/2022 – Semester 3 (Summer)
Module title:	Financial Performance Management
Type of assessment:	Summative assessment – Individual Report 3,500 words (100% weighting)  Formative assessment – Report overview (0% weighting)
Assessment deadline:	Summative assessment: deadline 01/07/2022 before 2pm  Formative assessment: deadline 13/06/2022 before 2pm

Summative assessment  

Formative assessment  

 During the module, you are asked to submit a “Report overview” by the set deadline. It represents an opportunity to start working towards the assessment and receive feedback early in the module. Detailed instructions on the Formative Assessment will be available on Moodle.  There will also be regular opportunities for Q&A on your summative work while it is under construction. Note that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that it is not binding for your marking. Also, markers can change, and you have no entitlement to be marked by the module convener or tutors. You should note that in our experience students who submit a formative assignment generally outperform those that do not. If you are off target at the initial stage, we can help you put it right which will benefit your final summative submission. 

Structure and presentation (Summative Assessment) 

  The assignment should address the following questions: Question 1 (30%). Select an international organisation (of your choice – company A) and identify its closest competitor (company B). Present the two organisations and the criteria used for the identification of the competitor. Use ratio analysis technique to evaluate the financial performance of the two organizations; draw a comparative evaluation and critically discuss the findings. You need to access the annual financial statements of the last two years and provide details of the ratio calculations. It is recommended to use graphs and tables to present your analysis and cite academic literature.  Question 2 (30%). With reference to relevant literature, critically evaluate Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Develop a proposed Balanced Scorecard to include critical success factors (CSF’s) for your selected organisation (company A).  Question 3 (30%). Provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated Reporting (IR) for your selected organization (company A). Use academic literature and refer to the International Integrated Reporting framework to support your discussion. Presentation (10%). Mark awarded for presentation refers to overall structure and presentation, academic style of writing, use of Harvard style for references and in text citations. You need to use a comprehensive range of relevant (academic and professional) sources; use of online sources should be limited and the reliability of the source should be verified. All sources need to be acknowledged and referenced properly to ensure the originality of the work. The report needs to follow the below structure and address the three questions. The word limit for this assignment is 3,500 words (10% tolerance) excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix.  Important note: Please refrain from selecting companies that have been shown for demonstration purposes during the sessions (this includes, for example, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Axa, Philip Morris, Monnalisa, Impahla Clothing, Viasat, Dellas).  Any written work must be spell-checked, and a contents page must be included. Do not use various font sizes and colours; Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.  Proposed structure of the Report:    

1. Introduction 

Introduce the scope and focus of the report (approx. 250 words) 

1. Financial Performance using Ratio Analysis Question 1 (approx. 1,000 words) 
2. Balanced Scorecard 

Question 2 (approx. 1,000 words) 

1. Integrated Reporting 

Question 3 (approx. 1,000 words)  

1. Conclusions 

Provide an overall conclusion based on the reflection from the report (approx. 250 words) References   Appendix - Provide details on the calculations presented in Question 1.  The proposed structure above intends to provide a recommendation on the structure of the coursework. This can be enriched with more sections/subsections as you consider appropriate (example abstract, executive summary, table of contents, appendices, etc.).   

Full reading list 

There will be weekly guided readings and you will be expected to undertake your own review of relevant literature, both academic and professional. Refer to Moodle for guidance on weekly readings.  Essential Readings  Atrill, P., McLaney, E.J. (2018). Management Accounting for Decision Makers. Pearson.  Berk, J., DeMarzo, P. (2017). Corporate Finance (3rd ed.), Chapter 2. Pearson. Busco, C., Malafronte, I., Pereira, J., Starita, M. (2019). The Determinants of Companies` Levels of Integration: Does One Size Fit All? The British Accounting Review, 51(3), 277-298. IIRC (2013). International Integrated Reporting Council. (2013). International framework. Available at http://integratedreporting.org   Malafronte, I., Pereira, J., Busco, C. (2020). The role of corporate culture in the choice of integrated reporting. CIMA Research Executive Summary, 16(2). Available at https://www.cimaglobal.com Kaplan, R.S. (2010). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Working Paper 10-074.  Further Readings (more readings will be provided on Moodle)  Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., Venter, E. R. (2017). The economic consequences associated with integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 62, 43-64. Busco, C., Quattrone, P. (2015). Exploring how the balanced scorecard engages and unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1236-1262. Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Quattrone, P., Riccaboni, A. (2013). Integrated Reporting: Concepts and Cases that Redefine Corporate Accountability. Springer. Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Quattrone, P., Riccaboni, A. (2013). Redefining corporate accountability through integrated reporting. Strategic Finance, 8, 33-41. Busco, C., Granà, F., Quattrone, P. (2017). Integrated thinking. CIMA Research Executive Summary, 13(3), 1-26. Cardinaels, E., van Veen-Dirks, P. (2010). Financial versus non-financial information: the impact of information organization and presentation in a balanced scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(6), 568–578. De Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J. (2014). Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067. Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., Demartini, P. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 166-185. Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Raimo, N. Vitolla, F. (2020). CEO power and integrated reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research. Greatbanks, R. Tapp, D. (2007). The impact of BSC in a public sector environment: Empirical evidence from Dunedin City Council New Zealand. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 27(8), 846–873. Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. British Accounting Review, 46(1) pp. 33–59. Malafronte, I., Pereira, J. (2020). Integrated thinking: measuring the unobservable. Meditari Accountancy Research. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management System. Harvard Business Review. July/August.Nørreklit, H., Mitchell, F. (2014). Contemporary issues on the balance scorecard. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(4). Salterio, S.E. (2012). Balancing the scorecard through academic accounting research: opportunity lost? Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(4), 458–476.  How will your work be assessed?  Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking criteria provided in the section “Instructions for assessment” and the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix for this module. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.     

Referencing and submission 

You must use the Harvard System. The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at Student Portal and Moodle.     

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation 

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating Circumstances Policy     

Marking and feedback process 

  Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below. 

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided. 
• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief. 
• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.  
• Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair. 
• Stop Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.    

Additional instructions for Re-sit 

 The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit.  Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed re-sit deadlines.  You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary in the form of a 400-700 words Essay. You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count of the assignment, if you used the full word count.  The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your additional Reflective Essay section. That is a statement demonstrating how you learnt from the feedback and what you did differently the second time. Also reflect how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for a future management, public administration or advisory career.  If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, in such case, your Reflection Essay section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts are informing the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your future management, public administration or advisory career.  If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.  The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of arguments. It is an independent writing task and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.