Ethics and Sustainability in Governance (MBUS201)
Semester 1 2023
Case study analysis
From your analysis of the case study, provide a response to either support or disagree with 3 of the 4 statements below. In your response, you should use examples from the case study to support your view and align your analysis with the principles of good governance and the relevant sections of the Corporations Act 2001 where/if appropriate. The report in total should be approximately 1500 words (i.e. between XXXXXXXXXXwords or 500 words per statement response).
You need to provide a response (as guided in the assignment information) to 3 of the following 4 statements in relation to the AFA Case Study:
1. 1. The board meeting agendas and minutes are sufficiently detailed to ensure the board is able to fulfil it’s obligations
2. 2. The board has provided adequate financial oversight to ensure they are not on the path to insolvency
3. 3.The board has effectively discharged its duties to monitor and review the performance of the CEO
Note: There are likely to be several examples in the case study that can be used to address any of the statements. You are not required to identify them all, but you are required to provide enough evidence to justify why you agree or disagree with the statement. There may also be perceptions and inferences in the case study that allow you to form your view, and these are also an important element of your analysis.
Assessment task marking: This assessment task is worth 30% of the overall mark for the unit. Your response to each statement will be marked out of 10 using the attached ru
ic (3 x 10 = 30 marks) as a guide.
Critical information: This assignment is directly related to the analysis of the AFA case study, if a generic response is received that does not relate to the case study it will be awarded 0 marks.
ic: Case study analysis
(2 marks each)
Use of examples from case study in response
Multiple (3+) examples in the case study have been co
ectly identified and interpreted in the response
Use of relevant theories or legislation as part of response
Theories from reliable sources (with co
ect references) and or legislation have been co
ectly applied to the analysis
Identification and use of perceived director actions or behaviours in response
The inclusion of infe
ed or perceived information has been co
ectly included to support the analysis presented in the response
Clarity of analysis and the provision of concise and accurate information
The response is presented such that the analysis and connection of evidence is accurate and justified and clearly demonstrates a strong understanding of the case study
Construction of a cohesive and well written response to the statement
The response has been well written, remains within the 500 word limit +/-10%, and the arguments used have been clearly and cohesively presented