Advanced Financial Accounting
Assignment Assessment Requirements
Weighting: 20% (marked out of 75)
Word Limit: The research report should be a maximum of 2,500 words (excluding executive summary, references and any appendices).
Learning objectives assessed:
This assessment task is designed to test your achievement of learning objectives 1, 2, and 4.
It is designed to assist you in developing collaborative, interpersonal, negotiation, and problem solving skills. Specifically, you are able to pool knowledge and skills, share diverse perspectives, refine understanding through discussion, and learn and work more effectively to critically assess influences on a contemporary issue in financial reporting and disclosure. It also provides you with an opportunity to further enhance your research, judgement, knowledge application, and communication skills.
BACKGROUND: Issue to be investigated: Reporting of Material Sustainability Risks
You are a team of graduate accountants in a company listed on the ASX200. Your team is currently appointed to investigate and report on the following issue to the Board of Directors.
In 2014, the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) released version three of its Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations*. Entities need to prepare a statement responding to the Principles and Recommendations or explain why not in accordance with the if not, why not approach. One of the key changes, as detailed in Recommendation 7.4, now requires “a listed entity to disclose whether it has any material exposure to economic, environmental and social sustainability risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to manage those risks” (ASX, 2014, p.30).
* The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). (2014). 3rd Edition Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations. ASX: Australia.
QUESTION: Specific requirements and guidelines:
Prepare a research report to the Board of Directors focusing on the challenges or risks and benefits of implementing Recommendation 7.4. In this report, you have to research the issue and critically evaluate the introduction of Recommendation 7.4. In supporting your discussion, you should link the discussion to relevant theories covered in Weeks 1 to 3 in this unit. Also, your team needs to support the position and discussion with reference to academic journal articles.
? Word limit is 2,500 words (excluding executive summary, references and any appendices).
? Use a minimum of ten academic journal articles. The following is an example of academic journal article which provides some background information to assist your team when completing this assignment:
Higgins, C., Milne, M.J., & van Gramberg B. (2015). The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 445-468.
General guidelines:
• A marking rubric outlining the assessment criteria and how your group research report will be assessed against these criteria is attached to this document.
• A word count must be included. Reports exceeding the word limit by more than 10% will incur a mark penalty.
• Your group must submit a properly referenced assignment. Groups which submit an assignment without in-text referencing and reference list will have their assignment returned to them and receive zero marks. These groups may choose to re-submit their assignment with appropriate referencing, however they will only be eligible to receive half of the total available marks (i.e a maximum of 10 out of a total possible 20 marks).

ACC/ACF3100 Marking Rubric for Group Research Report
MARKING CRITERIA N P C D HD
Task Fulfilment (15%) 0 – 7 7.5-8.5 9-10 10.5-11.5 12-15
Awareness of purpose, scope and audience
Concise definition and brief discussion of the issue
Length 2,500 words (excluding references)
Little or no evidence of awareness of purpose, scope or audience. Poor definition and discussion of the issue. Does not address required elements of the task adequately. The assignment may be significantly under or over length. Awareness of purpose, scope and audience are discernible, but limited. Limited definition and discussion of issues. Minimally addresses the required elements.
Within word limit. Awareness of purpose, scope and audience are generally clear and appropriate. Definition and discussion of the issue are mostly adequate. Addresses most elements of the task appropriately. Within word limit. Awareness of purpose and discussion of issue are clear and appropriate. All aspects of the task are addressed including an effective discussion. There is room for development. Within word limit. A sophisticated awareness of purpose, scope and audience is evident. Concise explanation and discussion of the issue and all aspects of the task are comprehensively addressed. Within word limit.
Judgement & Argument (25%) 0-12 12.5-14.5 15-17 17.5-19.5 20-25
Position and logical progression
Critical evaluation of Recommendation 7.4 (Critical discussion on benefits and challenges or risks associated with reporting of material sustainability risks)
Integration of at least two relevant theories
Degree of support Position may be unclear. May lack logical progression and/or accurate interpretation. Poor evaluation of the issues leading to inadequate argument and conclusion. A position is discernible. Evidence of logical progression. Limited evaluation of the issues. There is some attempt at argument and conclusion, but support is limited. A position is presented, developed and supported. Evaluation of the issues is mostly adequate. Argument and conclusion are developed with some support but there may be inconsistencies. Logical progression from a clear position to a critical stance in the evaluation of the issues drawing upon relevant support. Argument and conclusions are persuasive and engaging. A clear, well-integrated position is evident throughout. There is thorough critical evaluation of the issues leading to logical, well-supported and convincing argument and conclusions.
Research & Evidence (20%) 0 – 9.5 10-11.5 12-13.5 14-15.5 16-20
Selection of relevant academic texts (minimum 10 academic journal articles )
Integration of sources
Citing and referencing
Little or no evidence of relevant research and/or poor use and acknowledgement of sources. Texts selected may be inappropriate and/or poorly integrated, and cited. Referencing may be uniformly poor. Evidence of basic research, but some sources may be inappropriate or irrelevant. Use of readings to support position may be variable. Citing and referencing is attempted, but may be faulty. Academic sources are used appropriately to support position but they may be limited in scope and quality. Some errors in citing and referencing may persist.
Well selected texts and evidence of wide reading. Clear engagement with academic sources which are well-utilised to support position. Citing and referencing is generally appropriate and accurate. Clear evidence of a wide variety of quality academic reading. Skilful engagement and deployment of sources to enrich discussion and evaluation. Accurate citing and referencing.
Clarity & Structure of Communication (15%) 0 – 7 7.5-8.5 9-10 10.5-11.5 12-15
Balance and cohesion
Written expression
Appropriate research report format, tone, and language for the audience
Poor research report format. Sections are missing and/or poorly executed and organised. Linking within and between sections is poor. There are numerous errors and inaccuracies in written expression. Report contains essential elements; however organisation and linking may be poor. Written expression may be inconsistent and inaccurate in parts. Most sections of the report adhere to requirements. There is adequate linking and integration of material. Written expression is generally adequate and appropriate. All format requirements are met. Sections are generally well-linked and balanced. Written expression is well-controlled for accuracy and concision with only occasional error. Each section is well-linked and balanced and adheres to the stated format. Information is clearly organised and expressed in concise, accurate and engaging language.