Learning outcomes:

1.Critically acknowledge and judge the validity of contracts made with companies and other organisations, the role of the board of directors and their legal duties as directors.

2.Evaluate the legal and ethical nature of the relationships between a company, its management, the various groups with an interest in the affairs of the company/ organisation (stakeholders and shareholders), and the members of the Board of directors.

3.Examine current corporate failures and directors/boards’ actions and responsibilities. Consider emerging policy trends and developments in Corporate Governance guidelines and regulations.

4.Understand the essence and importance of risk governance. Why is risk management core to corporate governance and corporate social responsibility?

5.Reflect and weigh up best practices and approaches to enhance the participation and impact of directors in the Board. 

Assessment details: Individual Portfolio (Tasks and activities accumulated over the semester), 100%

Referencing: Students are expected to use Harvard Referencing throughout their assignments where required. Please follow the Harvard Referencing Handbook for all your assignments at the ULBS.

Submission Method: Turnitin - Your work will be put through Turnitin. All submissions will be electronically checked for plagiarism and the use of AI software.

You have the option to upload your work ahead of the deadline, more than once. ULBS will be reviewing your last submission only. You can only upload one file. For example if your work contains a word document and power point slides/Excel spreadsheet you will need to copy your slides/spreadsheet into the word document.

Note: Keep in mind that self-plagiarism (when you reuse your own specific wording and ideas from work that you have previously submitted without referencing yourself) is also a form of plagiarism and is not allowed

Students are required to analyse the recent scandal of the Post Office in the UK, and the role played by executive and non-executive directors, their failures according to the theory, their potential liabilities according to existing regulations and guidelines, and possible measures to improve the effectiveness of both executive and non- executive directors in this institution.

The content (equivalent to 2,500 words in total) should be organised as follows:

Front page: (basic information) name of the university, name of the masters, name of the module, Student’s identification number (separate page) (marks included in Introductory section)

Content page: (marks included in Introductory section)

Introductory section: One paragraph explaining the nature and rationale of the Board of Directors and the Directors roles within both for-profit companies and non-for-profit organisations (Learning Outcome 1) (10 marks)

Section 1: The role and responsibilities of directors in government firms/companies/organisations. The difference and common responsibilities of executives and non-executive directors emerging from the theory and guidelines. Potential pressures, constraints, risks, and conflicts emerging in the for-profit public sector and which may not be present in the governance of for- profit businesses in the private sector. (Learning Outcome 1) (20 marks)

Section 2: The specific failures of executives and non-executive directors in the case of the Post Office scandal. What committees and concrete directors’ roles should have intervened? When should this intervention have taken place? Which regulations and guidelines were breached? What potential liabilities have arisen throughout the process? Please, identify the specific responsibility and potential liability of directors (distinguish between executive and non-executive directors), the intervention by the owners of the company, profits generated during the period in the Post Office, and the possible liabilities attributable to the IT supplier. For making statements about liabilities of directors and owners, in addition to the materials from the module, students are expected to consult and cite relevant regulatory frameworks such as: UK - Companies Act 2006, and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2020). Post Office Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document. (Learning Outcomes 2-3) (30 marks)

(The student should use flowcharts, graphs and/or tables summing up data and information (e.g., chronology) supporting the core areas/ concepts/events that link up to the appraisal presented in sections 1) and 2) above).

Section 3: Final Reflections (based on Sections 1-2). As a final point, students will provide an overall deliberation about their learning in the module and the directors’ failures substantiated by the selected study case, comparing and contrasting the role, skills, risks, and responsibilities of directors as presented in the theory and regulatory framework (distinguishing between executive and non-executive directors) within:

• for-profit companies in the private sector and
• government organisations which, in addition to providing a service to the general public, also are expected to generate profits. (Learning Outcomes 4-5) (25 marks)

Section 4: Conclusions (based on Sections 1-3) comment on the relevant knowledge and skills of directors and how these knowledge and skills associate with the Skills employability pyramid considered throughout the term (i.e., as specified in the final slide per unit). Students are expected to insert the referred pyramid as part of this section and highlight core areas of knowledge (study) and skills development they want to implement within the year, with specific deadlines and possible resources (Employability connected learning). (Employability Skills Objective) (15 marks)

References: (separate page, do not include in word counting) The list contains full details of any sources used in the Portfolio. Please, remember presenting this list adhering to Harvard referencing standards for both citations (in-text), and the list of References. Organise the list in alphabetical order (marks included in Introductory section)

The Assessment focuses on the role and responsibilities of different categories of directors (i.e., executive and non-executives), in order to clearly establish the failures occurred in the director’s performance, highlighting tangible learnings that should be extracted from the case for defining the individual student’s personal development plan.

Students are strongly encouraged to investigate the case study and apply relevant concepts and guidelines from the theory learnt in each unit of the module, draw on and cite any appropriate corroborating materials (e.g., books, articles, videos, case studies, etc.), and based on the above, develop a clear rationale about how the role of directors should look like in practice. This means that in addition to the supporting materials, students must present and discuss clear ideas of their own regarding the issues contained in Sections 1-4.

Look up at the official site of the selected organisation, the Financial Times, and The Economist, in addition to other sources of information and analysis (e.g., newspapers, books, articles, videos, official reports, etc.). Remember using dedicated boxes for specific examples that support the discussion, including URL and “Key Points”. Students should keep the citations and “Key points” clear and succinct. Any citations or material from any source, must be suitably referred to (i.e., using in-text citations). The full list of References must be included at the end of the portfolio.

Remember to use colours, variation in font sizes, relevant images/figures/tables/flowcharts, and an effective page format design to make the portfolio more attractive and understandable to the reader.

Although the Front page and the Content page carry no marks, marks will be deducted from the total awarded to the Introductory section if these two pages are not appropriately included at the front of the portfolio. Distribute the space allocated to each section of the portfolio taking into consideration the allocated marks (more marks imply more space and importance).

 For specific definitions and some ideas regarding the nature of this ePortfolio, please look at:

• All- Saint’s College (2021). Types of portfolios. By Greg Port. 26/03/21 [Accessed 10/01/23]
• Student Art Guide (n.d.). How to make an ePortfolio: a guide for students & teachers. 28/06/22. [Accessed 10/01/23]
• University of Waterloo. (n.d.). ePortfolios Explained: Theory and Practice. Centre for Excellence. [Accessed 10/01/23]
• University of Waterloo. (n.d.). ePortfolios: Purpose and Composition. Centre for Excellence. [Accessed 10/01/23]

Please refer to the marking criteria (below) for a breakdown of how the tasks will be marked.

Supporting material for your work

ü  ACCA Think Ahead (n.d.) Public sector governance. Online at: https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/student/exam-support- resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business- leader/technical-articles/public-sector-governance-part-1.html [Accessed 11/01/24]

“The British Post Office Scandal is a widespread and long-lasting series of individual miscarriages of justice which, between 1999 and 2015, involved over 700 sub-postmasters being wrongly convicted of theft, false accounting and fraud when shortfalls at their branches were in fact due to errors of the Post Office `s Horizon accounting software. (BBC News (2024). Post Office scandal explained: What the Horizon saga is all about. Published 21/02/24. Post Office Inquiry [Accessed 27/02/24]_)

Some useful sites to start your research:

ü  Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2020). Post Office Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document. [Accessed 10/01/24]

ü  ITV X (2024). Mr Bates vs The Post Office. Drama & Soaps. 4 Episodes. Online at: https://www.itv.com/watch/mr-bates-vs-the-post- office/10a0469/10a0469a0001?irclickid=1Wdyd6QWUxyNTQW2dm3Tk1- gUkH2QFxpnUdkTk0&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=planit&utm_id=1W dyd6QWUxyNTQW2dm3Tk1- gUkH2QFxpnUdkTk0&utm_campaign=svodacquisition_planit&utm_marketing

Assessment Criteria