ASSESSMENT BRIEF

L7 Responsibility of Directors

Module Leader: Dr Carolina Valiente

Key Details and Requirements

Submission deadline: Tuesday 01 October 2024, no later than 16:30pm (UK local
time)

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.
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

Assessment method LO’s met Weighting

Individual Portfolio: Tasks and activities All LOs of the module 100%
accumulated over the semester. are met.

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:
• a) for-profit companies in the private sector and
• b) 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

✓ 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:

✓ Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2020). Post Office
Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document. [Accessed 10/01/24]
✓ 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
_tactic=svod&irgwc=1 [Accessed 09/01/24]
✓ Post Office (n.d.) Our Board. Online at:
https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/governance/our-structure/our-board/
[Accessed 09/01/24].
✓ Post Office (n.d.). The Horizon IT Scandal. Online at:
https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/the-horizon-it-scandal/ [Accessed
09/01/24]
 Assessment Criteria
DISTINCTION
FAIL PASS COMMENDATION
(70-100%)
(0 - 49%) (50 – 59%) (60 – 69%)
Exhibits an unsatisfactory Satisfactory grasp of the Good/very good understanding Excellent level of
GRADE DESCRIPTORS
grasp of the issues. issues, with limited of the issue with some understanding.
Primarily descriptive and independent critical thought independent critical thought and All requirements are dealt with
Mark lacking in independent appropriate to the tasks. approach to the tasks. Good to a high standard. Excellent
Weight critical thought. Weak or Material is largely relevant to attempt at analysis, synthesis analysis, synthesis and critical
no attempt at analysis, the tasks. Some evidence of and critical reflection, with reflection. Evidence of
synthesis and critical analysis, synthesis and critical evidence of some ability to independent and original
MARKING CRITERIA
reflection. Little evidence reflection. Work is presented tackle issues. Work is clearly judgement in relation to
of ability to tackle the in acceptable manner, with presented in a fairly well resolution of problems
issues. Poor some minor errors. organised manner. Excellently presented.
structure/grammar/
Introductory section: 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). This mark will also
consider the appropriate and professional submission, structure and 10
flow of the discussion, clear expression, and correct English grammar
throughout the whole of the Portfolio (encompassing as well Front
page, Content page, and list of References).
Section 1: Demonstrating a critical understanding of role and
responsibilities of directors in government (for profits)
firms/companies/organisations. The difference and common
responsibilities of executives and non-executive directors emerging
from the theory and guidelines. Potential pressures, constraints, risks, 20
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. You must ensure, where appropriate, academic citations and
references are used. (Learning Outcome 1).
Section 2: Demonstrating a critical understanding of the specific
failures, role, responsibilities and potential liabilities of executives and
non-executive directors in the case of the Post Office scandal (for-
profits public sector). What committees and concrete directors’ roles
30
should have intervened? When? Which regulations and guidelines
were breached? What liabilities have arisen throughout the process?
You must ensure, where appropriate, academic citations and
references are used. (Learning Outcomes 2-3).
Section 3: Final Reflections (based on Sections 1 and 2). Students
will provide an overall reflection about their learning in the module and 25
the failures substantiated by the studied case, comparing and
contrasting the role, skills, risks, and responsibilities of directors
contained in the theory (distinguishing between executive and non-
executive directors) within a) companies in the private sector and b)
government organisations which, in addition to providing a service to
the general public, also are expected to generate profits. You must
 DISTINCTION
FAIL PASS COMMENDATION
(70-100%)
(0 - 49%) (50 – 59%) (60 – 69%)
Exhibits an unsatisfactory Satisfactory grasp of the Good/very good understanding Excellent level of
GRADE DESCRIPTORS
grasp of the issues. issues, with limited of the issue with some understanding.
Primarily descriptive and independent critical thought independent critical thought and All requirements are dealt with
Mark lacking in independent appropriate to the tasks. approach to the tasks. Good to a high standard. Excellent
Weight critical thought. Weak or Material is largely relevant to attempt at analysis, synthesis analysis, synthesis and critical
no attempt at analysis, the tasks. Some evidence of and critical reflection, with reflection. Evidence of
synthesis and critical analysis, synthesis and critical evidence of some ability to independent and original
MARKING CRITERIA
reflection. Little evidence reflection. Work is presented tackle issues. Work is clearly judgement in relation to
of ability to tackle the in acceptable manner, with presented in a fairly well resolution of problems
issues. Poor some minor errors. organised manner. Excellently presented.
structure/grammar/
ensure, where appropriate, academic citations and references are
used. (Learning Outcomes 4-5).
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). 15
Students are expected to highlight core areas of knowledge (study) and
skills development they want to within the year, with specific deadlines
and resources (Employability connected learning) (Employability Skills
Objective). You must ensure, where appropriate, academic citations
and references are used.