问答题
Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted<br>The board of YGT discussed its need for timely risk information. The consensus of the meeting was that risk consultants should be engaged to review the risks facing the company. One director, Raz Dutta, said that she felt that this would be a waste of money as the company needed to concentrate its resources on improving organisational efficiency rather than on gathering risk information. She said that many risks ‘didn’t change much’ and ‘hardly ever materialised’ and so can mostly be ignored. The rest of the board, however, believed that a number of risks had recently emerged whilst others had become less important and so the board wanted a current assessment as it believed previous assessments might now be outdated.<br>The team of risk consultants completed the risk audit. They identified and assessed six potential risks (A, B, C, D, E and F) and the following information was discussed when the findings were presented to the YGT board:<br>Risk A was assessed as unlikely and low impact whilst Risk B was assessed as highly likely to occur and with a high impact. The activities giving rise to both A and B, however, are seen as marginal in that whilst the activities do have value and are capable of making good returns, neither is strategically vital.<br>Risk C was assessed as low probability but with a high potential impact and also arises from an activity that must not be discontinued although alternative arrangements for bearing the risks are possible. The activity giving rise to Risk C was recently introduced by YGT as a result of a new product launch.<br>Risk D was assessed as highly likely but with a low potential impact, and arose as a result of a recent change in legislation. It cannot be insured against nor can it be outsourced. It is strategically important that the company continues to engage in the activity that gives rise to Risk D although not necessarily at the same level as is currently the case.<br>In addition, Risks E and F were identified. Risk E was an environmental risk and Risk F was classed as a reputation risk. The risk consultants said that risks E and F could be related risks. In the formal feedback to the board of YGT, the consultants said that the company had to develop a culture of risk awareness and that this should permeate all levels of the company.<br>Required:<br>(a) Criticise Raz Dutta’s beliefs about the need for risk assessment. Explain why risks are dynamic and therefore need to be assessed regularly. (8 marks)<br>(b) Using the TARA framework, select and explain the appropriate strategy for managing each risk (A, B, C and D). Justify your selection in each case. (6 marks)<br>(c) Explain what ‘related risks’ are and describe how Risks E and F might be positively correlated. (5 marks)<br>(d) The risk consultants reported that YGT needed to cultivate a culture of risk awareness and that this should permeate all levels of the company.<br>Required:<br>Explain and assess this advice. (6 marks)
问答题
Section A – This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attempted<br>Several years ago, World Justice, a well-known charity, published a report on the activities of three major food companies in their marketing of manufactured baby foods in some of the poorer developing countries. The report, provocatively called ‘Killer Companies’, said it had evidence that the three companies were ‘aggressively mis-selling’ manufactured baby food products in these poorer countries. It was argued in the report that several problems arose with the use of these products in poorer countries which negatively affected the health of the babies, with many babies reportedly dying as a result. These problems included the use of contaminated water in the preparation of the baby food, an inability of parents to read the instructions, making up product at insufficient concentrations (thereby malnourishing the child) and aggressive selling to health facilities in those countries. Doctors often advised against the use of these products for babies because natural feeding solutions were considered safer and more beneficial in most cases.<br>When the ‘Killer Companies’ report was published, it was widely reported upon and received a lot of social and political attention. Two of the three companies named in ‘Killer Companies’ immediately decided to withdraw from the business but the third company, Xaxa Company (Xaxa hereafter), recognised what it believed to be an opportunity to take the market share left by the other two. It set about increasing its production capacity accordingly. When asked by journalists why Xaxa had not also withdrawn from the criticised business activity, the chief executive issued a press statement saying that it was a profitable business opportunity and, as the steward of shareholder value, he owed it to the shareholders to maximise their returns.<br>When it became widely known that Xaxa had decided to expand and develop its baby food business in poorer developing countries, Mothers Who Care (MWC), a national charity concerned with infant nutrition, organised a campaign against Xaxa. Strongly believing in the natural feeding of infants, MWC initially organised protests outside the Xaxa head office and also encouraged the public to boycott a wide range of Xaxa products in addition to the baby food products. MWC members started to use the phrase, ‘Xaxa kills babies’ in the hope that it would become widely adopted.<br>As one of the country’s largest companies and operating in many countries, Xaxa has a large issued share volume with the majority being held by institutional investors. Whilst the overall group profits remained strong, some shareholders began to feel concerned about the baby food issue. One prominent fund manager, Hugh Oublie, organised a meeting for institutional shareholders holding large volumes of Xaxa shares and 50 such institutional shareholders attended the meeting. The group became known as the ‘Oublie Group’. Although all members of the Oublie Group wanted to retain their holdings in Xaxa because of the otherwise good returns, a number of questions were framed which they decided to put to the Xaxa management:<br>(i) could the company explain the strategic logic of pursuing the baby food business in poorer developing countries？<br>(ii) was the board concerned about potential reputational damage with phrases such as ‘Xaxa kills babies’ being used widely and in the media？<br>(iii) would the Xaxa board consider withdrawing from the baby food business in poorer developing countries because of the alleged health impacts on children in those countries？<br>The company issued a statement through its investor relations department, replying that the strategic logic was based on what activities provided the most profit to shareholders regardless of the effects on other claims against the company strategy. Second, the board was not concerned with reputation risks because it believed that these were ‘temporary concerns’ which would soon be forgotten. Third, no, the board would not withdraw from the baby food market in those countries because, with the loss of two competitors, profit margins were likely to be higher and competition less. The Oublie Group expressed its dissatisfaction with this reply and said it might seek to influence the appointment of non-executive directors (NEDs) to the Xaxa board to increase the scrutiny of the executive members and their discussions on the subject.<br>Hugh Oublie appeared on television to say that he felt the board of Xaxa lacked balance. He said that, although profitable and a good employer in its home country, the non-executive scrutiny of company strategy had been poor for some time and the board had no meaningful sense of ethics at all. He believed that all of the executive board was dedicated to the mission to produce what he called ‘profit at any social cost’. He further believed that none of the non-executive board members was strong enough to question the strategy and raise the problem of baby food as an ethical issue. It was this lack of non-executive scrutiny which Hugh Oublie believed was a major cause of Xaxa’s unwillingness to reconsider its baby food activity. He said that he had been a long-serving observer and shareholder of Xaxa and he had noticed the company becoming more inward-looking and self-reliant in recent years. He believed this trend was very unhelpful. In addition, he expressed concerns, on behalf of the Oublie Group, about the strategic management of Xaxa and his belief that the board lacked concern for medium-term business risks brought about by the baby food marketing.<br>As World Justice and MWC continued their campaigns against Xaxa, some other groups became aware of the baby food situation in poorer developing countries. A television programme reported how Xaxa products were actually being used in some of the poorer countries. It claimed to confirm the problems highlighted in ‘Killer Companies’ and it highlighted a number of other Xaxa products which consumers might stop buying if they wanted to put pressure on Xaxa’s management to change their policy on baby food.<br>Partly in response to these pressures, the Xaxa board decided to consider two new initiatives. The first of these was to consider introducing a corporate code of ethics. By carefully drafting this and placing it prominently on its website, the board believed that it could achieve a number of favourable outcomes including improving its reputation.<br>The second initiative was to consider instituting a full risk audit system in response to the negative publicity it had experienced, especially from MWC, whose members were considered to be natural customers of Xaxa’s other products. Private research commissioned by Xaxa showed that the baby food business was damaging Xaxa’s reputation and possibly the willingness of some talented people to apply for jobs with the company. Political support for other company plans had also suffered, such that a recent planning application to set up a new factory by Xaxa, in a business area with no connection with baby food, had received opposition. Protestors, mainly local activists and MWC members, opposed the application with placards saying ‘Xaxa kills babies’. Because the idea of risk auditing was a new initiative for Xaxa, the board has asked a local consultancy to produce guidance on the benefits of risk audit and the benefits of an external, rather than an internal, risk audit.<br>Required:<br>(a) The underlying principles of corporate governance include transparency, judgement and reputation. Explain these three terms and assess the Xaxa board’s performance against each one. (9 marks)<br>(b) Explain the purposes of a corporate code of ethics and examine how the adoption of such a code might make Xaxa reconsider its marketing of baby food in poorer developing countries. (11 marks)<br>(c) Institutional investors are potentially influential stakeholders in a company such as Xaxa.<br>Required:<br>(i) Explain why institutional investors might attempt to intervene in the governance of a company. (ii) Discuss the reasons why the Oublie Group should attempt to intervene in the governance of Xaxa following the events described in the case.<br>Note: The total marks will be split equally between each part. (10 marks)<br>(d) Produce notes from the consulting company for the Xaxa board in response to its need for guidance on risk audit. The notes should address the following:<br>(i) Discuss, in the context of Xaxa, the stages in a risk audit. (8 marks)<br>(ii) Distinguish between internal and external risk audit, and discuss the advantages for Xaxa of an external risk audit. (8 marks)<br>Professional marks will be awarded in part (d) for the clarity, logical flow, style. and persuasiveness of the notes. (4 marks)
问答题
Branscombe Co has been supplying and fitting premium bathrooms and kitchens in hotel chains throughout Effland for the past 20 years. The company started as a small family concern, but because of the rapid growth it experienced and an associated need for additional capital, it was recently listed on the national stock exchange by an initial public offering.<br>To remain fully compliant with the Effland corporate governance code, the board established audit, remuneration and nomination committees which were solely populated by independent non-executive directors. However, it did not consider it necessary to create a separate risk committee because the board believed that the remit of the audit committee included all aspects of risk management policy. This explanation was formally submitted to the shareholders at its first general meeting, who agreed with the board’s proposal.<br>As part of its expansion strategy, the board of Branscombe Co decided it needed to enter overseas markets, and in particular the developing country of Geeland. The reason that Geeland was selected as a suitable market was because it had experienced rapid economic growth and domestic prosperity following the discovery of rich, offshore mineral deposits. Unfortunately, this small island nation has never enjoyed stable democratic government and is notorious for corrupt business practices, with customs officials regularly demanding bribes from both importers and exporters. As a result, Geeland has a poor international credit rating. In order to attract both domestic and foreign inward investment, the government of Geeland operates with very low levels of indirect tax, which has stimulated the island’s tourist industry and led in turn to a significant increase in hotel building.<br>Following a successful tendering exercise, Branscombe Co was awarded the contract to supply all of the bathroom equipment for a 200-room hotel, currently under construction in a remote area of the island. The total value of the supply contract amounted to Geeland $1,800,000, and it was to be paid in three equal instalments as the bathrooms were delivered to the hotel. The contract assigns responsibility for shipping the goods the 3,000 km from Effland to the island solely with Branscombe Co, and no payment will be made until an agreed volume of goods clears Geeland customs. A further problem is that the Geeland dollar is quite volatile, but recently it has been strengthening against the Effland dollar. As all contract payments are to be made in Geeland currency, Branscombe Co is exposed to foreign exchange risks.<br>The many contract-related issues amount to significant risks to Branscombe Co requiring effective management if the supply contract is to be a success and contribute to the company’s ambitious growth targets.<br>Required:<br>(a) Explain the function and roles of a risk committee within an effective corporate governance framework, and discuss the advantages which a risk committee could add to the governance of Branscombe Co. (10 marks)<br>(b) Explain the term risk appetite, and assess how the risk appetite of Branscombe Co has influenced both its corporate strategy and the risks it has chosen to bear. (7 marks)<br>(c) Explain how Branscombe Co could effectively control the strategic and operational risks which arise from the Geeland supply contract. (8 marks)
套餐购买该问题答案仅对会员开放，欢迎开通会员 ¥ 19.9
0.64/天
1个月(不限次)
¥ 19.9
1000次
(不限时)
¥ 29.9
0.32/天
3个月(不限次)
¥ 59.9
0.16/天
1年(不限次)
立即支付
微信支付 
支付宝支付