Management Accounting

Management Accounting

Order Description

The assignment is in two parts, (a) and (b), weighted 70:30 respectively.

Part (a):

Write a summary of François-Régis Puyou’s research findings on the manipulation of financial performance reporting (Puyou 2014).
Puyou, F-R. (2014) Ordering collective performance manipulation practices: how do leaders manipulate financial reporting figures in conglomerates? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 25 pp469-488.

Part (b):
Use the research findings of Puyou (2014) to comment critically on the Toshiba scandal as reported in The Economist, 25th July 2015, pp 54-55.

Part (a):
Write a summary of François-RégisPuyou’s research findings on the manipulation of financial performance reporting (Puyou 2014).
Puyou, F-R. (2014) Ordering collective performance manipulation practices: how do leaders manipulate financial reporting figures in conglomerates? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 25 pp469-488.
You can access the article via “Reading Lists” on the module page on Blackboard.
Your summary must not exceed 1,000 words (excluding the title).  You may reproduce diagrams/figures and you may use headings but you should avoid over-use of bullet points.  Words in diagrams are included in the word count.I will apply the University’s policy on marking where there is a mandatory word limit:
“a student should not benefit from submitting a piece of work which exceeds the specified length: a marker should not be obliged to read beyond the word limit and a mark based on the work up to the word limit should normally be awarded.”http://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/exams/17-eaph-coursework.pdf

Part (b):
Use the research findings of Puyou (2014) to comment critically on the Toshiba scandal as reported in The Economist, 25th July 2015, pp 54-55.
This part of the assignment should not exceed 500 words.

Marking criteria: see below

Criteria    EXCEPTIONAL    SKILLED    PROFICIENT    DEVELOPING    INADEQUATE
The summary of Puyou (2014).
Demonstration of knowledge and understanding.

(35%)    •    All the key concepts are identified
•    Demonstrates an ability to extract and synthesise sufficient information to support the key concept or point.    •    Most of the key concepts are identified
•    Supporting information is summarised but may be either too detailed or inadequate.    •    Some key concepts are identified
•    Supporting information demonstrates a limited understanding of the key concept or point.    •    Very limited identification of the key concepts
•    Supporting information may not be included and/or demonstrates a poor understanding of the key concept or point.     •    Little evidence to show that the key concepts/points have been identified or understood.
Quality of written communication.

(35%)    •    Excellent sequence and logical organisation of material.
•    Writing is fluent, succinct and clear.
•    Effective use of quotations.    •    Good organisation.
•    Writing is mainly succinct and clear
•    Good use of quotations in general but some quotations could have been expressed just as well in your own words.    •    Sequence of paragraphs may not always be logical.
•    Writing is sufficiently clear to convey meaning
•    Too many quotations are used and/or some quotations are extensive.  Much more should be in your own words.     •    Acceptable structure.
•    Meaning is often difficult to extract because the writing is poor
•    Far too many quotations are used.  Much more should be in your own words.     •    Difficult to discern a logical structure
•    Poorly written throughout or may consist of little more than a list of quotations.
•    Fails to identify quotations as such.

Application of Puyou (2014) to Toshiba.
Application of theory (Puyou’s research) to the Toshiba case study (as reported in The Economist).

(20%)    •    Excellent interpretation of the article through the lens of Puyou’s work    •    Strong evidence that Puyou’s contribution has been understood and applied to the Toshiba case.
•    Few omissions
•    Understanding may lack depth in places.    •    Good use of the Puyou article to show understanding of the Toshiba case.
•    There may be some omissions or errors of understanding.    •    Some evidence that Puyou’s article has been used to interpret the Toshiba case.
•    There may be evidence that Puyou’s work has been misunderstood and/or that it has been inappropriately applied to the Toshiba case.    •    Poor.  Little evidence that any attempt has been made to read the Toshiba case in light of the Puyou article.
Critical insight, reasoned reflection and/or reasoned questioning of assumptions.

(10%)    •    Strong evidence supporting interesting and critical comments.    •    Evidence of probing and questioning.
•    Most critical comments or observations are supported by reasoned argument or other evidence.    •    Some reasonable criticismbut comments may not be supported by reasoned argument or sufficient evidence in all cases.    •    Evidence may be weak and/or comment may be limited.
•    Some attempt to recognise underlying assumptions and to question their validity.    •    No evidence of questioning.
•    Fails to recognise any assumptions.

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples