1. 3 pages in length (including the title page and reference section)2. Include a high-level overview of the case (brief)3. Identify the main problem/potential ethical consideration

4. Provide an assessment of the approach including what was done and what should have been done.

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.

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.