Annotated Bibliogrphy Essay Example

Assignment Cover Sheet
200336 Business Academic Skills

College of Business — School of Marketing

Unit name and number:

200336 Business Academic Skills

Workshop day:

Workshop time:

Workshop room:

Workshop tutor:

Title of assignment:

Researching Section 3: Annotated Bibliography

300 words plus reference

In Week 7 Workshop (beginning 12 September)

Campus enrolment:

Declaration:

  • I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

  • I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.

  • No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the subject lecturer/tutor concerned.

  • .(which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking) submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism I am aware that this work may be reproduced and

  • .(i.e. having a zero report may still result in plagiarism) plagiarism detection software programs are not the only means that will be used to detect plagiarism I am aware that the

Signature: ______________________________________

Note: An examiner or lecturer/tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been signed.

RESEARCHING SECTION 3: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assessment question

Discuss the management practices at Enron with regard to three ethical principles of the Global Business Standards Codex.

Type your responses in the boxes below:

Full Harvard style reference

Culpan, R, & Trussel, J, 2005, “Applying the Agency and Stakeholder Theories to the Enron Debacle: An Ethical Perspective”, Business and Society Review, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 59-76, viewed 10 September 2011, Academic OneFile database.

Main argument and research (What is the author’s thesis or main argument? What is the aim of the research and the methodology used? What were the conclusions and limitations of the research?)

The authors examines the Enron scandal from an ethical perspective by first defining its theoretical basis and then evaluating the unethical conduct by its top leadership in the areas of management, accounting, and finance. After this examination of the Enron bankruptcy from the perspective of various stakeholders, the authors assess the implications of the Enron case and the unethical managerial behaviour in the context of the agency and stakeholder principles. The author uses the agency’s framework in the Enron debacle to demonstrate the extent of unethical practices in the financial and accounting fields in the company and the stakeholder’s framework to demonstrate the dimension of the unethical practices that prejudiced employees, competitors, government agencies, investors, creditors, and the public at large.

From the study the authors confirms the negative correlation between unethical managerial practices and the firm’s fraudulent dealings. Or in other words, the firm’s accounting, managerial, and financial misconduct and unethical practices contributed to its bankruptcy and losses to majority of its stakeholders. Therefore, the authors conclude that in order to prevent the occurrence of similar cases in future, there is need to have a new set of regulations. According to the authors, it is also incumbent upon firms to not only develop a code of ethics but also ensure that it is enforced at all times.

Usefulness and reflection (How does it help you address the question? How will you use the resource?)

This article is useful to this study, because it discusses the Enron debacle in the framework of the two theoretical perspectives namely; stakeholder’s theoretical perspective and agency theoretical perspective, both of which are premised on similar concept with two of ethical principles of the Global Business Standards Codex. Due to this, it will form the basis of my argument affirming the importance of having a new and more watertight set of regulations and a code of ethics in the corporate world.

RESEARCHING SECTION 2: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY /50 %

Clear Fail

Needs Work

Distinction

High Distinction

REFERENCE

reference

Not in any known referencing format

  • or required bibliographic details Missing

  • references included.No

but:in Harvard style not references areAll or most

  • required bibliographic details are present.All

  • May or may not include view date and url/data base/DOI.

but:All references are in Harvard style

  • and/or present not required bibliographic details are Some

  • They are poorly formatted.

acceptable:The Harvard style is

  • and/or of the required bibliographic details are present Most

  • Not correctly formatted.

very good:The Harvard style is

  • but required bibliographic details are present; All

  • and/orIt is not properly punctuated

  • May or may not include view date and url/data base/DOI.

  • Correctly formatted.

excellent:The Harvard style is

  • Authors’ names are presented correctly

  • Date presented correctly

  • Titles are italicised

  • All required bibliographic details are present

  • May or may not include view date and url/data base/DOI.

  • andProperly punctuated

  • Correctly formatted.

ANNOTATION

Main argument and research

identify:not does and use own words not may orMay

  • andThe author’s thesis

  • orResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.or Conclusions

identify:not does and use own words not may orMay

  • orThe author’s thesis

  • orResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.or Conclusions

completely: and identify accurately notUses own words but does

  • The author’s thesis

  • andResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.orConclusions

completely: or identify accurately notUses own words but does

  • The author’s thesis

  • andResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.and/orConclusions

completely: notUses own words to identify accurately but

  • The author’s thesis

  • andResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.andConclusions

Uses own words to identify accurately and completely:

  • The author’s thesis

  • andResearch aims and methodology

  • limitations.andConclusions

10.0-12.5

13.0-14.5

15.0-16.5

17.0-20.0

Usefulness and reflection

show:Does not

  • andHow the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

Describes:

  • orHow the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

Describes

  • andHow the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

Evaluates:

  • andWhy the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

accurately:Evaluates

  • andWhy the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

fully: and accuratelyEvaluates

  • andWhy the resource is useful

  • How the resource will be used.

10.0-12.5

13.0-14.5

15.0-16.5

17.0-20.0

Academic writing style and
cohesion

use:Does not

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Connections between ideas and sentences

  • andFormal academic writing

  • Own words (too many quotes).

use:Does not

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Connections between ideas and sentences,

  • orFormal academic writing

  • Own words (too many quotes).

use:May or may not

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Connections between ideas and sentences

  • and/orFormal academic writing

  • Own words.

uses:Sometimes

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Clear and logical connections between ideas and sentences

  • and/orFormal academic writing

  • Direct quotes.

uses:Mostly

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Concise and formal ideas

  • Clear and logical connections between ideas and sentences

  • and/orFormal academic writing

  • Quotes minimally and appropriately.

uses:Always

  • Objective and subjective language appropriately

  • Concise and formal ideas

  • Clear and logical connections between ideas and sentences

  • andFormal academic writing

  • Own words.

Sub-Total

Number of Days Late

Late Penalties
(minus 5 marks/day)