注意查看！2020年天津市ACCA考试报名时间

(c) Discuss the ethical and social responsibilities of the Beth Group and whether a change in the ethical and

social attitudes of the management could improve business performance. (7 marks)

Note: requirement (c) includes 2 professional marks for development of the discussion of the ethical and social

responsibilities of the Beth Group.

1 Rowlands & Medeleev (R&M), a major listed European civil engineering company, was successful in its bid to become

principal (lead) contractor to build the Giant Dam Project in an East Asian country. The board of R&M prided itself in

observing the highest standards of corporate governance. R&M’s client, the government of the East Asian country, had

taken into account several factors in appointing the principal contractor including each bidder’s track record in large

civil engineering projects, the value of the bid and a statement, required from each bidder, on how it would deal with

the ‘sensitive issues’ and publicity that might arise as a result of the project.

The Giant Dam Project was seen as vital to the East Asian country’s economic development as it would provide a

large amount of hydroelectric power. This was seen as a ‘clean energy’ driver of future economic growth. The

government was keen to point out that because hydroelectric power did not involve the burning of fossil fuels, the

power would be environmentally clean and would contribute to the East Asian country’s ability to meet its

internationally agreed carbon emission targets. This, in turn, would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases

in the environment. Critics, such as the environmental pressure group ‘Stop-the-dam’, however, argued that the

project was far too large and the cost to the local environment would be unacceptable. Stop-the-dam was highly

organised and, according to press reports in Europe, was capable of disrupting progress on the dam by measures such

as creating ‘human barriers’ to the site and hiding people in tunnels who would have to be physically removed before

proceeding. A spokesman for Stop-the-dam said it would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when

construction started.

The project was intended to dam one of the region’s largest rivers, thus creating a massive lake behind it. The lake

would, the critics claimed, not only displace an estimated 100,000 people from their homes, but would also flood

productive farmland and destroy several rare plant and animal habitats. A number of important archaeological sites

would also be lost. The largest community to be relocated was the indigenous First Nation people who had lived on

and farmed the land for an estimated thousand years. A spokesman for the First Nation community said that the ‘true

price’ of hydroelectric power was ‘misery and cruelty’. A press report said that whilst the First Nation would be unlikely

to disrupt the building of the dam, it was highly likely that they would protest and also attempt to mobilise opinion in

other parts of the world against the Giant Dam Project.

The board of R&M was fully aware of the controversy when it submitted its tender to build the dam. The finance

director, Sally Grignard, had insisted on putting an amount into the tender for the management of ‘local risks’. Sally

was also responsible for the financing of the project for R&M. Although the client was expected to release money in

several ‘interim payments’ as the various parts of the project were completed to strict time deadlines, she anticipated

a number of working capital challenges for R&M, especially near the beginning where a number of early stage costs

would need to be incurred. There would, she explained, also be financing issues in managing the cash flows to R&M’s

many subcontractors. Although the major banks financed the client through a lending syndicate, R&M’s usual bank

said it was wary of lending directly to R&M for the Giant Dam Project because of the potential negative publicity that

might result. Another bank said it would provide R&M with its early stage working capital needs on the understanding

that its involvement in financing R&M to undertake the Giant Dam Project was not disclosed. A press statement from

Stop-the-dam said that it would do all it could to discover R&M’s financial lenders and publicly expose them. Sally

told the R&M board that some debt financing would be essential until the first interim payments from the client

became available.

When it was announced that R&M had won the contract to build the Giant Dam Project, some of its institutional

shareholders contacted Richard Markovnikoff, the chairman. They wanted reassurance that the company had fully

taken the environmental issues and other risks into account. One fund manager asked if Mr Markovnikoff could

explain the sustainability implications of the project to assess whether R&M shares were still suitable for his

environmentally sensitive clients. Mr Markovnikoff said, through the company’s investor relations department, that he

intended to give a statement at the next annual general meeting (AGM) that he hoped would address these

environmental concerns. He would also, he said, make a statement on the importance of confidentiality in the

financing of the early stage working capital needs.

(a) Any large project such as the Giant Dam Project has a number of stakeholders.

Required:

(i) Define the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘stakeholder claim’, and identify from the case FOUR of R&M’s

external stakeholders as it carries out the Giant Dam Project; (6 marks)

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Lamont Co. The company’s principal activity is wholesaling frozen

fish. The draft consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue of $67·0 million

(2006 – $62·3 million), profit before taxation of $11·9 million (2006 – $14·2 million) and total assets of

$48·0 million (2006 – $36·4 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In early 2007 a chemical leakage from refrigeration units owned by Lamont caused contamination of some of its

property. Lamont has incurred $0·3 million in clean up costs, $0·6 million in modernisation of the units to

prevent future leakage and a $30,000 fine to a regulatory agency. Apart from the fine, which has been expensed,

these costs have been capitalised as improvements. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Lamont Co for the year ended

31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

6 Sergio and Gerard each inherited a half interest in a property, ‘Hilltop’, in October 2005. ‘Hilltop’ had a probate value

of ￡124,000, but in November 2005 it was badly damaged by fire. In January 2006 the insurance company made

a payment of ￡81,700 each to Sergio and Gerard. In February 2006 Sergio and Gerard each spent ￡55,500 of the

insurance proceeds on restoring the property. ‘Hilltop’ was worth ￡269,000 following the restoration work. In July

2006, Sergio and Gerard sold ‘Hilltop’ for ￡310,000.

Sergio is 69 years old and a widower with three adult children and seven grandchildren. His annual income consists

of a pension of ￡9,900 and interest of ￡300 on savings of ￡7,600 in a bank deposit account. Sergio owns his home

but no other significant assets. He plans to buy a domestic rental property with the proceeds from the sale of ‘Hilltop’,

such that on his death he will have a significant asset which can be sold and divided between the members of his

family.

Gerard is 34 years old. He is employed by Fizz plc on a salary of ￡66,500 per year together with a performance

related bonus. Gerard estimates that he will receive a bonus in December 2007 of ￡4,500, in line with previous

years, and that his taxable benefits in the tax year 2007/08 will amount to ￡7,140. He also expects to receive

dividends from UK companies of ￡1,935 and bank interest of ￡648 in the tax year 2007/08. Gerard intends to set

up a personal pension plan in August 2007. He has not made any pension contributions in the past and proposes to

use part of the proceeds from the sale of ‘Hilltop’ to make the maximum possible tax allowable contribution.

Fizz plc has announced that it intends to replace the performance related bonus scheme with a share incentive plan,

also linked to performance, with effect from 6 April 2008. Gerard estimates that Fizz plc will award him free shares

worth ￡2,100 each year. He will also purchase partnership shares worth ￡700 each year and, as a result, will be

awarded matching shares (further free shares) worth ￡1,400.

Required:

(a) Calculate the chargeable gains arising on the receipt of the insurance proceeds in January 2006 and the sale

of ‘Hilltop’ in July 2006. You should assume that any elections necessary to minimise the gain on the receipt

of the insurance proceeds have been submitted. (4 marks)