Topic: Polygamy: history, lifestyle, current controversies

RESEARCH PAPER (6-8 pages, MLA style)

This paper will involve research and evaluation of research. It will combine your opinions and arguments with the opinions from at least five articles on the topic that you have chosen. At least three of these articles have to be opinion/argument articles (i.e. containing the authors position on one side or the other, not just facts). Also, all of your articles have to have an author (blogs, chain letters, or Wikipedia are not acceptable sources). Best sources: library resources, or sites associated with universities or major newspapers. Tip: you can add “scholarly article” to the key word if you use Google or other search engines on the web. Do not use articles that ask for any money. The library provides its own search engine with plenty of articles on a great variety of topics (so go to “Library” on the STC website, go to “Articles” and you will see several options. EBSCO is a good one.

I want your paper to contain a DEBATE between two sides of the issue .You will present the sides and explain where the authors stand in your paper major points and how theyre supported from the articles, and agree or disagree with each point you bring up from their texts. Finally, you will choose one side based on which arguments you agree with the most. You should make the comparison between the arguments obvious: are the articles that are on one side very similar or have differences? Is the opposing argument more, or less valid? Why?

YOUR argument that evaluates the four articles that you picked should be clear from the beginning, but then elaborated in a dialogue with the 4 articles. It should be clear, however, what YOUR voice and your opinions are in relation to the sources. Do not simply paraphrase or summarize someone elses point without mentioning whose opinion that is, if its not your point, because that would mean youre plagiarizing. Always distinguish between their points and yours, with signals such as In his opinion, I agree because, or his point makes sense because, or I think a flaw in this argument is. You can give your own examples, to show how you relate to the issue or not.
When you discuss a source that contains facts, explain the meaning of those facts and use them to help make your point. Make them relevant to your position.
Organization: The paper does not have to follow any specific pattern, except that of course it will have an introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction, as usual, will announce what the topic is, what articles you talk about (by what authors), and will announce your position in relation to them.

The two easiest ways to construct a body for your paper is to do either of the following:

A.  Divide the body of the paper in 5 parts (though you should have more than one paragraph for each source) and each part will be about one article, making sure you always agree or disagree, saying what reasons you have to agree or disagree with it; when you move on to the next one, make references to the previous ones, saying how it is similar to them or not, as well as your position toward it. After that, you will draw some conclusions based on your position and how you analyzed the articles (e.g. because you agreed with this point and disagreed with that point, your overall point is this);

B.  The paper will alternate between the 5 (or more) articles (giving at the same time a critical evaluation of them, by expressing your attitude and why you have it). It will be organized by sub-points, and show how each article addresses each particular sub-point, then you will move to the next sub-point and show how each article addresses it, etc.
In any case, it should be clear by the end where you stand in relation to the topic.
IMPORTANT: You will have to use QUOTES from all the three articles to show how the author makes a point. Approximately, you should give a short quote for each separate idea, with proper citation, and with a comment on the quote. In any given paragraph, the quote should not be more than 1/3 of the paragraph, the rest being your own evaluation of the point made in the quote or the analysis preceding the quote.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Order Description
Case Study 13.3 in chapter 13 of Tricker (p. 354) presents a cameo of Australia’s largest and most infamous corporate collapse, HIH Insurance.
Following the failure of the HIH group, the Australian Government established the HIH Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of the failure. The following is taken from the introduction to the Royal Commission’s website. Visit the HIH Royal Commission website, which provides all the factual information you require to undertake the assessment:
http://www.hih.com.au/Group-HIHRoyalCommision.html “The HIH Royal Commission completed its enquiries and its report was made public in April 2003. In addition to the final report, the HIH Royal Commission made extensive information available to the public via its website which can be accessed at www.hihroyalcom.gov.au. The following documents are taken from the Explanatory Statement and the HIH Royal Commission website: “The HIH Royal Commission – The failure of HIH Insurance. Commonwealth of Australia 2003. Copyright Commonwealth of Australia reproduced by permission.” Corporate chart – this is an abbreviated chart identifying the ownership structure of some of the significant companies in the HIH Group, with the eight insurance companies licensed or formerly licensed in Australia identified on the chart. Chronology of key events – this is the HIH Royal Commission’s summary of key events in the history of the HIH Group between its commencement in 1968 and its failure in 2001. Historical introductions – these brief summaries are the historical introductions published by the HIH Royal Commission for the eight licenced insurers in the HIH Group now subject to Schemes of Arrangement. The Royal Commission website contains a great deal more information in relation to each of the companies, including details of any name changes in prior years, details of directors and office holders, and the last published financial information for each company prior to the failure.”
The Royal Commission reported that:
? The inquiry did not find fraud or embezzlement to be behind the collapse. The failure was more the result of attempts to paper over the cracks caused by over-priced acquisitions and too much corporate extravagance based on a misconception that the ‘money’ was there in the business. The primary reason for the failure was that adequate provision had not been made for insurance claims. Past claims on policies had not been properly priced. HIH was mismanaged in the area of its core business activity. The ultimate shortfall is likely to be in the billions of dollars.
? The acquisition of FAI Insurance Ltd in Australia, combined with re-entry into the US market and the expansion of the UK operations, were poor commercial decisions. All were afflicted with under-reserving. The Royal Commission noted that a culture appeared to have developed within HIH not to question leadership decisions.
? HIH had a corporate governance model but the Royal Commission found that HIH had failed to review the model to assess its suitability for changing circumstances in the insurance industry. Under the HIH model, the internal audit committee focused almost exclusively on
the accounts rather than taking on an additional function of overall risk identification and
assessment. Also, the Royal Commission noted that the audit committee within HIH should
have met more often with directors with management absent.
? HIH had three authorised insurance arms, including FAI. The Royal Commission found that
prior to its provisional liquidation in March 2001 all three companies had operated below the
minimum solvency requirements stipulated by the regulator and the Insurance Act 1973. The
prudential regulator is the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA).
? Overall, the Royal Commission referred 56 possible breaches of the Corporations Law and
the NSW Crimes Act 1900 to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
and to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
? Although the Royal Commission found that APRA did not cause or contribute to HIH’s
collapse, APRA did not recognise the seriousness of the situation or question the reliability
of the information it was receiving from HIH until too late.
? A significant recommendation of the Royal Commission was an overhaul of APRA, including
the replacement of its non-executive board with an executive group.
1. What was the HIH board doing while this saga was going on? What should they have done?
2. Whose fault was it that FAI had been acquired, without a due diligence study and with ‘gaping
holes in its finances’? Provide reasons for your answer.

“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code “Newclient”for a 15% Discount!”

Originally posted 2018-05-02 06:40:06.

The post CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY appeared first on Student Homeworks.