FIN6160 · Module 6 · Corporate Governance and ESG Integration
30%
Exercises weight
70%
Performance task weight
masters
Degree level
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Applies all five capital structure dimensions (WACC, financial flexibility, debt service capacity/coverage ratio, market signal, strategic fit vs. industry D/E median) with specific figures from the Rolls-Royce scenario; governance analysis cites the UK Corporate Governance Code (FRC 2018/2024) by named principle; capital and governance recommendations are internally consistent with the quantitative evidence.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
At least four of five capital structure dimensions applied with scenario data; governance analysis references the correct code but cites by section rather than named principle; minor internal inconsistency between capital recommendation and stated rationale.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Three or fewer capital structure dimensions applied; governance analysis is generic (references 'best practice' or 'good governance' without specific code citation); capital recommendation stated but not grounded in the five-dimension framework.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
Capital structure framework not applied or applied with fundamental errors; governance analysis absent or references an incorrect code; recommendation is unsupported by scenario data.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Board advisory brief explicitly traces the capital structure recommendation to its risk exposure implications — explains how the proposed structure changes Rolls-Royce's risk profile and why; governance recommendations are linked to specific firm-level weaknesses identified in the scenario data rather than stated generically.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Risk exposure implications identified for the capital recommendation; governance reasoning present but links to specific Rolls-Royce weaknesses are partial or one implication is missing.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Capital recommendation stated; risk implications mentioned generically but not connected to Rolls-Royce's specific financial position; governance section describes code requirements rather than analyzing the firm's compliance or gaps.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No analysis of risk exposure; capital and governance sections are disconnected from the scenario data; brief restates general corporate finance theory without applying it to Rolls-Royce.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Provides an original synthesis that positions capital structure and governance as mutually reinforcing — identifies a non-obvious interaction (e.g., how increased leverage affects governance credibility with investors, or how governance improvements reduce the risk premium embedded in WACC); recommendation is framed in terms the Rolls-Royce board would act on, including sequencing or market communication considerations.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Capital and governance recommendations are coherent and board-appropriate; shows some independent analytical framing beyond applying the five dimensions mechanically.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Recommendations present but treated as two separate sections without integration; reads as a checklist response rather than a unified advisory position.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No integrated recommendation; capital and governance sections are disconnected; no board-appropriate framing or communication consideration.
Canvas import
Canvas does not support direct rubric CSV import. Use this view to manually create the rubric in Canvas, or download the JSON above for programmatic creation via the Canvas API.