Strategic Business

Leader (SBL)
September 2023
Examiner’s report
The examining team share their observations from
the marking process to highlight strengths and
weaknesses in candidates’ performance, and to
offer constructive advice for those sitting the exam
in the future.

Contents
General comments ........................................................... 2
Format of the exam....................................................... 2
Pre-seen information .................................................... 3
Exam performance ....................................................... 3
Analysing the exhibits ................................................... 5
Planning ........................................................................ 6
Time management ........................................................ 6
Reasons for failure........................................................ 7
Technical marks............................................................ 8
Professional skills marks .............................................. 9
Specific comments .........................................................10
Task 1 ......................................................................... 10
Task 2 ......................................................................... 14
Task 3 ......................................................................... 18

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 1

General comments
This examiner’s report should be used in conjunction with the published September
2023 sample exam which can be found on the ACCA Practice Platform.

In this report, the examining team provide constructive guidance on how to answer the
tasks whilst sharing their observations from the marking process, highlighting the
strengths and weaknesses of candidates who attempted these tasks. Future
candidates can use this examiner’s report as part of their exam preparation, attempting
question practice on the ACCA Practice Platform and reviewing the published answers
alongside this report.

Format of the exam

The examination consisted of a 3 hours and 15 minutes integrated case study exam,
comprising three main tasks, about a low-cost regional airline business called Corjetz.
The candidate’s role throughout the exam was a senior business analyst working in
the finance department of Corjetz, reporting directly to the chief finance officer.

The marking scheme included 80 Technical marks for the correct use and application
of technical knowledge. For every element of technical content, answers needed to be
applied to the case. Repetition of rote learned knowledge attracted few, if any, marks.

In addition, the marking scheme included 20 marks for Professional skills. The skill
being examined in the requirement should have been evident in how candidates
answered the task, although candidates should draw on other relevant skills when
answering. When awarding Professional skills marks, markers looked primarily at the
professional skill being tested in the task requirement, but also considered the general
professionalism that candidates demonstrated (which included whether answers were
logical and well-presented, avoided unnecessary repetition and answered the task

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 2

set). Markers also considered whether answers were presented in an appropriate tone
for the recipient.

As candidates take the exam on computer, they are strongly recommended to take
mocks on the ACCA practice platform first, to gain experience of dealing with different
types of exhibits and to estimate how much they can write in the time allowed. It is
strongly advised to use and assimilate the guidance produced by ACCA for the
Strategic Business Leader CBE exam.

Pre-seen information
September 2023 was the first SBL examination to be supported by pre-seen
information. This pre-seen presented candidates with an overview of the airline
industry and further background information relating directly to Corjetz. This included
some historical context, its recent performance, a review of key resources and risks
and its mission, vision and values.

The pre-seen is designed specifically to allow candidates to establish a sound

understanding of the forthcoming examination industry and company context. This
should mean that candidates are then better equipped to analyse and understand the
exhibit information that is presented to them on exam day.

Importantly, candidates must understand that the pre-seen information should not be
used to ‘question spot’. Questions will not be set on information specifically located in
the pre-seen information. The questions on exam day will always be focused primarily
on the information contained within the examination exhibits and this is what
candidates will be expected to focus on as the primary source for the development of
their answers. Of course, some information within the pre-seen will be useful to
support points made in the answers, but candidates must avoid copying and pasting
large sections of the pre-seen into their answers. This is not what the pre-seen is for.
It is to assist candidates’ overall understanding of the industry and the company, not
to provide the main source of examination answers.

Exam performance
On exam day, the following exhibits were presented to candidates which provided
additional information relevant to the case study:

1. Business magazine article – A business magazine article featuring an

interview with Corjetz’s CEO, in which she discusses her approach to
leadership and the role of the board members.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 3

 2. Outline investment proposal – A document outlining a proposal put forward
by the chief commercial officer for investment in Artificial Intelligence (AI)
flight simulation technology to deliver pilot training.
3. Principal risk review – An email from Corjetz’s risk manager detailing the
proposed updates to Corjetz’s principal risks.
4. Corjetz’s performance report – Headline financial results, KPIs and
environmental and sustainability dashboard results for the year ended June
30th 20X3.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 4

Overall, the standard of answers for the September 2023 exam was in line with recent
sittings. However, evidence did suggest the following:

• Many candidates made insufficient use of the information presented in the

exhibits to support their answers.

• There was weak/ insufficient application of the case materials in answers.

• Some candidates continue to answer the task they wish had been set rather
than the task actually set. This seems to have been compounded by the
introduction of the pre-seen information, with some candidates clearly pre-
preparing answers from this information and then using this, regardless of the
question asked.

The most competent candidates integrated and used information from the relevant
exhibit materials, supported by their knowledge and understanding of the pre-seen,
throughout their answers, selecting relevant technical knowledge to support the
applied points they made. They also demonstrated sound professional skills through
analysis, evaluation and sound commercial judgement, and through presenting well-
structured answers.

The main weaknesses were a failure to consider the context of Corjetz, repetition (i.e.,
copy and pasting) of pre-seen and exhibit information into answers with little or no
attempt to add further value, and an inability to develop points in support of arguments
made.

It was also apparent that some candidates had not used and assimilated the guidance
and resources produced by ACCA for Strategic Business Leader. It is worth
remembering that this is an important part of exam preparation.

Analysing the exhibits

Candidates must spend sufficient time reading and assimilating the information within
the exhibits which make up the case study materials. Although examination time has
now been reduced by 45 minutes, the number of exhibits has also been reduced
significantly so there should be sufficient time for candidates to assimilate the
information presented. Also, with the introduction of the pre-seen information,
candidates should now be familiar with the case context before exam day and
therefore less time should be needed to understand and assimilate the new exhibit
information.

However, often answers failed to make sufficient reference to the exhibits or failed to
make use of the full range of material in the exhibits. For example, (as will be discussed

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 5

later in this report) Task 3 was often poorly answered because candidates failed to
make use of the full range of performance information presented to them in Exhibit 4.

Candidates need to read the exhibits carefully, whilst keeping the requirements of
each task in mind, as this will help them to identify which tasks will be drawing on the
material in each exhibit. Candidates need to remember that material from more than
one exhibit may be relevant when answering each task.

The exhibits:
• Provide the material which underpins the applied points that candidates
should be making.
• Include necessary background information and explanation to provide context
to candidates’ answers.
• Help candidates to decide how to structure their answers.
• Highlight the most important issues that answers should cover.
However, it must be stressed that merely reproducing or restating material taken
directly from the exhibits without commenting on it or developing points further will not
score marks. This point will be discussed later in the report in relation to candidates’
performance on this examination’s tasks.

Planning
Candidates must also spend sufficient time on planning, to ensure that their answers
are:
• Structured logically
• Balanced in terms of the depth of discussion required with the breadth of
points to be made
• Covering the most important points
• Not padded out with material that does not address the task requirements
• Not making the same point two (or more) times
• Not overlapping
When taking the CBE exam it may be useful to copy and paste the task requirements
into the word processor answer area. Candidates then do not need to keep looking at
the task tabs and it may help them to remain more focused on the tasks as they answer
them.

Time management
Most candidates answered all three tasks and there was no significant indication that
they had run out of time or stamina on this examination. This suggests that candidates

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 6

are continuing to improve their time management skills. Candidates are strongly
recommended to take mock exams under full exam conditions before the actual exam,
to get used to the demands on concentration, thinking and writing that the SBL exam
requires.

Candidates also need to be aware of how time can be poorly used in this exam:

• Wasting time by including material not relevant to the task requirements. For
example, there were explanations of the TARA framework in answers to task
2b for which no marks were awarded.
• Writing elaborate and lengthy plans, resulting in too little time to produce
meaningful answers.
• Making the same point twice or more in slightly different ways. This was
particularly evident in Task 1a in this exam, where some candidates
repeatedly referred to the motivational leadership style of Corjetz’s current
CEO. Markers will not give additional marks for points which are repeated or
re-stated, even if they are slightly reworded.

Reasons for failure

In most cases, those candidates who failed this exam did so because of:
• Lack of development of the points made (that is, not fully explaining why the
point was relevant/important in the context of the task requirements).
• Lack of application of points made to the case scenario.
• Lack of analysis skills (demonstrated through an inability to select, and then
appropriately use, the full range and most relevant information to answer task
requirements).
• Not answering the question that has been asked.
• Poor level of technical knowledge.
• Lack of commercial acumen.
• Wasting time by including irrelevant content.
• Failure to provide everything that the requirements specified.

The level of application of answers was generally disappointing, particularly in the light
of candidates having access to the pre-seen information, which should have meant a
better understanding of the case context, and therefore better applied answers.
However, we in fact saw more evidence of copy and pasting of exhibit information into
answers than in previous sittings, with little or no attempt to add any further value to
this. This approach will score no marks.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 7

It was also disappointing to see some candidates still failing to read the task
requirements carefully, resulting in them not answering the question that had been
asked or not answering the whole requirement. This demonstrates poor examination
technique and a lack of professionalism, which then impacts on the professional skills
marks awarded.

Technical marks
Demonstration of technical knowledge alone or explanation of theory does not score
marks in the Strategic Business Leader exam. To gain each technical mark,
candidates needed to:
• Make points that directly address the requirements of the task, considering the
scope of answer required and what the task verb indicates should be provided.
• Clearly explain to the marker why the points being made are
significant/relevant in the context of Corjetz.
• Consider issues that are specific to the decision or issue covered in the task
requirement.
Up to two marks were available for a well-developed point made. However, candidates
are reminded that two marks will only be awarded when a relevant point has been
successfully identified/explained AND has been developed by:
• Evaluating how significant the point is.
• Using the information provided that relates the point directly to Corjetz.
• Explaining the consequences for Corjetz.
• Supporting the point made with relevant examples from the case material.
A failure to develop points made was often evident in this exam. This was particularly
notable in Tasks 1a and 3a. For example, in Task 1a candidates were able to identify
examples of Corjetz’s leadership styles from Exhibit 1 but were then unable to explain
what impact these had on Corjetz’s culture. Similarly, in Task 3a, candidates were able
to undertake correct performance calculations from the data presented in Exhibit 4
and identify whether this was adverse or favourable, but then failed to discuss the
reasons or consequences of these results.

In this sitting, as in previous sittings, candidates often reproduced or repeated

information taken from the exhibits with no attempt to add further value. Examples
included:
• Reproducing statements relating to Corjetz’s leadership approaches from
Exhibit 1 without explaining how these influenced Corjetz’s culture (Task 1a).
• Reproducing statements from Exhibit 2 without explaining why these related to
the suitability, acceptability or feasibility of the proposed AI investment (Task

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 8

 2a).
• Reproducing information from Exhibit 3 without any consideration of the
dynamic nature of the risks it referred to (Task 2b).
• Undertaking basic calculations from data contained in Exhibit 4 without then
explaining the reasons or consequences of these calculations (Task 3a).
• Reproducing the KPIs contained in table 2 of Exhibit 4 without any explanation
of their relevance to an environmental and sustainability audit report (Task 3b)
Candidates who presented very generic answers were awarded limited marks. This
often happened in answers to Task 1b, where many candidates described the role of
NEDs and the importance of board diversity with no reference at all to Corjetz.
Candidates must avoid presenting answers which merely repeat knowledge or theory
without any attempt to apply this to the case context.

Professional skills marks

It was good to see that many candidates had clearly thought about professional skills
marks and attempted to present their answers in an appropriate format, as requested
in each task requirement.

Whatever the format requested, the recipient will be helped by an answer which is
presented and structured clearly, with headers throughout the answer and which
avoids repetitive information. Candidates who used such an approach, in Tasks 1a,
2a, and 3a often provided better answers than those candidates who didn’t.
Candidates should remember that they are carrying out a professional task that has a
particular purpose(s) for a defined user or stakeholder(s).

It is important for candidates to read the technical and professional requirements

together, as this will assist them in formulating their answers in the correct style, tone
and with the correct level of professionalism. This was particularly important in task 2a
where the candidates were asked to demonstrate scepticism when evaluating the AI
investment proposal. Those candidates that recognised the need to demonstrate
scepticism and challenge in their answers performed much better than those who
failed to appropriately challenge the proposal.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 9

Specific comments

Task 1

Corjetz’s chief executive officer (CEO) recently gave an interview to a leading

Corland business magazine. The chief people officer (CPO) is about to chair a
staff representative committee meeting and thinks it would be useful to
communicate some of the key points of the CEO’s interview to staff at this
meeting. She has asked for your help in preparing for this meeting.

(a) Prepare briefing notes for the CPO which outline the problems in
culture caused by the previous leadership style and the impact that the
current CEO’s leadership style has had on Corjetz’s culture.
(12 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating commercial acumen

skills in showing insight and understanding of the impact of leadership styles on
Corjetz’s culture.
(4 marks)

The CPO believes that many of Corjetz’s staff are unaware of the role and
importance of the non-executive directors (NEDs). She has asked for your help
in preparing a presentation for her meeting with the staff representative
committee.

(b) Prepare TWO presentation slides and accompanying notes for the
CPO’s meeting with the staff representative committee which:

(i) Explain the key roles of Corjetz’s NEDs; and

(ii) Assess the importance to Corjetz of having a diverse board.
(12 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating communication skills in

clarifying and conveying relevant information to the staff representative
committee members relating to the role of the NEDs and the importance of
board diversity.
(4 marks)

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 10

Part (a)

Most candidates answered this task reasonably well.

To answer part (a) of Task 1 candidates needed to focus on Exhibit 1, the Corland
Business Review magazine article, which featured an interview with Corjetz’s CEO, in
which she discussed her approach to leadership and the role of the board members.
The article also referred to Corjetz’s leadership style prior to her appointment.

This should have been a very straightforward question on a familiar and key aspect of
the SBL syllabus and it was encouraging to see that there were some good answers
to this task.

Most candidates presented a good range of points, both relating to the previous
leadership style and the current leadership style and there was mostly quite an even
coverage between these two elements of the task requirement. Better candidates were
those that focused on a component of leadership, made their judgement on the impact
this had on culture and then explained why. However, in many answers, points made
tended to focus more on the impact on staff and customer service rather than
specifically on Corjetz’s culture. Surprisingly few candidates used the cultural web to
structure their responses and so discussions of cultural factors were often partial, at
best. Candidates who used the cultural web as a framework tended to achieve higher
marks as there was a clear structure to their answers.

However, answers to Task 1a varied considerably. Some candidates only discussed

problems caused by the previous leadership, others produced answers that described
different leadership styles with no reference to the case study and a minority produced
very brief answers demonstrating a poor understanding of the task.

Many responses contained a lot of direct copy and paste from Exhibit 1 with little or no
attempt to consider the impact of these copied statements on Corjetz’s culture. Many
candidates correctly recognised ‘hierarchical’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘centralised’ as key
leadership traits from the exhibit but failed to then go on to explain the impact these
approaches had on Corjetz’s culture, both in the past and now. In fact, there were a
significant number of candidates that did nothing more than quote directly from Exhibit
1 (often word for word) with no attempt at all to offer any original points or explanation.
These answers were awarded very few marks.

Some responses also included the information about the board/NEDs in the discussion
of leadership styles and culture which was irrelevant to this part of the task and
therefore these points were awarded no credit. Candidates are reminded to stay
focused on the task at hand and not to include irrelevant information/ discussions
which waste time and score no marks.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 11

The main weaknesses to answers to parts (a) of the task were:

- Reproducing (i.e., copy and pasting) statements from Exhibit 1 and explaining the
relevance or significance of these statements badly or not at all.

- Not using factors from the cultural web to assist in structuring the answer and
hence producing incomplete or unorganised answers.

- Insufficiently developed points made to explain both leadership styles on Corjetz’s

culture.

- A total lack of focus on culture at all, with answers only describing/ comparing the
two leadership styles.

- Failure to read the task requirement and the professional skills requirement.

Professional skills marks for this task were awarded for demonstrating commercial
acumen in showing insight and understanding of the impact of leadership styles on
Corjetz’s culture. Those candidates that did make a reasonable attempt to consider
the impact of the leadership styles used by the current and previous CEOs on the
culture of Corjetz tended to score well on professional skills, as they were able to
demonstrate reasonable commercial awareness. However, those candidates that
merely copied and pasted points from the exhibit with little or no attempt to consider
the relevance of these points to Corjetz culture clearly demonstrated poor commercial
awareness and therefore did not attain a pass mark on professional skills.

Part (b)

This part of Task 1 required candidates to explain the role of Corjetz’s NEDs and
assess the importance to Corjetz of having a diverse board. As presentation slides
and notes were requested, answers should have ideally been presented in the
presentation area of the CBE.

In part 1b(i) most candidates scored reasonably well, as most were able to
demonstrate reasonable knowledge and understanding of the role of NEDs. However,
most answers were largely theoretical, often with limited attempt to apply or provide
an explanation of the role of NEDs to the context of Corjetz. However, better
candidates did apply their answers directly to Corjetz and scored well for this.

A significant number of candidates seemed to have difficulty understanding the

concept of the role of the NEDs and instead focussed on describing qualities and
characteristics of NEDs (such as independence and levels of expertise). Better
responses correctly focused on their role of monitoring, challenging, and scrutinising
the executive board and its strategic decisions and the role of NEDs in risk and
governance review and their importance on the various committees.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 12

There were occasional mistakes/ misunderstandings demonstrated about what NEDs
do (i.e. the suggestion that NEDs were responsible for implementation and formulation
of strategy rather than to scrutinise and challenge strategy).

In part 1b(ii) candidates were asked to assess the importance of board diversity.
Answers to this part of the task were disappointing and certainly not as strong as
answers to part (i), with many candidates demonstrating limited understanding of the
importance of diversity in the board of Corjetz.

Better answers recognised a good range of benefits of a diverse board, including

access to a wider pool of experience, reduction of “groupthink”, greater and more
meaningful board debate, and the demonstration of social responsibility to the
workforce and its wider stakeholders. However, only a minority of candidates produced
responses that discussed the importance of diversity, and it was very disappointing to
see how many candidates seemed not to know what diversity was at all. Some
answers to this part of the task were little more than continuations or repeat of the
answers presented in the previous part of the task.

The main weaknesses in answers to part (b) of this task were:

- Limited knowledge of the role of NEDs

- Limited knowledge/ understanding of board diversity and its importance.

- Wholly theoretical answers with no reference to Corjetz’s board at all.

- Confused answers which made no distinction between the two specific questions
asked in part (b)

- Brief/ undeveloped answers

- Poorly presented/ communicated answers with either no presentation notes

presented at all, or notes were presented as part of the slides.

To score high professional marks, candidates needed to demonstrate good

communication skills, in presenting both effective slides and supporting notes suitable
to convey appropriate information to staff representative committee members. Few
candidates scored high professional marks on this part of the task, as the presentation
of answers was often either unclear, brief or weak communication skills were
exhibited. Candidates often failed to differentiate between the two elements of the task
and discussion of both elements routinely appeared in the ‘wrong place’ or was more
often duplicated.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 13

Task 2

The chief finance officer (CFO) has asked you to assist him with two separate
issues. Firstly, he has received an outline proposal from the chief commercial
officer (CCO) for investment in new Artificial Intelligence (AI) flight simulation
technology to deliver pilot training. The CCO is keen to gain support from the
other board members to invest in this proposal as soon as possible as he
believes it to be critical in maintaining Corjetz’s competitive advantage.

(a) Prepare a report for the CFO which assesses the suitability,
acceptability and feasibility of the proposal to invest in the AI flight
simulation technology. Your answer should recommend, with reasons,
whether it should be undertaken as soon as possible, as suggested by the
CCO.
(16 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating scepticism skills in

challenging the information presented and the views expressed by the CCO in
an objective and courteous manner.
(4 marks)

Secondly, the CFO has received an email from the risk manager outlining the
latest review of Corjetz’s principal risks. He has asked the CFO for his input into
the assessment of these risks before they are presented to the chair of the Audit
Committee. The CFO has asked for your assistance.

(b) Draft an email response which the CFO can send to the risk manager
which:

(i) Discusses the dynamic nature of Corjetz’s principal risks; and

(6 marks)

(ii) Assesses the potential consequences of each of these risks for Corjetz.
(10 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating evaluation skills in

using professional judgement in assessing the dynamic nature and
consequences of the principal risks highlighted by the risk manager.
(4 marks)

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 14

Part (a)

Answers to this task were generally disappointing.

To answer this part of the task candidates needed to refer primarily to Exhibit 2, a
document outlining a proposal put forward by the chief commercial officer (CCO) for
investment in Artificial Intelligence (AI) flight simulation technology to deliver pilot
training. Candidates were directed in the requirement to present their response in the
form of a SAF analysis, together with an overall recommendation as to whether the
proposal should be adopted as soon as possible.

Better answers were well structured, with a clear SAF structure and well explained
points relating to each heading. Better answers also made good use of both the exhibit
material and some aspects of the pre-seen to support the points made. For example,
stronger answers often considered whether the proposal was suitable in terms of
Corjetz’s values, as identified in the pre-seen material. Better answers also linked the
exhibit material relating to the reduction in training costs from this proposal to its
support of Corjetz’s low-cost business model, as identified from the pre-seen
information.

However, few candidates presented very good answers to this task. Most did attempt
to use the SAF framework to structure their answers, although many clearly did not
really understand how to differentiate between what should be correctly included under
each heading. Most correctly discussed stakeholder acceptance of the proposal within
‘acceptability’ but there was much confusion demonstrated between appropriate
‘suitability’ and ‘feasibility’ factors. However, if candidates made a well applied and
clearly explained point which correctly assessed the proposal, candidates were not
penalized for having points under an incorrect SAF heading.

Weaker responses to this question copied and pasted statements from Exhibit 2 into
their answers with little or no attempt to evaluate these further. For example, most
candidates copied and pasted in the statement that ‘stakeholders will need to be
convinced of the quality, safety and benefits of AI’. However, many failed to develop
this further by explaining which stakeholders and why. This point is meaningless
without further evaluation of which stakeholders and why they will need to be
convinced. Similarly, many candidates copied into their answers the statement that
‘there is limited availability of instructors worldwide’, but again failed to elaborate on
the extent of the impact that this potentially would have on the viability of the proposal.

As a result of copying and pasting statements into the answers, with no attempt to
explain and challenge, scepticism was often limited, and therefore professional marks
were generally low. This was a clear example of where weaker candidates had failed
to read the technical and professional requirements in conjunction. Had they done so,

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 15

they would have been aware that they should have demonstrated scepticism and
challenge throughout their answer.

The requirement also asked for a final recommendation as to whether the proposal
should be carried out as soon as possible, as suggested by the CCO. Those
candidates that had demonstrated strong scepticism recognised that the proposal
should not be undertaken as soon as possible and questioned the assertion made
regarding its impact on Corjetz’s competitive advantage. Weaker candidates merely
recommended that the proposal should be accepted immediately, without evaluating
any potential weaknesses of the proposal. This showed poor professional judgement.

The main weaknesses in answers to part (a) of this task were:

- Lack of challenge demonstrated throughout the answer, with most points made in
favour of the proposal without recognizing any of its weaknesses.

- Copying and pasting large parts of Exhibit 2 with no attempt to add any further
value to these points.

- Poorly structured and presented answers, demonstrating a lack of understanding

of the SAF criteria.

- Adopting an unprofessional tone when attempting to challenge some of the points

in the exhibit.

- Failing to provide a final recommendation at all or sitting on the fence with no real
recommendation offered.

The professional skills marks awarded to candidates very much depended on the level
of scepticism and challenge demonstrated in the technical answer. Those candidates
that questioned the assumptions presented in the exhibit and courteously challenged
the statements made by the CCO in terms of this proposal’s impact on Corjetz’s
competitive advantage scored well on professional skills. However, those that merely
repeated the exhibit information and recommended acceptance of the proposal
immediately, demonstrated weak scepticism and therefore scored few if any
professional skills marks.

Task 2b

Answers to this part of the task were mixed, with most candidates performing badly on
part (i) but well on part (ii).

Candidates were required to refer to Exhibit 3 to assist them in this task, which was
an email from Corjetz’s risk manager detailing a range of proposed updates to

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 16

Corjetz’s principal risks. The email highlighted three of Corjetz’s principal risks:
external attack on or failure of critical technologies, a significant security or safety
event and climate change and eco policies and regulations.

Part (i) was very disappointing and answered poorly by most candidates and in many
cases, was not answered at all. Most candidates simply did not understand what was
meant by the ‘dynamic nature’ of risks. This is in fact a specific element of Section D
of the SBL syllabus and was clear evidence that candidates do not cover all aspects
of the syllabus in preparation to sit the examination. This is a high-risk approach to
exam preparation and in this case, many candidates suffered because of poor
preparation. Had candidates been fully prepared and understood this term, they
should have found this task incredibly straightforward, as most of what they needed to
answer the requirement could be found directly in the exhibit. In fact, a few candidates
did use the exhibit information very well and submitted exceptionally good answers,
demonstrating that good answers were possible.

However, in many cases, candidates answered the question they expected to have
been asked and not the one that was asked (i.e., many incorrectly discussed how
should risks be mitigated or assessed the probability and impact of these risks).
Candidates are reminded that they must not pick selected syllabus areas to focus on.
Every aspect of the SBL syllabus can and will be examined.

Part (ii) was much better answered and most candidates made a good attempt at this
part of the task. Most candidates were able to generate a good range of consequences
of the highlighted risks, and most of these were reasonably well applied to Corjetz.
There was some degree of repetition, particularly reputational and financial
consequences but most were able to identify a good range of different consequences
to score a pass mark. There was a lot that could be said in answer to this task and
therefore a high proportion of candidates were able to score well.

Weaker candidates listed out consequences without any substantial or applied

discussion and produced very similar answers for each of the three risks i.e. loss of
trust, damage to reputation, fines and lower profitability. The requirement asked
candidates to ‘assess’ the consequences of the risks, so weaker candidates who
presented unexplained/ bullet point answers failed to obtain a pass mark on this part
of the task. Again, candidates must always be aware of the verb used in the
requirement and ensure that their answers are appropriately focused on the
expectations of that verb.

The main weaknesses in answers to part (b) of this task were:

- Failure to demonstrate an understanding of the dynamic nature of the risks.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 17

- Failure to answer the actual question asked and instead answer a question
candidates wish had been asked.

- Listing out the consequences of the risks with little or no attempt to assess these
consequences for Corjetz.

Professional skills marks were generally low on this part of the task, largely driven by
the lack of knowledge and understanding of the dynamic nature of risks. Most
candidates did, however, earn some professional skills marks for evaluating the
consequences of the risks for Corjetz.

Task 3

The board is about to review the results for the financial year ending 30th June
20X3. The CFO has asked for your assistance before he presents the results to
the board at its next meeting. He has provided you with Corjetz’s performance
report and has asked you to assess the financial results, statistics and key
performance indicators (KPIs) included in Table 1.

(a) Prepare a report for the CFO which assesses the performance of
Corjetz in the latest financial year, explaining the potential reasons for, and
implications of, the results.

Note: You are NOT required to comment on the results of Table 2, which is the
environmental and sustainability dashboard, in this report.
(16 marks)

Professional skills marks are available for demonstrating analysis skills in

considering the information presented and effectively reflecting on the potential
reasons and implications for Corjetz.
(4 marks)

The CFO is concerned that currently Corjetz does not have a clear structure for
reporting on its environmental and sustainability audit activities to its key
stakeholders although it does produce an environmental and sustainability
dashboard for internal use. He has proposed that Corjetz should present an
environmental and sustainability audit report each year. He has provided you
with a copy of the most recent dashboard (Table 2) and has asked for your
assistance on this issue.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 18

 (b) Prepare briefing notes for the CFO which outline the content that
Corjetz should report to its key stakeholders within an annual
environmental and sustainability audit report.
(8 marks)

Part (a)
Performance on this task was poor.
Candidates needed to make use of Exhibit 4, Corjetz’s recent performance report,
which set out its headline financial results and KPIs for the year ended June 30th
20X3. As this was an assessment of Corjetz’s performance, it allowed candidates the
opportunity to use their financial/numerical skills. The task also expected candidates
to analyse and reflect on the results of their analysis, which unfortunately in many
cases, was poorly done.

The requirement was very clear in asking for reasons and implications of the
performance results. Better performing candidates were those that took a structured
and methodical approach to answering this task. This meant taking each line and each
section of the performance report in turn, analysing and comparing the annual figures
presented and then identifying and discussing the potential reasons and/ or
consequences of the results. Candidates who took a structured approach were thus
able to generate a good range of points to discuss. The best performing candidates
often scored well due to having a sound understanding of what the KPIs and results
illustrated, because they had engaged with the pre-seen.

However, excellent answers were rare, and many candidates’ answers were
disappointing. A large proportion of candidates presented answers which went little
further than statements of year on year increases/decreases without then going on to
consider what the reasons and implications were of these increases/ decreases. The
biggest weakness in most candidates’ answers was that they made very simple
statements or quoted percentage increases or decreases but offered no discussion at
all of what that meant. Board members are able to see for themselves that there is an
increase or decrease and therefore this level of depth to answers was simply not
appropriate to score pass marks.

Some candidates did attempt to consider the scale of the increases/decreases, for
example, the significant increase in fuel costs or the small decrease in customer
satisfaction levels, which in the context of what they had written often gained marks.
However, it was very disappointing to see how many candidates were unable to make

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 19

quite simple links within the performance data, such as the increase in revenue being
driven by the new routes or by the increased number of passengers.

Many candidates were able to correctly identify that the increase in costs outweighed
the increase in revenue and that the significant rise in the fuel cost was the main
reason for this and for the significant and concerning drop in profit. Some candidates
also then made the link between this and the reduction in the ROCE. Only better
candidates then presented another reason for the decrease in ROCE potentially being
because of the investment in new planes (information taken from the pre-seen).

Discussions of the KPIs were often disappointing, particularly the ASK and the load
factor. These were specifically presented in the pre-seen, so candidates had ample
time to understand what these meant within the industry. However, many candidates
clearly did not understand them at all. Discussions relating to customer satisfaction,
punctuality and CO2 emissions were generally sound and most candidates did make
some relevant observations and linkages about these indicators.

The weakest candidates simply presented a list of calculations with no attempt at all
to consider the reasons or implications of the results. No marks are awarded for
calculations alone. Also, some of the weaker performing candidates demonstrated a
worrying lack of basic understanding of financial information or a lack of use of the
information presented. For example, we saw on several occasions, statements such
as ‘Revenue per person has decreased due to costs increasing’. Also, there were
occasions where candidates completely ignored the exhibit material and instead tried
to use the pre-seen to explain Corjetz’s results. For example, some candidates made
statements such as ‘revenue has increased because Corjetz has a mobile app where
customers can book tickets and offers a point-to-point service’. As stated earlier, the
pre-seen is clearly a useful source of information to use in helping to explain points
made, but it should not be used as the basis of answers. It was evident that some
candidates had come to the examination with pre-learned facts from the pre-seen and
were determined to include them within their answers, regardless of their relevance to
the question being asked. Candidates must be aware that the pre-seen information
may be useful to elaborate or justify a point made but the information presented in the
exhibits will always be the primary source of information which should be used to
answer the tasks.
The main weaknesses in answers to part (a) were:
- Making basic mistakes in the calculations of the changes

- Presenting answers that went no further than basic calculations and statements
of increase or decrease

- Stating the increase/decrease in a measure/figure but not 'contextualising' it i.e.

good/bad, significant/insignificant

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 20

- Assuming that any decrease in a measure is bad and that any increase is good
(for example, assuming that the decrease in staff turnover was bad)

- Failing to make basic linkages within the data presented within the exhibit. For
example, revenue increasing due to passenger numbers increasing.

- Assuming that revenue and passenger numbers had dropped because costs had
increased

- Failing to understand the KPIs that had been already presented in the pre-seen.

Candidates who made a good attempt at assessing a reasonable range of headline

results and KPIs (i.e., considering some reasons and/ or implications) scored good
professional analysis marks. However, candidates that merely presented basic
calculations or demonstrated a weak ability to make relevant observations or linkages
within the data did not score well as poor analysis skills were demonstrated.

Part (b)
Candidates were required to use Table 2 of Exhibit 4 to assist them in answering this
question.
This question was poorly answered by most candidates, as few demonstrated any real
understanding of the contents of an environmental and sustainability audit report and
most failed to focus at all on the audit assurance required to be demonstrated. In fact,
only a handful of candidates actually used the words’ audit report’ within their answers
and very few recognised the focus on audit assurance.

Most answers gained a couple of marks for including and explaining a number of
potentially relevant sustainability focused KPIs in their answer (which were in fact to
be found within the exhibit dashboard). Better candidates did mention the policies and
commitment from leadership and some candidates gained marks for discussing the
need to compare sustainability and environmental performance with the prior year/
competitors/ industry averages.

Weaker candidates incorrectly focused on the word 'stakeholders' which often took
answers off on a tangent, discussing levels of power and influence. This was an
example of candidates answering the question they wish had been asked rather than
the actual question set. Some candidates also used the six capitals of <IR> to structure
their answer which was largely irrelevant and not appropriate to the dashboard
content. In both cases, it was evident that candidates had pre-prepared syllabus
knowledge that they were determined to use, regardless of its relevance. This is
extremely poor examination technique and will gain no credit.

The main weaknesses in answers to part (b) were:

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 21

- Re-statement of data directly from the dashboard, with no attempt to add any
further value.

- No focus at all on the fact that this was an audit report, requiring audit assurance

- Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of environmental/sustainability

reporting

- Using the six capitals of <IR> to structure the answer, with little or no attempt to
use the results within the dashboard.

There were no professional skills marks assigned to part (b) of this task.

Examiner’s report – SBL September 2023 22