以下是高頓網(wǎng)校小編為學(xué)員整理的：ACCA P1-P3模擬題及解析。
 
　　Railway Development Company (RDC) was considering two options for a new railway line connecting two towns.
　　Route A involved cutting a channel through an area designated as being of special scientific importance because it was one of a very few suitable feeding grounds for a colony of endangered birds. The birds were considered to be an important part of the local environment with some potential influences on local ecosystems.
　　The alternative was Route B which would involve the compulsory purchase and destruction of Eddie Krul’s farm.
　　Mr Krul was a vocal opponent of the Route B plan. He said that he had a right to stay on the land which had been owned by his family for four generations and which he had developed into a profitable farm. The farm employed a number of local people whose jobs would be lost if Route B went through the house and land. Mr Krul threatened legal action against RDC if Route B was chosen.
　　An independent legal authority has determined that the compulsory purchase price of Mr Krul’s farm would be $1 million if Route B was chosen. RDC considered this a material cost, over and above other land costs, because the projected net present value (NPV) of cash flows over a ten-year period would be $5 million without buying the farm.
　　This would reduce the NPV by $1 million if Route B was chosen.
　　The local government authority had given both routes provisional planning permission and offered no opinion of which it preferred. It supported infrastructure projects such as the new railway line, believing that either route would attract new income and prosperity to the region. It took the view that as an experienced railway builder, RDC would know best which to choose and how to *uate the two options. Because it was very keen to attract the investment, it left the decision entirely to RDC. RDC selected Route A as the route to build the new line.
　　A local environmental pressure group, ‘Save the Birds’, was outraged at the decision to choose Route A. It criticized RDC and also the local authority for ignoring the sustainability implications of the decision. It accused the company of profiting at the expense of the environment and threatened to use ‘direct action’ to disrupt the building of the line through the birds’ feeding ground if Route A went ahead.
 
　　Required:
　　(a) Use Tucker’s ‘five question’ model to assess the decision to choose Route A. (10 marks)
　　(b) Discuss the importance to RDC of recognising all of the stakeholders in a decision such as deciding between Route A and Route B. (8 marks)
　　(c) Explain what a stakeholder ‘claim’ is, and critically assess the stakeholder claims of Mr Krul, the local government authority and the colony of endangered birds. (7 marks)(25 marks)
 
　　Answer:
　　(a) Tucker and Route A.
　　Is the decision to choose Route A profitable?
　　Yes. This will be cheaper for the company (RDC) because it avoids the need to make the compulsory purchase of Mr Krul’s farm. This will save the company $1 million and enable a profit to be made, over 10 years, of $5 million. The equivalent 10-year profit figure for Route B would, accordingly, be $4 million.
　　Is it legal?
　　The case says that both routes (A and B) had been given planning permission, so there is no difference between them on matters of legality. Route A is a legally allowable option as it has planning permission from the local government authority.
　　Is it right?
　　This depends upon the ethical perspective adopted. Route A would deliver a higher profitability for RDC and also preserve important local social and economic benefits by keeping Mr Krul’s farm. The farm supports local jobs, perhaps has an important role in the local community and, being a farm, provides a source of local food. If these benefits are seen as more important than the future of the birds, then it is right to choose Route A. If the claim of the birds and their impact on the local ecosystem is more important than the profitability of the project and the benefits provided by the farm, then it was wrong to choose Route A.
　　Is it fair?
　　This depends upon how the legitimate and reasonable claim of Mr Krul to remain on his land is weighed against the claim of the colony of birds to survive. The choice of Route A ignores the claim of the birds’ right to gain access to their feeding site and because the birds are endangered, it may threaten their future. It is fair to Mr Krul, but unfair to the colony of birds.
　　Mr Krul, however, employs people who would otherwise lose their jobs, potentially having a negative impact on them and their families. In addition, the farm has been in Mr Krul’s family for four generations and that may also be a relevant factor when considering the fairness of the decision.
　　Is it sustainable and/or environmentally acceptable?
　　Route A was probably the less environmentally-sustainable of the two options. Because Route A was chosen, it will mean destroying the important feeding site for the colony of threatened birds. This will threaten the population of these birds and the case suggests that this may represent a threat to the environmental sustainability of local ecosystems. The loss of the feeding ground and the birds may therefore have other unforeseen environmental consequences. Whichever route is chosen,an environmental benefit may accrue because of the replacement of car journeys with increased rail travel.
　　Summary.
　　The company chose to prioritise cost-savings and the impact of the farm on the local community over the negative environmental impact that Route A entailed. This may have something to do with Eddie Krul having a louder ‘voice’ than the birds and so more able to express his claim than the voiceless birds (the pressure group did not speak up until after the decision was made). RDC essentially had two choices which would both have had negative effects on some of the stakeholders. It chose to take the decision that was less sustainable but more favourable to shareholders and the stakeholders in the farm.
 
　　(b) Importance of recognising all stakeholders.
　　A decision such as the selection of a new route for a major construction project such as this is bound to create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. In any project such as this, it is important to identify and recognise the claims of all of the stakeholders for several reasons.
　　Stakeholder recognition is necessary to gain an understanding of the sources of potential risk and disruption. ‘Save the Birds’,for example, has threatened to disrupt the construction of Route A as it seeks to protect the birds’ feeding ground. Mr Krul,similarly, threatened to bring legal action in the event that Route B was chosen.
　　Stakeholder recognition is important in terms of assessing the sources of influence over the objectives and outcomes for the project (such as identified in the Mendelow model). Stakeholder influence is assessed in terms of each stakeholder’s power and interest, with higher power and higher interest combining to generate the highest influence. The local government authority, for example, had no view on which was chosen but as a high power stakeholder (capable of granting or withholding legal permission), it could have been very influential had it expressed a view either way.
　　Stakeholder recognition is necessary in order to identify potential areas of conflict and tension between stakeholders,especially relevant when it is likely that stakeholders of influence will be in disagreement over the outcomes. A survey of the stakeholders in a rail-building project such as this, once mapped in terms of influence, would signal which stakeholders are likely to cause delays and paralysis by disagreement and whose claims can then be studied for ways to reduce disagreement.
　　There is an ethical and reputational case for knowledge of how decisions affect stakeholders, both inside the organisation or external to it. Society can withdraw its support from organisations that it perceives as unethical or arrogant. This can affect organisational performance by reducing their reputations as employers and suppliers of future services. RDC may acquire a reputation for environmental damage and this could mean they lose public trust on future projects of this type. A ‘deep green’ perspective would take an unfavourable view of companies that failed to recognise some stakeholder claims.
 
　　(c) Stakeholder claims.
　　Stakeholder claim
　　A stakeholder is any person or entity that can affect or be affected by the actions or policies of an organisation. In the case of RDC, two ‘affected’ stakeholders are Eddie Krul and the colony of endangered birds. The local government authority is both affected by the decision and can also have an influence over the decision. A claim is the outcome sought or the outcome that would most benefit or do least harm to a given stakeholder. It is what that particular stakeholder ‘wants’ or would want, if it were able to understand and voice its claim.Assessment of the claims
　　Mr Krul was seeking to maintain his house and land by getting RDC to choose Route A. His claim is based partly on his family having been on the same land for four generations and that he employs a number of local people. As a ‘vocal’ critic,he is able to clearly articulate his views and lobby for his preferred option. He clearly understands what would happen to him if Route B was chosen and can clearly voice that concern to decision-makers.
　　The only concerns of the local government authority were making sure the investment went ahead with the benefits it believed would accrue to the local region. Its claim is to ensure that the investment and jobs are attracted and in pursuit of that, takes no view on the competing claims of Mr Krul and the colony of birds. It could be criticised for being passive in this decision and for assuming that RDC could *uate such a decision adequately themselves, in both economic and ethical terms.
　　The colony of birds is ostensibly a voiceless stakeholder, although it does now have ‘Save the Birds’ claiming to speak on its behalf. The bird colony does not understand that its feeding ground is threatened but it will incur material loss when Route A is developed. Because it does not have an effective voice (other than the ‘outrage’ of ‘Save the Birds’ after the decision
　　was taken), it was unable to contribute to the debate over the choice of route. The local government authority did not prioritise one stakeholder over the other when granting RDC permission to develop either route.
 
　　高頓網(wǎng)校小編寄語：自信是成功的先決條件。

 　　ACCA官方微信　　　　
　　掃一掃微信，*9時間獲取2014年ACCA考試報名時間和考試時間提醒
　　
　　高頓網(wǎng)校特別提醒：已經(jīng)報名2014年ACCA考試的考生可按照復(fù)習(xí)計劃有效進行！另外，高頓網(wǎng)校2014年ACCA考試輔導(dǎo)高清課程已經(jīng)開通，通過針對性地講解、訓(xùn)練、答疑、模考，對學(xué)習(xí)過程進行全程跟蹤、分析、指導(dǎo)，可以幫助考生全面提升備考效果。
　　
　　報考指南：2014年ACCA考試備考指南
　　免費題庫：2014年ACCA考試免費題庫
　　考前沖刺：ACCA備考秘籍
　　高清網(wǎng)課：ACCA考試網(wǎng)絡(luò)課程