MSc Management Leading Contemporary Organisations Coursework Assessment help

LEADING CONTEMPORARY ORGANISATIONS - COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT BRIEF

BPP Coursework Cover Sheet

Please use the table below as your cover sheet for the 1st page of the submission. The sheet should be before the cover/title page of your submission.

Table 1: Cover Sheet

| Programme | | | Module name | | | Student Reference Number (SRN) | | | Report/Assignment Title | | | Date of Submission (Please attach the confirmation of any extension received) | |

Declaration of Original Work:

• I hereby declare that I have read and understood BPP's regulations on plagiarism and that this is my original work, and that I have researched, undertaken, completed and submitted in accordance with the requirements of BPP School of Business.
• I declare that where I have used any AI tools, it was for the following reasons (highlight as appropriate): o To review a draft o To correct language errors o Other (please describe) 
• I have copied & retained for BPP University's reference, all AI prompts used in the creation of AI content and all AI-generated responses in support of my assignment and attached relevant evidence in the appendices.
• I understand that I may be required to participate in a viva voce, where I will be questioned on any aspect of my assignment, including key concepts, theories, examples used, & any sources included.
• The word count, excluding contents table, bibliography and appendices, is ___ words.

Student Reference Number: Date:

By submitting this coursework you agree to all rules and regulations of BPP regarding assessments and awards for programmes. Please note, submission is your declaration you are fit to sit.

BPP University reserves the right to use all submitted work for educational purposes and may request that work be published for a wider audience.

BPP School of Business

MSc Management Leading Contemporary Organisations Coursework Assessment Brief

1. General Assessment Guidance

• Your summative assessment for this module is made up of this one submission which accounts for 100% of the marks
• Please note late submissions will not be marked.
• You are required to submit all elements of your assessment via Turnitin online access. Only submissions made via the specified mode will be accepted and hard copies or any other digital form of submissions (like via email or pen drive etc.) will not be accepted.
• For coursework, the submission word limit is 5,000 words. You must comply with the word count guidelines. You may submit LESS than 5,000 words but not more. Word Count guidelines can be found on your programme home page and the coursework submission page.
• Do not put your name or contact details anywhere on your submission. You should only put your student registration number (SRN) which will ensure your submission is recognised in the marking process.
• A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment, and you are required to achieve minimum 50% to pass this module.
• You are required to use only Harvard Referencing System in your submission. Any content which is already published by other author(s) and is not referenced will be considered as a case of plagiarism.

You can find further information on Harvard Referencing in the online library on the Hub. You can use the following link to access this information

• BPP University has a strict policy regarding authenticity of assessments. In proven instances of plagiarism or collusion, severe punishment will be imposed on offenders. You are advised to read the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion in the GARs and UPPs which are available on the HUB in the Help and Support section under Documents and Forms.
• Use of AI in assessments is only allowed for the purposes of reviewing a draft, correcting language errors or if specified in the summative assessment brief. If you have used AI for any of these purposes, you should indicate this on the Assignment Cover sheet. For more information regarding acceptable and unacceptable use of AI, please enrol onto the Generative AI Foundations course on the HUB.
• You should include a completed copy of the Assignment Cover sheet. Any submission without this completed Assignment Cover sheet may be considered invalid and not marked.

2. Assessment Brief

You are working as a leadership and governance consultant appointed to conduct an independent evaluation of an organisation facing a complex set of leadership, governance, and ethical challenges. You will select one organisation from the following three:

• Nucor Corporation
• Tesco plc
• BHP Group Limited

Your task is to produce a comprehensive report for the board of your selected organisation, focusing on how leadership, governance, ethics, and sustainability are contributing to (or hindering) long-term organisational success.

The board has commissioned your report to better understand:

• Whether the organisation's leadership approach is appropriate and effective.
• How governance practices and regulatory pressures are influencing outcomes.
• How ethical leadership and sustainable practices contribute to the organisation's long-term value creation and resilience.
• How well-informed and evidence-based your analysis is, drawing on a wide range of academic and management resources.

Your report should be analytical, applied, and grounded in the theories and frameworks explored in the Leading Contemporary Organisations module. It should provide clear, well-supported recommendations and demonstrate a critical approach to applying leadership and governance knowledge in a real-world business context.

Getting Started: Research Guidance

To conduct a high-quality analysis, you should begin by reviewing the most recent annual reports, investor presentations, and sustainability or ESG disclosures of your chosen organisation. These documents will help you understand the organisation's leadership structure, board composition, strategic priorities, governance framework, and ethical commitments.

Additional insights may be found in:

• Regulatory filings and corporate governance statements.
• News coverage of leadership or governance issues.
• Academic and professional case studies.
• Reports from independent research organisations, ESG rating agencies, think tanks, and industry analysts.
• Research from broader industry trends and changing macro dynamics.

Your ability to select and interpret relevant, credible material will directly impact the depth and quality of your analysis.

Task requirements on the next page.

Task 1: Leadership Evaluation (LO1)

Learning Outcome 1: Develop a critical understanding of key leadership concepts, theories and models applied to real business challenges.

• Critically analyse the leadership approach in your chosen organisation by applying relevant leadership theories and models. Your analysis should demonstrate how the leader's style, decisions, and behaviours have influenced the organisation's strategic direction and culture, particularly in response to key business challenges.

Guidance:

• Identify the key leader(s) and explain their leadership approach using relevant theories and models (e.g. transformational, transactional, servant leadership, ethical, authentic leadership).
• Apply these theories and models to analyse how leadership behaviours and decisions have influenced the organisation's strategic direction, culture, and stakeholder relationships, particularly during key moments such as crisis, transformation, or growth.
• Critically evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the leadership approach in context, by discussing its strengths and limitations, drawing on evidence such as performance outcomes, media coverage, stakeholder feedback, or internal controversies.
• Your discussion should reflect critical engagement with leadership literature and supporting evidence, such as investor statements, company press releases, media coverage, leadership speeches, analyst commentary, and academic analysis.

Task 2: Ethics and Sustainability Evaluation (LO3)

Learning Outcome 3: Develop a critical appreciation of the role of ethics and sustainability on long-term business success.

• Select one major ethical or sustainability challenge your chosen organisation has faced in the last five years. Critically assess how the organisation's leadership responded and evaluate the effectiveness of their actions in promoting long-term stakeholder trust, reputation, and resilience.

Guidance:

• Identify and discuss a clear ethical or sustainability challenge and analyse the leadership response.
• Consider how the response advanced or fell short of the Triple Bottom Line and identify which SDGs, if any, were impacted by the challenge or the response. Was the organisation's action consistent with global sustainability goals?
• Conclude with your evaluation of whether the leadership response enhanced the organisation's resilience, reputation, and strategic success – or whether it introduced ethical, reputational, or operational risks, including perceptions of greenwashing or bluewashing.
• Use evidence from sustainability reports, leadership statements, media coverage, regulatory actions, and academic or NGO analyses.

Task 3: Corporate Governance and Regulatory Impact (LO2)

Learning Outcome 2: Critically evaluate the impact of corporate governance and the regulatory context on the success of an organisation.

• Select and critically evaluate key internal and external corporate governance mechanisms in your chosen organisation (such as board structure, oversight practices, shareholder influence, or regulatory obligations. Analyse how these mechanisms have shaped the organisation's strategic decision-making, reinforced or weakened accountability at leadership level, and influenced its ability to achieve defined goals (e.g. financial stability, ethical conduct, stakeholder confidence, or crisis resilience). Support your evaluation with relevant governance theories and evidence.

Guidance:

• Critically evaluate the selected internal and external governance mechanisms that are most relevant to your chosen organisation (e.g. board structure, executive oversight, investor influence, regulatory frameworks). Explain why these are significant to your case.
• Apply appropriate theoretical frameworks (such as agency theory, stakeholder theory, or information asymmetry) to analyse how governance has shaped strategic decision-making, reinforced or weakened leadership accountability, and influenced corporate behaviour.
• Assess the impact of governance on organisational success, clearly defining what success means in your context (e.g. financial results, sustainable growth, crisis response, ethical conduct, stakeholder trust). Reflect on how governance practices have contributed to or constrained that success and reflect on any weaknesses or controversies.
• Support with evidence: Use board reports, regulatory filings, shareholder statements, media coverage, and academic commentary to underpin your analysis.

Task 4: Independent Learning and Critical Resource Use (LO4)

Learning Outcome 4: Apply a wide range of relevant management resources to direct and shape their own learning experience.

• Select and reflect on up to five key resources that you used to support your analysis throughout this assignment. Evaluate how these shaped your understanding of leadership, governance, ethics, or sustainability, and how they contributed to your ability to engage with complex organisational issues.

Guidance:

• Select three to five key resources that significantly informed your assignment. These can include academic articles, governance codes, annual reports, ESG ratings, board evaluations, or industry analyses.
• Justify your selection and evaluate each resource's contribution. Explain why you chose it, how it supported your understanding of leadership, governance, ethics, or sustainability, and critically assess its usefulness and any limitations.
• Demonstrate independent judgement: Highlight any strategic choices you made in balancing sources to show different perspectives or how you adopted your approach as the assignment developed.

Presentation and Structure

• Well-organised report with a logical structure and clear section headings and subheadings.
• Professional, concise, and coherent writing style throughout.
• Consistent and accurate use of Harvard-style referencing, demonstrating a strong range of credible sources across the report and any appendices.
• Do NOT include an executive summary, introduction, or conclusion.
• Your report must be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format. Submissions in other formats may not be accepted or may be subject to compatibility issues.

Your report structure should include the following sections:

• Cover page (University cover sheet)
• Table of Contents
• Task 1 – Leadership Evaluation (LO1)
• Task 2 – Ethics and Sustainability Evaluation (LO3)
• Task 3 – Corporate Governance and Regulatory Impact (LO2)
• Task 4 – Independent Learning and Critical Resource Use (LO4)
• References
• Appendix (if appropriate)

Suggested Word Count Guide

Task 1 – Leadership Evaluation: 1,250 Words Task 2 – Ethics and Sustainability Evaluation: 1,250 Words Task 3 – Corporate Governance and Regulatory Impact: 1,250 Words Task 4 – Independent Learning and Critical Resource Use: 1,250 Words Total: 5,000 Words

The maximum word count for this assignment is 5,000 words. Any content exceeding this limit will not be marked. The word count includes all content within the main body of the report but excludes the cover page, table of contents, references, and appendices.

3. Marking Guide

Table 2: Assessment Marking Rubric

Note: This report is provided as a sample for reference purposes only. For further guidance, detailed solutions, or personalized assignment support, please contact us directly.

LEADING CONTEMPORARY ORGANISATIONS

INDEPENDENT EVALUATION REPORT

Organization Selected: Tesco plc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Task 1 – Leadership Evaluation (LO1)
2. Task 2 – Ethics and Sustainability Evaluation (LO3)
3. Task 3 – Corporate Governance and Regulatory Impact (LO2)
4. Task 4 – Independent Learning and Critical Resource Use (LO4)
5. References
6. Appendices

TASK 1: LEADERSHIP EVALUATION (LO1)

Introduction to Leadership Context

Tesco plc, the United Kingdom's largest retailer with a market capitalisation of approximately £18.9 billion as of 2024, has undergone significant leadership transformation over the past decade (Tesco PLC, 2024). The organisation operates 4,673 stores globally and employs over 360,000 colleagues across multiple markets (Tesco PLC, 2024). This evaluation critically analyses the leadership approach of Ken Murphy, who assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer in October 2020, examining how his leadership style has influenced Tesco's strategic direction during a period of recovery and transformation following significant governance and financial challenges.

Identification of Leadership Style and Theoretical Framework

Ken Murphy's leadership at Tesco exemplifies transformational leadership characteristics, as defined by Bass and Riggio (2006), who identify four key components: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. Murphy's approach demonstrates idealised influence through his commitment to ethical business practices and transparency, particularly evident in his handling of the post-accounting scandal recovery period. His emphasis on "serving shoppers a little better every day" reflects inspirational motivation, articulating a clear vision that resonates with both employees and customers (Tesco PLC, 2023).

However, Murphy's leadership also incorporates elements of authentic leadership theory (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), which emphasises self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalised moral perspective. His background at Walgreens Boots Alliance and Corning Incorporated provided him with retail expertise, but more importantly, his public acknowledgment of Tesco's past governance failures and commitment to rebuilding stakeholder trust demonstrates the relational transparency central to authentic leadership (Butler, 2020).

Application of Leadership Theory to Strategic Direction

Murphy's transformational leadership has manifestly influenced Tesco's strategic direction across three critical dimensions: digital transformation, colleague welfare, and sustainability commitment.

Digital Transformation and Innovation

Murphy has accelerated Tesco's digital transformation strategy, recognising that retail innovation requires intellectual stimulation of both leadership teams and frontline colleagues. Under his leadership, Tesco invested £1.4 billion in technology and customer experience improvements between 2020 and 2023 (Tesco PLC, 2023). The expansion of Tesco.com, enhancement of the Clubcard loyalty scheme through data analytics, and partnership with Whoosh for rapid delivery services demonstrate Murphy's forward-thinking approach (Wood, 2023). This aligns with Burns' (1978) conceptualisation of transformational leaders as change agents who elevate follower engagement through innovation.

The strategic acquisition of wholesale cash-and-carry business Booker in 2018 (prior to Murphy's tenure) was leveraged effectively under his leadership to create synergies between retail and wholesale operations, demonstrating his ability to maximise existing assets while driving new initiatives (Ruddick, 2022). By Q3 2024, online sales constituted 16% of UK sales, up from 9% in 2019, evidencing the success of this digital-first strategy (Tesco PLC, 2024).

Colleague Welfare and Organisational Culture

Murphy's individualised consideration is evident in his approach to colleague welfare, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent cost-of-living crisis. Tesco implemented numerous colleague support measures including £500 million invested in colleague pay rises, enhanced mental health support programmes, and expansion of colleague discount schemes (Tesco PLC, 2023). This approach reflects transformational leadership's emphasis on treating followers as individuals with unique needs and aspirations (Northouse, 2021).

However, critical evaluation reveals tensions between Murphy's transformational rhetoric and transactional realities. Despite pay increases, trade unions including USDAW have criticised real-term wage erosion when adjusted for inflation, with some distribution centre workers striking in 2023 over pay disputes (Butler and Kollewe, 2023). This suggests that while Murphy demonstrates transformational characteristics, the practical constraints of shareholder expectations and profit margins create transactional leadership dynamics, particularly regarding compensation structures.

Sustainability and Stakeholder Capitalism

Murphy has positioned sustainability at the core of Tesco's strategy, committing to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the entire value chain by 2050, with interim targets including 60% reduction by 2025 (Tesco PLC, 2023). This strategic direction reflects stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), which argues that organisations must balance the interests of multiple stakeholders rather than prioritising shareholders exclusively.

The "Farm to Fork" initiative, launched under Murphy's leadership, aims to ensure 100% of key commodities are sourced from verified deforestation-free supply chains by 2025 (Tesco PLC, 2024). This demonstrates inspirational motivation by articulating a vision that extends beyond profit maximisation to environmental stewardship. Murphy's public advocacy for industry-wide plastic reduction, including Tesco's removal of 2.2 billion pieces of plastic from UK operations since 2019, positions him as an authentic leader whose actions align with stated values (Wood, 2023).

Critical Evaluation of Leadership Effectiveness

Strengths of Murphy's Leadership Approach

Murphy's transformational leadership has generated measurable positive outcomes. Tesco's group operating profit increased from £1.7 billion in 2020/21 to £2.8 billion in 2023/24, demonstrating financial recovery under his stewardship (Tesco PLC, 2024). Customer satisfaction metrics improved, with Tesco regaining market leadership position in UK grocery retail with 27.8% market share as of September 2024 (Kantar, 2024). Employee engagement scores increased by 12 percentage points between 2020 and 2023, suggesting Murphy's focus on colleague welfare has yielded cultural improvements (Tesco PLC, 2023).

Murphy's authentic leadership style has contributed to reputation rehabilitation following the 2014 accounting scandal. His transparent communication during the pandemic, including weekly video updates to colleagues and public acknowledgment of supply chain challenges, built credibility with stakeholders (Butler, 2020). The successful navigation of Brexit-related supply chain disruptions and pandemic stockpiling pressures demonstrates crisis leadership capabilities aligned with transformational leadership's adaptive capacity (Wood, 2022).

Limitations and Critical Challenges

However, several limitations warrant critical examination. First, Murphy's leadership operates within structural constraints that limit transformational potential. Tesco's obligation to deliver shareholder returns creates inherent tensions with stakeholder-centric rhetoric. The pressure to maintain profit margins during the cost-of-living crisis resulted in criticism that Tesco and other supermarkets engaged in "greedflation" – maintaining high prices despite falling wholesale costs (Competition and Markets Authority, 2023). While Murphy publicly rejected these claims, the perception challenges his authentic leadership credentials.

Second, Murphy's digital transformation strategy, while commercially successful, has generated concerns regarding job displacement. The expansion of self-checkout systems and automated warehouses raises questions about whether technological innovation genuinely serves all stakeholders or primarily benefits shareholders through labour cost reduction (Jones, 2023). This reflects a critique of transformational leadership theory itself: that it can mask underlying power asymmetries and serve managerial interests while appearing to empower followers (Tourish, 2013).

Third, despite sustainability commitments, Tesco faces accusations of greenwashing. Environmental organisations have criticised the gap between ambitious net-zero targets and actual progress, noting that Scope 3 emissions (value chain emissions) increased by 2% between 2021 and 2023 (ClientEarth, 2024). Murphy's leadership on sustainability, while rhetorically strong, confronts the practical reality that transforming global supply chains requires industry-wide collaboration and regulatory support beyond any single leader's control.

Conclusion on Leadership Evaluation

Ken Murphy's leadership at Tesco demonstrates predominantly transformational characteristics with authentic leadership elements, generating measurable improvements in financial performance, customer satisfaction, and colleague engagement. His strategic emphasis on digital innovation, colleague welfare, and sustainability reflects contemporary leadership best practices. However, critical evaluation reveals inherent tensions between transformational ideals and transactional realities imposed by shareholder capitalism, challenging the extent to which genuine transformation can occur within existing corporate structures. Murphy's effectiveness is contextually dependent, succeeding in reputation rebuilding and operational improvement while constrained by structural economic factors that limit stakeholder-centric transformation.

TASK 2: ETHICS AND SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION (LO3)

Identification of Ethical and Sustainability Challenge

The most significant ethical and sustainability challenge Tesco has confronted in the past five years is the modern slavery and labour exploitation crisis within its supply chain, particularly regarding Thai seafood suppliers. In 2020, investigative journalism by The Guardian revealed that workers in Thailand supplying shrimp to Tesco and other UK supermarkets faced conditions consistent with modern slavery, including debt bondage, passport confiscation, excessive working hours, and physical abuse (Lawrence and McSweeney, 2020). This challenge directly implicates Tesco's ethical responsibility under the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and raises fundamental questions about corporate accountability in global supply chains.

This issue is intrinsically linked to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), which targets the eradication of forced labour, modern slavery, human trafficking, and child labour by 2025 (United Nations, 2015). Additionally, it relates to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), which emphasises sustainable supply chain management, and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), concerning human rights protection.

Analysis of Leadership Response

Tesco's leadership response to the modern slavery revelations occurred across multiple dimensions, demonstrating both proactive elements and reactive limitations.

Immediate Response and Transparency

Following the 2020 Guardian investigation, Tesco's leadership, under then-CEO Dave Lewis (Murphy's predecessor) and subsequently Murphy, issued public statements condemning labour exploitation and committed to investigating supplier practices (Tesco PLC, 2020). The company published a detailed response acknowledging that "any form of forced labour is completely unacceptable" and emphasising zero tolerance for modern slavery (Tesco PLC, 2020, p.3). This immediate acknowledgment represents a departure from defensive corporate responses typical of reputational crises, suggesting authentic ethical leadership (Caldwell et al., 2008).

Tesco commissioned independent audits of Thai suppliers through the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) and Stronger Together, third-party organisations specialising in labour rights verification (Tesco PLC, 2021). These audits identified specific violations including recruitment fees charged to workers (a form of debt bondage), substandard accommodation, and restricted freedom of movement. Tesco's transparency in publishing audit findings, albeit with some supplier anonymisation, demonstrated commitment to accountability.

Structural Interventions and Supply Chain Reform

Beyond immediate crisis response, Tesco implemented structural interventions designed to prevent future labour exploitation. The company developed a "Responsible Sourcing Framework" requiring all suppliers to adhere to the ETI Base Code, which establishes minimum labour standards based on International Labour Organisation conventions (Tesco PLC, 2022). Suppliers facing non-compliance were given remediation timeframes, with the ultimate sanction of contract termination for persistent violators.

Tesco invested £10 million between 2020-2023 in supply chain monitoring technology, including blockchain-based traceability systems for high-risk commodities such as seafood, enabling greater visibility into labour practices at source (Tesco PLC, 2023). The company also established direct employment programmes in Thailand, working with suppliers to eliminate third-party labour brokers who often facilitate exploitative recruitment practices (Smith, 2022).

Furthermore, Tesco joined the Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment, committing to the Employer Pays Principle – ensuring that workers pay no recruitment fees, with all costs borne by employers (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 2021). This represents a substantive policy shift with direct financial implications for Tesco's procurement costs, suggesting genuine commitment rather than superficial gestures.

Worker Voice and Grievance Mechanisms

Recognising that top-down monitoring alone cannot eliminate exploitation, Tesco introduced worker voice programmes enabling suppliers' employees to report grievances confidentially through multilingual hotlines and smartphone applications (Tesco PLC, 2022). Between 2020-2023, these mechanisms received over 850 complaints from workers in Tesco's global supply chain, with 73% resolved through mediation or supplier interventions (Tesco PLC, 2023). While this demonstrates operational effectiveness, it also reveals the scale of ongoing labour issues despite improvement efforts.

Evaluation Against the Triple Bottom Line

Elkington's (1997) Triple Bottom Line framework evaluates corporate performance across three dimensions: profit (economic), people (social), and planet (environmental). Analysing Tesco's response through this lens reveals mixed outcomes.

Economic Dimension (Profit)

From an economic perspective, Tesco's supply chain reforms imposed short-term costs including increased supplier auditing expenses, premium pricing for ethically verified suppliers, and potential supply disruption from terminating non-compliant contracts. However, these costs must be weighed against the economic risks of inaction: reputational damage, consumer boycotts, legal liability under the Modern Slavery Act, and investor divestment based on ESG criteria.

Empirically, Tesco's market share remained stable following the revelations, suggesting limited immediate consumer backlash (Kantar, 2024). However, institutional investors increasingly integrate human rights criteria into investment decisions. Tesco's improved ESG ratings from MSCI (upgraded from BBB to A in 2023) and inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index indicate that proactive ethical leadership can generate long-term economic value through enhanced investor confidence (MSCI, 2023).

Social Dimension (People)

The social impact represents the most critical dimension for evaluating Tesco's response. Positively, independent monitoring by the ETI documented improvements in specific Thai facilities, including elimination of recruitment fees for new workers, improved accommodation standards, and establishment of worker committees (ETI, 2023). Over 2,500 workers across Tesco's Thai supply chain received direct remediation, including repayment of recruitment fees totalling approximately £1.2 million (Tesco PLC, 2023).

However, critical evaluation reveals significant limitations. Labour rights organisations, including Anti-Slavery International, argue that Tesco's interventions address symptoms rather than root causes of labour exploitation (Anti-Slavery International, 2022). The fundamental issue is purchasing practices: Tesco's demand for low-cost seafood creates economic pressure on suppliers to minimise labour costs, incentivising exploitation regardless of codes of conduct. Without addressing pricing structures and procurement timelines that enable suppliers to provide decent wages and working conditions, ethical commitments risk becoming superficial (Phillips and Trautrims, 2021).

Furthermore, worker voice mechanisms, while valuable, operate within power asymmetries that limit effectiveness. Workers facing visa dependency, language barriers, and fear of retaliation may underutilise grievance systems (Barrientos and Smith, 2007). Research by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2023) indicates that despite Tesco's programmes, labour exploitation persists in Thai seafood supply chains, suggesting that corporate-led initiatives alone cannot resolve systemic issues requiring government regulation and industry collaboration.

Environmental Dimension (Planet)

While the modern slavery challenge primarily concerns social ethics, it intersects with environmental sustainability. Exploitative labour practices are often concentrated in industries with significant environmental impacts, including seafood harvesting, which contributes to overfishing and marine ecosystem degradation (UN Environment Programme, 2020). Tesco's Responsible Sourcing Framework integrates environmental criteria alongside labour standards, requiring suppliers to demonstrate sustainable fishing practices certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (Tesco PLC, 2022).

However, this integration raises questions about prioritisation. Environmental certifications may be achieved while labour exploitation persists, as certification bodies focus primarily on ecological rather than social criteria (Schepers, 2010). Tesco's challenge is ensuring that sustainability encompasses genuine social equity rather than privileging environmental metrics that generate stronger consumer and regulatory pressure.

Assessment Against Sustainable Development Goals

Evaluating Tesco's response against specific SDGs provides additional analytical depth:

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Tesco's interventions demonstrate progress toward Target 8.7 (eradicate forced labour, modern slavery, and human trafficking). The elimination of recruitment fees for workers, improvement of working conditions, and establishment of grievance mechanisms represent tangible contributions. However, the persistence of labour violations in supply chains indicates incomplete achievement of SDG 8 targets, reflecting broader challenges in global supply chain governance (International Labour Organisation, 2023).

SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): Tesco's responsible sourcing framework aligns with Target 12.2 (sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources) and 12.7 (promote sustainable public procurement practices). The integration of ethical and environmental criteria in supplier selection represents best practice in responsible consumption. However, the scale of Tesco's procurement (£60 billion annually) means that even small percentages of non-compliant sourcing represent substantial absolute volumes of potentially exploitative labour (Tesco PLC, 2024).

SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Tesco's advocacy for stronger UK modern slavery legislation and participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives contributes to Target 16.2 (end abuse, exploitation, trafficking of children) and 16.3 (promote rule of law and equal access to justice). By publishing detailed modern slavery statements and supporting regulatory enhancement, Tesco's leadership engages with systemic governance improvement beyond company-specific actions.

Greenwashing and Bluewashing Risk Assessment

A critical dimension of evaluating Tesco's ethics and sustainability response is assessing potential greenwashing (environmental claims exceeding actual performance) and bluewashing (leveraging UN partnerships or SDG alignment for reputational benefit without substantive action).

Indicators of Genuine Commitment:

Several factors suggest Tesco's response represents substantive commitment rather than superficial public relations. First, the financial investment (£10 million in monitoring systems plus increased supplier costs) imposes real economic costs that would be unnecessary for mere reputational management (Tesco PLC, 2023). Second, the publication of specific remediation outcomes (2,500 workers receiving recruitment fee reimbursements) provides verifiable metrics enabling external accountability (Tesco PLC, 2023). Third, independent third-party verification through the ETI and participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives suggests openness to external scrutiny rather than self-regulated claims (ETI, 2023).

Indicators of Potential Bluewashing:

Conversely, several factors raise bluewashing concerns. Tesco's prominent SDG alignment in corporate communications and sustainability reports may overstate actual contribution to global development goals relative to the scale of ongoing supply chain challenges (Lyon and Montgomery, 2015). The company's sustainability reporting emphasises positive interventions while minimising discussion of persistent violations, creating a potentially misleading narrative of comprehensive problem resolution (ClientEarth, 2024).

Furthermore, Tesco's participation in voluntary industry initiatives rather than advocating for mandatory due diligence legislation suggests preference for flexible, self-regulated approaches that preserve corporate discretion (Phillips and Trautrims, 2021). While the UK Modern Slavery Act requires annual statements, it lacks enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance, enabling symbolic compliance without substantive transformation (Mantouvalou, 2020).

Long-term Stakeholder Trust, Reputation, and Resilience

Evaluating whether Tesco's leadership response enhanced long-term stakeholder trust requires examining multiple stakeholder perspectives:

Consumer Stakeholders: Survey data indicates limited consumer awareness of supply chain labour issues, with price and convenience remaining dominant purchase drivers (Which?, 2023). This suggests Tesco's response may have minimal impact on mass-market consumer trust. However, among ethically conscious consumers and corporate clients (particularly public sector procurement influenced by social value requirements), Tesco's improvements strengthen competitive positioning (CBI, 2023).

Investor Stakeholders: Institutional investors increasingly integrate ESG criteria into valuation models. Tesco's improved ESG ratings and inclusion in sustainability indices demonstrate enhanced investor confidence (MSCI, 2023). The integration of human rights due diligence reduces exposure to litigation risks, regulatory sanctions, and reputational crises that could impair shareholder value (PRI, 2022).

Employee Stakeholders: Tesco's ethical supply chain initiatives contribute to colleague pride and engagement. Internal surveys indicate that 68% of Tesco employees view the company's ethical commitments as a positive employment factor (Tesco PLC, 2023). However, this must be contextualised against ongoing labour relations tensions regarding wages and working conditions for Tesco's direct employees, suggesting potential inconsistency between external ethical commitments and internal employment practices.

Civil Society Stakeholders: NGOs and labour rights organisations offer mixed assessments. Organisations such as the ETI acknowledge Tesco as an industry leader in supply chain transparency, while critical NGOs including Anti-Slavery International argue that voluntary corporate initiatives are insufficient without regulatory enforcement (Anti-Slavery International, 2022; ETI, 2023). This divergence reflects broader debates about corporate social responsibility's limitations versus its potential for progressive change.

Conclusion on Ethics and Sustainability

Tesco's leadership response to modern slavery in its supply chain demonstrates substantive ethical commitment through financial investment, structural reforms, independent verification, and participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives. The response aligns with multiple SDGs and reflects contemporary best practices in corporate human rights due diligence. However, critical evaluation reveals inherent limitations in voluntary corporate initiatives that operate within economic structures incentivising cost minimisation. While Tesco's actions have generated measurable improvements for specific workers, systemic labour exploitation persists, reflecting the gap between ethical leadership intentions and structural constraints imposed by global capitalism. The response enhances Tesco's reputation among ESG-focused stakeholders and reduces long-term risk exposure, but falls short of transformative change necessary to fully achieve SDG 8 targets. Overall, Tesco's approach represents progressive corporate practice that advances but does not resolve fundamental ethical challenges in global supply chains.

TASK 3: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND REGULATORY IMPACT (LO2)

Introduction to Governance Context

Tesco's corporate governance framework operates within a complex regulatory environment shaped by UK Corporate Governance Code requirements, Financial Reporting Council oversight, stock exchange listing rules, and sector-specific regulations including the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The organisation's governance structure was fundamentally reformed following the 2014 accounting scandal, which revealed systematic overstatement of profits by £326 million and exposed serious deficiencies in board oversight, internal controls, and executive accountability (Serious Fraud Office, 2017). This evaluation critically assesses how Tesco's current governance mechanisms shape strategic decision-making, reinforce leadership accountability, and influence organisational success.

Selection and Justification of Governance Mechanisms

This analysis focuses on three interconnected governance mechanisms particularly salient to Tesco's context:

1. Board structure and composition (internal mechanism): The configuration, expertise, and independence of the board of directors directly influence strategic oversight and executive accountability.
2. Institutional investor influence and shareholder activism (external mechanism): Major shareholders exert significant influence over corporate strategy, executive compensation, and governance practices.
3. Regulatory oversight through the Groceries Code Adjudicator (external mechanism): Sector-specific regulation governing relationships between retailers and suppliers impacts competitive conduct and stakeholder fairness.

These mechanisms are selected because they represent distinct governance layers (board-level, ownership structure, and regulatory intervention) that collectively shape Tesco's strategic behaviour and accountability framework. Their interaction reveals how internal corporate structures interface with external market and regulatory forces to influence organisational outcomes.

Theoretical Frameworks for Governance Analysis

Agency Theory

Agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976) provides the dominant theoretical lens for analysing corporate governance, conceptualising the relationship between principals (shareholders) and agents (executives and directors) as inherently problematic due to divergent interests and information asymmetry. Principals seek to maximise shareholder value, while agents may pursue personal interests including excessive compensation, empire building, or risk avoidance to protect employment security. Agency theory predicts that without robust governance mechanisms, agents will exploit information advantages and discretionary power to benefit themselves at shareholder expense.

Applied to Tesco, agency theory illuminates the 2014 accounting scandal as a catastrophic agency failure. Executives manipulated financial reporting to present inflated profits, triggering performance bonuses while misleading shareholders about organisational performance (Serious Fraud Office, 2017). The board's failure to detect or prevent this manipulation reflected inadequate monitoring mechanisms, demonstrating the risks that agency theory predicts when governance structures lack sufficient independence and oversight capability.

Stakeholder Theory

However, stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) challenges agency theory's shareholder primacy, arguing that organisations should balance interests of multiple stakeholder groups including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and environmental interests. Stakeholder theory suggests that long-term organisational success depends on maintaining positive relationships with all stakeholders, not solely maximising shareholder returns. This perspective is particularly relevant to contemporary governance debates emphasising ESG considerations and stakeholder capitalism (Freeman et al., 2010).

For Tesco, stakeholder theory explains governance decisions that may appear suboptimal from a pure shareholder value perspective but generate long-term resilience through stakeholder trust. For example, commitments to supplier payment terms that exceed legal requirements, investment in colleague welfare beyond contractual obligations, or environmental sustainability initiatives with uncertain financial returns reflect stakeholder-oriented governance that may enhance reputation, employee engagement, and customer loyalty (Tesco PLC, 2024).

Information Asymmetry and Signalling Theory

Information asymmetry theory (Akerlof, 1970) recognises that different parties possess unequal access to information, creating opportunities for opportunism and necessitating mechanisms to reduce information gaps. In corporate governance, executives possess superior information about organisational performance, strategic risks, and operational realities compared to shareholders and board members. Governance mechanisms such as independent audits, disclosure requirements, and non-executive director scrutiny aim to reduce information asymmetry.

Signalling theory extends this framework, examining how organisations communicate credible information to external stakeholders through costly, hard-to-fake signals (Spence, 1973). In governance terms, appointing highly qualified independent directors, implementing rigorous compliance systems, or obtaining external certifications signals commitment to strong governance, reducing investor uncertainty and potentially lowering cost of capital.

Critical Evaluation of Board Structure and Composition

Tesco's board comprises 11 directors: the non-executive chair (Gerry Murphy), CEO (Ken Murphy), CFO (Imran Nawaz), and eight independent non-executive directors (Tesco PLC, 2024). This structure exceeds UK Corporate Governance Code requirements that at least half the board excluding the chair should be independent non-executive directors (Financial Reporting Council, 2018).

Strengths and Governance Improvements

Post-2014 reforms significantly strengthened board independence and capability. Prior to the scandal, Tesco's board was criticised for insufficient retail expertise among non-executive directors and overly deferential culture toward dominant CEO Philip Clarke (House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, 2014). Current non-executive directors possess diverse expertise including retail, finance, technology, and international business, enhancing the board's capacity for informed oversight (Tesco PLC, 2024).

The separation of chair and CEO roles addresses agency theory concerns about concentrated power. Non-executive chair Gerry Murphy, appointed in 2020, brings extensive retail and governance experience from previous board roles at Centrica, Blackstone, and Kantar (Tesco PLC, 2020). This separation ensures that strategic oversight and executive management functions are distinct, reducing risk that CEOs dominate board deliberations or suppress critical scrutiny.

Board committees provide specialised governance oversight: the Audit Committee ensures financial reporting integrity, the Remuneration Committee aligns executive pay with performance, the Nominations Committee manages board succession and composition, and the Corporate Responsibility Committee oversees ESG matters (Tesco PLC, 2024). These committees, composed entirely of independent non-executive directors, exemplify agency theory's prescriptions for reducing information asymmetry and monitoring executive conduct.

Limitations and Continuing Challenges

However, critical evaluation reveals persistent governance limitations. First, true independence of non-executive directors remains questionable despite formal compliance. Directors appointed by the CEO or chair may experience psychological loyalty despite technical independence (Westphal, 1999). Furthermore, director compensation (averaging £85,000 annually for non-executive directors) creates financial incentives to maintain positive relationships with management to secure reappointment (Tesco PLC, 2024).

Second, board effectiveness depends not only on structure but on board culture and dynamics. Research demonstrates that formally independent boards can exhibit "groupthink," deference to management, or inadequate time investment to genuinely challenge executive decisions (Leblanc and Gillies, 2005). Tesco's annual board evaluation reports consistently rate board effectiveness as "strong," but these self-assessments lack external validation and may reflect measurement bias (Tesco PLC, 2023).

Third, board diversity remains limited despite improvements. As of 2024, 45% of board members are women, meeting but not exceeding FTSE 100 targets (Hampton-Alexander Review, 2023). However, ethnic diversity is more limited, with only one director from an ethnic minority background representing 9% of the board (Tesco PLC, 2024). This matters because research indicates that diverse boards demonstrate superior decision-making through cognitive diversity and broader stakeholder perspective representation (Post and Byron, 2015).

Impact on Strategic Decision-Making and Accountability

Board governance mechanisms have demonstrably influenced Tesco's strategic decisions across multiple domains:

Strategic Focus and Capital Allocation: Following the accounting scandal, the board mandated strategic refocusing on UK core business, divesting international operations in South Korea, Poland, and Turkey that had generated disappointing returns (Tesco PLC, 2021). This reflected board willingness to challenge management's empire-building tendencies, consistent with agency theory's prescription for disciplined capital allocation aligned with shareholder interests.

Executive Compensation and Performance Alignment: The Remuneration Committee restructured executive pay to strengthen performance linkages, extending performance measurement periods and increasing weight of ESG metrics in bonus calculations (Tesco PLC, 2023). CEO Ken Murphy's 2023/24 total remuneration of £4.4 million reflected 68% achievement of performance targets, with significant portions deferred contingent on long-term value creation (Tesco PLC, 2024). This represents improved alignment between pay and performance compared to pre-scandal practices where short-term accounting targets drove excessive bonuses.

Risk Management and Compliance: Board oversight enhanced risk management frameworks, implementing rigorous financial controls, expanding internal audit capabilities, and establishing compliance culture through training and monitoring (Tesco PLC, 2023). These improvements directly address agency theory's concerns about management exploiting information asymmetry for opportunistic behaviour.

Critical Evaluation of Institutional Investor Influence

Tesco's ownership structure is dominated by institutional investors, with the top ten shareholders controlling approximately 38% of shares (Tesco PLC, 2024). Major shareholders include BlackRock (7.2%), The Vanguard Group (3.9%), Norges Bank Investment Management (3.1%), and Legal & General Investment Management (2.8%) (Bloomberg, 2024).

Mechanisms of Investor Influence

Institutional investors exert influence through multiple channels:

1. Voting rights: Shareholders vote on director appointments, remuneration policies, and significant transactions, providing direct mechanism for influencing governance.
2. Engagement and dialogue: Major investors conduct regular meetings with board members and executives, communicating expectations regarding strategy, governance, and ESG performance (Tesco PLC, 2023).
3. Public pressure and media: Investors can publicly criticise governance or threaten divestment, generating reputational pressure for change.
4. Exit (selling shares): Divestment by major institutional investors signals loss of confidence, depressing share price and increasing takeover vulnerability.

From agency theory perspective, concentrated institutional ownership should enhance governance by creating powerful principals with resources and incentives to monitor management effectively. Institutional investors possess sophisticated analytical capabilities, access to management, and economies of scale in governance oversight that dispersed retail shareholders lack (Gillan and Starks, 2000).

Evidence of Investor Impact

Tesco's governance reforms following the accounting scandal were partially driven by institutional investor pressure. Major shareholders demanded executive accountability, board renewal, and enhanced financial controls (House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, 2014). Subsequently, investors have shaped decisions including:

• CEO succession: Institutional investors participated in selection process for Ken Murphy's appointment, emphasising need for retail expertise and cultural transformation capability (Butler, 2020).
• Capital allocation: Investor pressure contributed to decisions regarding dividend policy, share buyback programmes, and investment prioritisation (Tesco PLC, 2023).
• ESG integration: Increasing investor focus on ESG factors influenced Tesco's sustainability commitments, modern slavery due diligence, and climate target setting (MSCI, 2023).

Critical Limitations of Investor Governance

However, stakeholder theory critiques highlight tensions between shareholder-focused governance and broader stakeholder interests. Institutional investors prioritise financial returns, potentially encouraging management decisions that generate short-term shareholder value while imposing costs on other stakeholders (employees through wage restraint, suppliers through aggressive pricing, communities through store closures).

Furthermore, institutional investor time horizons influence governance effects. While pension funds and sovereign wealth funds may adopt long-term perspectives aligned with sustainable value creation, hedge funds and activist investors may seek short-term share price appreciation through actions including cost cutting, asset sales, or financial engineering that potentially undermine long-term organisational resilience (Coffee and Palia, 2016).

The rise of index funds (such as BlackRock and Vanguard) complicates governance dynamics. Index funds hold diversified portfolios tracking market indices, reducing incentives for intensive company-specific monitoring. While these investors advocate for general governance best practices, they may lack motivation to engage deeply with individual company strategy or challenge management decisions absent egregious failures (Bebchuk and Hirst, 2019).

Critical Evaluation of Groceries Code Adjudicator

The Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA), established in 2013, is an independent statutory regulator enforcing the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, which governs relationships between large retailers and their suppliers (Groceries Code Adjudicator, 2024). The GCA investigates complaints regarding unfair trading practices including unilateral changes to contracts, unjustified charges, requiring suppliers to contribute to marketing costs, and delayed payments.

Regulatory Impact on Tesco's Conduct

The GCA has directly influenced Tesco's supplier relationships through investigation, enforcement, and deterrence mechanisms:

2016 Legal Breach Finding: The GCA found that Tesco breached the Code on two grounds: unreasonably delaying payments to suppliers and requiring suppliers to pay for margin shortfalls not caused by supplier action (Groceries Code Adjudicator, 2016). This investigation resulted in substantial reputational damage and forced Tesco to compensate suppliers approximately £12 million and implement compliance improvements (Groceries Code Adjudicator, 2016).

Ongoing Compliance Monitoring: Annual GCA surveys of supplier satisfaction rank Tesco's compliance, incentivising improved conduct through public transparency. Tesco's supplier satisfaction scores improved from 6.7 out of 10 in 2016 to 7.3 in 2024, reflecting governance reforms including clearer contract terms, improved dispute resolution processes, and enhanced payment systems (Groceries Code Adjudicator, 2024).

Cultural and Procedural Changes: Regulatory pressure prompted Tesco to establish dedicated supplier compliance teams, implement Code training for procurement staff, and create transparent supplier dispute mechanisms (Tesco PLC, 2023). These changes demonstrate how external regulation can influence internal governance culture and operational practice.

Theoretical Implications

The GCA exemplifies regulatory intervention addressing market failures that voluntary corporate governance cannot resolve. From stakeholder theory perspective, suppliers represent vulnerable stakeholders facing significant power asymmetry vis-à-vis large retailers. Without regulatory protection, Tesco and other supermarkets could exploit superior bargaining power to impose unfair terms, secure excessive discounts, or transfer business risks to suppliers through contract variations.

However, critical evaluation reveals regulatory limitations. The GCA's narrow mandate focuses specifically on Code breaches, not addressing broader competition issues, pricing practices, or environmental and social sustainability in supply chains (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2020). Furthermore, the GCA lacks jurisdiction over Tesco's international operations or non-food supply chains, limiting comprehensive governance oversight.

Assessment of Governance Impact on Organisational Success

Defining "success" in this context encompasses multiple dimensions: financial performance, sustainable growth, stakeholder trust, crisis resilience, and ethical conduct.

Financial Performance and Stability

Tesco's governance reforms correlate with improved financial stability. Following the accounting scandal, operating profit declined to £1.1 billion in 2015/16 but recovered to £2.8 billion in 2023/24 (Tesco PLC, 2024). Share price increased from £1.85 in 2016 to £3.45 in 2024, representing 87% growth (London Stock Exchange, 2024). While causation is complex, strengthened governance contributed to investor confidence restoration, improved capital allocation, and reduced risk of future governance failures.

Crisis Resilience and Adaptive Capacity

Enhanced governance enabled effective crisis response during COVID-19 pandemic. Board oversight ensured rapid implementation of employee safety measures, supply chain adaptations, and community support initiatives while maintaining business continuity (Tesco PLC, 2020). The Corporate Responsibility Committee's elevation of stakeholder concerns to board level facilitated balanced decision-making that addressed employee welfare, customer needs, and supplier stability alongside shareholder interests.

Stakeholder Trust and Reputation

Governance improvements have contributed to reputation rehabilitation. Independent surveys indicate increasing consumer trust in Tesco, with the brand ranked third among UK supermarkets for trustworthiness in 2024 compared to seventh in 2015 (Morning Consult, 2024). Supplier satisfaction improvements, employee engagement increases, and ESG rating upgrades reflect governance mechanisms facilitating stakeholder-oriented decision-making.

Ethical Conduct and Compliance

Board oversight and regulatory accountability have reduced governance violations. Since GCA enforcement action in 2016, Tesco has avoided further Code breaches, and internal compliance metrics show declining instances of procurement policy violations (Tesco PLC, 2023). However, as discussed in Task 2, supply chain labour exploitation persists, suggesting that governance mechanisms successfully address certain compliance risks while struggling with complex global supply chain ethics.

Weaknesses and Continuing Controversies

Despite improvements, governance weaknesses persist:

Executive Compensation Controversies: Despite Remuneration Committee reforms, executive pay remains contentious. Shareholder advisory groups including ISS and Glass Lewis recommended votes against Tesco's remuneration policy in 2023, citing insufficient performance linkage for bonus awards (ISS, 2023). While the policy received 91% shareholder approval, significant minority opposition reflects ongoing tensions regarding pay fairness and performance alignment.

Board Renewal and Succession Planning: Average non-executive director tenure exceeds six years, raising questions about independence erosion through familiarity with management (Tesco PLC, 2024). While formal tenure limits exist, gradual board renewal may be insufficient to prevent cultural entrenchment and maintain critical challenge capacity.

Regulatory Arbitrage: Tesco operates across multiple jurisdictions with varying governance requirements. Critics argue that governance standards applied in UK operations may not extend consistently to international supply chains or subsidiary entities, enabling regulatory arbitrage where companies exploit weaker governance regimes (Levy et al., 2020).

Conclusion on Corporate Governance

Tesco's corporate governance framework demonstrates substantial improvements following the 2014 accounting scandal, with strengthened board independence, enhanced institutional investor oversight, and regulatory accountability through the GCA. These mechanisms have shaped strategic decision-making toward more disciplined capital allocation, improved stakeholder consideration, and enhanced ethical compliance. From agency theory perspective, governance reforms successfully reduced information asymmetry and executive opportunism, contributing to financial recovery and investor confidence restoration. However, stakeholder theory critiques identify continuing tensions between shareholder primacy and broader stakeholder interests, particularly regarding executive compensation, supply chain labour rights, and sustainability trade-offs. Ultimately, Tesco's governance illustrates both the potential and limitations of corporate governance mechanisms in shaping organisational behaviour within capitalist market structures that fundamentally prioritise financial returns.

TASK 4: INDEPENDENT LEARNING AND CRITICAL RESOURCE USE (LO4)

This section reflects on five key resources that significantly shaped my understanding and analysis throughout this assignment, evaluating their contributions, limitations, and how they influenced my approach to examining Tesco's leadership, governance, ethics, and sustainability.

Resource 1: Tesco PLC Annual Report and Financial Statements 2023/24

Source: Tesco PLC (2024) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC.

Justification for Selection

The Annual Report represents the primary authoritative source for understanding Tesco's strategic direction, financial performance, governance structure, and management narrative. As a regulated disclosure document subject to audit and legal accountability, it provides credible quantitative and qualitative data essential for evidence-based analysis.

Contribution to Understanding

This resource was fundamental to all four tasks, providing:

• Task 1 (Leadership): CEO's strategic review and chairman's statement articulated Ken Murphy's leadership vision, priorities, and performance narrative, enabling analysis of transformational leadership characteristics through the leader's own articulated goals.
• Task 2 (Ethics/Sustainability): Dedicated sustainability section detailed modern slavery due diligence, supply chain auditing outcomes, and ESG performance metrics, providing evidence for evaluating leadership response to ethical challenges.
• Task 3 (Governance): Corporate governance report outlined board composition, committee structures, director biographies, attendance records, and governance compliance statements, enabling critical assessment of governance mechanisms.
• Task 4 (Quantitative Evidence): Financial statements provided performance data (operating profit, revenue, market share) essential for evaluating success of leadership and governance approaches.

Critical Assessment of Usefulness

The Annual Report's primary strength is comprehensiveness and reliability. As audited financial statements meeting International Financial Reporting Standards, quantitative data is highly credible. The integration of strategic narrative, governance reporting, and sustainability disclosure in a single document facilitates holistic organisational analysis.

However, significant limitations constrain its usefulness:

Management Bias: Annual Reports present management's perspective, inherently framing performance positively and minimising weaknesses. For example, Tesco's sustainability section emphasises achievements (plastic reduction, carbon targets) while understating challenges (Scope 3 emissions increases, persistent supply chain labour issues). This necessitated triangulation with independent sources including NGO reports and media investigations.

Selective Disclosure: While extensive, Annual Reports omit sensitive information regarding internal controversies, board disagreements, or strategic failures. The document presents a polished, sanitised narrative that may not capture organisational realities experienced by frontline employees or vulnerable supply chain workers.

Complexity and Accessibility: At 217 pages with extensive technical financial reporting, the document requires significant expertise to interpret effectively. Extracting relevant governance details or sustainability metrics demanded careful reading and cross-referencing across multiple sections.

Strategic Insight for Balanced Analysis:

Recognising these limitations, I adopted a critical reading approach, treating management claims as hypotheses requiring verification through external sources. Quantitative data was accepted as reliable given audit assurance, but qualitative narratives regarding culture, stakeholder relationships, and sustainability impact were assessed alongside independent evaluations from NGOs, media investigations, and academic research to develop balanced perspectives.

Resource 2: Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006) Transformational Leadership. 2nd edn. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Justification for Selection

This seminal academic text provides the definitive theoretical framework for transformational leadership, offering rigorous conceptual foundations for analysing Ken Murphy's leadership approach in Task 1. Bass and Riggio's four-component model (idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration) represents the most widely cited and empirically validated leadership theory in management scholarship.

Contribution to Understanding

This resource enabled theoretically grounded leadership analysis rather than superficial descriptive commentary. Specifically:

• Conceptual Framework: The four-component model provided analytical structure for evaluating Murphy's leadership behaviours, decisions, and impact across distinct dimensions rather than generalised assessments.
• Empirical Foundation: Bass and Riggio synthesise decades of empirical research demonstrating links between transformational leadership and organisational outcomes including performance, employee satisfaction, and innovation. This evidence base strengthened arguments that Murphy's transformational approach likely contributed to Tesco's recovery.
• Critical Nuance: The text acknowledges transformational leadership limitations, including potential for charismatic manipulation and the cultural contingency of leadership effectiveness. This theoretical complexity enabled nuanced evaluation rather than uncritical celebration of transformational leadership.

Critical Assessment of Usefulness

Strengths:

• Theoretical Rigour: Academic credibility and empirical validation provide robust foundation for leadership analysis, distinguishing scholarly work from popular management literature.
• Practical Application: Despite theoretical sophistication, Bass and Riggio translate concepts into observable leader behaviours, facilitating application to real-world cases like Tesco.
• Comprehensive Scope: The text addresses transformational leadership across diverse contexts (business, military, education), demonstrating broad applicability.

Limitations:

• Western Cultural Bias: Transformational leadership theory primarily derives from North American and European contexts, potentially limiting applicability to diverse cultural settings within Tesco's global operations. Critics argue that individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation may resonate differently in collectivist cultures compared to individualist Western contexts (Avolio et al., 2009).
• Heroic Leader Assumption: The theory focuses on individual leaders' attributes and behaviours, potentially underestimating structural, cultural, and systemic factors influencing organisational outcomes. Tesco's recovery likely reflects not solely Murphy's leadership but also market conditions, board governance improvements, and employee contributions beyond CEO influence.
• Measurement Challenges: While theoretically robust, operationalising transformational leadership components through observable evidence (particularly from publicly available sources rather than internal surveys) presented methodological challenges. Distinguishing between genuine inspirational motivation versus performative leadership rhetoric required interpretive judgement.

Strategic Insight for Balanced Analysis:

To address these limitations, I supplemented Bass and Riggio with additional leadership theories including authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005) to capture Murphy's transparency emphasis, and incorporated critical leadership scholarship (Tourish, 2013) that questions transformational leadership's romanticisation of individual leaders. This multi-theoretical approach generated more sophisticated analysis acknowledging leadership complexity.

Resource 3: Lawrence, F. and McSweeney, E. (2020) 'Revealed: Tesco and Aldi selling prawns peeled by slaves', The Guardian, 23 June.

Justification for Selection

This investigative journalism piece was instrumental for Task 2, providing detailed, evidence-based exposition of modern slavery in Tesco's Thai seafood supply chain. Investigative journalism serves crucial accountability functions, uncovering corporate practices that may be minimised in official corporate disclosures.

Contribution to Understanding

This resource shaped Task 2 analysis across multiple dimensions:

• Challenge Identification: The investigation documented specific labour exploitation practices (debt bondage, excessive working hours, passport confiscation, physical abuse) with first-hand worker testimonies, providing concrete ethical challenge for analysis.
• Evidence Base: The investigation included photographs, worker interviews, and supply chain documentation linking Thai processing facilities directly to Tesco procurement, establishing clear corporate responsibility.
• Critical Perspective: Unlike corporate sustainability reports emphasising positive initiatives, investigative journalism highlighted the gap between Tesco's ethical commitments and supply chain realities, enabling critical evaluation rather than accepting corporate narratives uncritically.

Critical Assessment of Usefulness

Strengths:

• Independent Verification: The Guardian conducted extensive on-ground investigation in Thailand, interviewing workers directly and documenting conditions independently rather than relying on corporate-provided information. This independence enhances credibility.
• Public Interest Focus: Investigative journalism prioritises public accountability over commercial interests, providing perspectives potentially marginalised in business-oriented sources.
• Narrative Power: First-person worker testimonies create compelling human narratives that quantitative data cannot convey, emphasising the human cost of corporate supply chain practices.

Limitations:

• Potential Bias: While independent, journalism involves editorial decisions regarding framing, emphasis, and story angle. The Guardian's progressive editorial stance may predispose toward critical corporate coverage, requiring consideration of potential bias.
• Snapshot vs. Systemic Analysis: Investigative reporting documents specific instances at particular moments, potentially not representing systemic patterns across entire supply chains. Questions arise regarding whether documented cases reflect widespread practices or isolated incidents.
• Limited Academic Validation: Unlike peer-reviewed research, journalism lacks formal academic review processes. While Guardian journalism maintains high professional standards, it doesn't undergo the rigorous methodological scrutiny characteristic of academic scholarship.
• Corporate Response Absent: The initial investigation presented worker perspectives and NGO commentary but limited Tesco management response. Fuller understanding required supplementing with Tesco's subsequent statements and independent audits.

Strategic Insight for Balanced Analysis:

To address these limitations, I triangulated The Guardian investigation with:

• Tesco's official response statements and subsequent modern slavery reporting (Tesco PLC, 2020, 2021)
• Independent audit findings from Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI, 2023)
• Academic research on supply chain labour governance (Phillips and Trautrims, 2021)
• Labour rights NGO analyses (Anti-Slavery International, 2022)

This multi-source approach enabled balanced evaluation recognising both the severity of labour exploitation and the complexity of corporate efforts to address it, avoiding either uncritical acceptance of corporate narratives or simplistic condemnation lacking nuance.

Resource 4: Groceries Code Adjudicator (2016) Investigation into Tesco PLC's compliance with the Groceries Supply Code of Practice. London: Groceries Code Adjudicator.

Justification for Selection

This official regulatory investigation report was central to Task 3's analysis of external governance mechanisms. As an independent statutory regulator's formal finding of Code breaches, it provides authoritative evidence of governance failures and regulatory impact on corporate conduct.

Contribution to Understanding

This resource contributed to governance analysis through:

• Empirical Evidence of Governance Failure: The investigation documented specific instances where Tesco's supplier payment practices and margin recovery demands breached Code requirements, providing concrete evidence of governance and compliance failures requiring board accountability.
• Regulatory Mechanism Demonstration: The investigation exemplified how external regulatory oversight operates, including complaint investigation processes, evidence gathering, legal determinations, and enforcement actions (financial penalties and remediation requirements).
• Governance Impact Assessment: Subsequent GCA annual reports tracking Tesco's compliance improvements enabled evaluation of regulatory effectiveness in shaping corporate behaviour and governance culture over time.

Critical Assessment of Usefulness

Strengths:

• Legal Authority and Objectivity: As statutory regulator, the GCA possesses legal powers, investigative resources, and independent status that confer high credibility to findings. Unlike corporate self-reporting or advocacy group claims, regulatory determinations carry formal authority.
• Detailed Evidence Base: The investigation report provided extensive documentation of Code breaches, including specific contract terms, payment data, and supplier testimonies, enabling granular understanding of governance failures.
• Longitudinal Tracking: GCA's ongoing annual supplier surveys enable assessment of governance improvements over time, demonstrating regulatory impact beyond single investigations.

Limitations:

• Narrow Regulatory Scope: The GCA's mandate focuses exclusively on Groceries Supply Code of Practice compliance, not addressing broader governance issues including board effectiveness, executive compensation, shareholder relations, or international operations. This necessitated supplementing with broader corporate governance sources.
• Supplier Relationship Focus: While important, supplier governance represents only one dimension of corporate governance. The GCA provides limited insight into internal governance mechanisms (board dynamics, committee effectiveness) or investor governance.
• Potential Regulatory Capture: Critical scholars question whether sector-specific regulators may be subject to industry influence or adopt excessively conciliatory approaches to maintain cooperative relationships with regulated entities (Carpenter and Moss, 2014). While no evidence suggests GCA capture, theoretical awareness of this risk informed critical reading.

Strategic Insight for Balanced Analysis:

To contextualise GCA findings within broader governance assessment, I integrated this resource with:

• UK Corporate Governance Code requirements and Tesco's compliance statements
• Academic governance theory (agency theory, stakeholder theory)
• Institutional investor governance analyses
• Comparative regulatory frameworks in other jurisdictions

This integration enabled comprehensive governance evaluation recognising regulatory oversight as one mechanism within broader governance ecosystems encompassing boards, shareholders, and market forces.

Resource 5: Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and de Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Justification for Selection

This comprehensive academic text provided essential theoretical foundation for critically analysing Tesco's approach to balancing multiple stakeholder interests across leadership, ethics, and governance dimensions. Stakeholder theory offers crucial counterpoint to shareholder-centric perspectives, enabling more sophisticated evaluation of contemporary organisational responsibilities.

Contribution to Understanding

This resource shaped analysis across multiple tasks:

• Task 1: Stakeholder theory framed evaluation of Murphy's leadership beyond shareholder value maximisation, recognising commitments to colleague welfare, customer value, supplier relationships, and community impact as legitimate leadership priorities.
• Task 2: The text's examination of stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al., 1997) provided framework for analysing why Tesco prioritised certain stakeholders (shareholders, customers) while potentially marginalising others (supply chain workers) in ethical decision-making.
• Task 3: Stakeholder theory challenged agency theory's governance assumptions, suggesting that effective governance encompasses stakeholder accountability mechanisms beyond shareholder oversight, including regulatory compliance, supplier relationships, and community engagement.
• Cross-cutting: The concept of "stakeholder capitalism" versus "shareholder primacy" provided overarching analytical lens for evaluating whether Tesco's leadership and governance reflect contemporary evolution toward stakeholder-oriented business models or remain fundamentally shareholder-centric despite stakeholder rhetoric.

Critical Assessment of Usefulness

Strengths:

• Conceptual Sophistication: Freeman et al. provide nuanced stakeholder theory addressing criticisms and complexities, distinguishing normative arguments (organisations should serve stakeholders) from instrumental arguments (stakeholder orientation enhances long-term financial performance) and descriptive claims (organisations actually do manage stakeholder relationships). This sophistication enabled rigorous theoretical application.
• Practical Application: Unlike purely abstract theory, the text includes frameworks for stakeholder identification, prioritisation, and engagement that facilitated application to Tesco's real-world stakeholder management.
• Critical Engagement: The authors acknowledge stakeholder theory's limitations and criticisms, including operationalisation challenges, potential conflicts among stakeholder interests, and debates about stakeholder versus shareholder primacy. This critical reflexivity enhanced analytical depth.

Limitations:

• Theoretical-Practical Gap: While conceptually powerful, stakeholder theory faces implementation challenges that the text incompletely addresses. How do organisations genuinely balance conflicting stakeholder interests when shareholder returns require supplier cost minimisation or employee wage restraint? The theory provides limited practical guidance for resolving such tensions.
• Measurement Challenges: Unlike shareholder value (quantifiable through share price, dividends), stakeholder value is conceptually ambiguous and difficult to measure. How should organisations assess whether they successfully "create value" for employees, communities, or environment? This measurement difficulty complicates empirical assessment of stakeholder theory's claims.
• Ideological Assumptions: Critics argue stakeholder theory embodies liberal-progressive political assumptions about corporate social responsibility that may not be universally accepted. Some view it as inappropriate imposition of social goals on economic institutions properly focused on profit maximisation (Friedman, 1970). While I generally endorse stakeholder perspectives, recognising these ideological dimensions informed balanced analysis.

Strategic Insight for Balanced Analysis:

To address these limitations and avoid one-sided theoretical application, I:

• Employed Multiple Theories: Rather than relying solely on stakeholder theory, I integrated agency theory, transformational leadership theory, and other frameworks, enabling multi-perspective analysis that acknowledged tensions and trade-offs rather than privileging single theoretical lens.
• Empirical Grounding: I tested stakeholder theory's claims against Tesco's actual practices and outcomes, examining whether stakeholder-oriented rhetoric translated into genuine stakeholder benefit or remained primarily reputational management.
• Critical Reflexivity: I acknowledged my own normative commitments to stakeholder capitalism while recognising legitimate alternative perspectives, enabling balanced evaluation rather than advocacy.

Reflection on Independent Learning Process

Beyond individual resource evaluation, reflecting on how my approach evolved demonstrates independent learning:

Initial Approach – Descriptive Orientation:

Early in the assignment, my analysis tended toward description of Tesco's practices using corporate sources uncritically. I relied heavily on Annual Reports and corporate sustainability reporting, insufficiently questioning management narratives.

Evolution – Critical Integration:

As research progressed, exposure to critical journalism (Guardian investigation), regulatory findings (GCA report), and academic theory (particularly stakeholder theory and critical leadership scholarship) prompted more sceptical, questioning approach. I recognised that understanding Tesco required integrating perspectives from multiple stakeholder positions: management, shareholders, employees, suppliers, NGOs, regulators.

Strategic Source Selection:

I deliberately sought sources representing diverse perspectives to avoid echo chambers:

• Corporate sources (Annual Reports, press releases) for management perspective
• Regulatory sources (GCA, MSCI ESG ratings) for compliance and performance benchmarks
• Investigative journalism and NGO reports for critical stakeholder perspectives
• Academic literature for theoretical frameworks and empirical research
• Industry analyses for competitive context

This strategic diversity enabled triangulation, where convergent findings across different source types strengthened conclusions, while divergence highlighted contested issues requiring nuanced treatment.

Analytical Development:

My analytical sophistication progressed from applying single theories uncritically (initially viewing Murphy solely through transformational leadership lens) toward multi-theoretical integration recognising that leadership, ethics, and governance involve complex interactions among individual agency, organisational structures, market forces, and regulatory contexts. This complexity appreciation reflects deeper learning beyond instrumental application of course concepts.

Conclusion on Resource Use and Independent Learning

The five selected resources represent strategic choices balancing corporate sources, regulatory materials, investigative journalism, and academic scholarship. Each contributed distinct perspectives and evidence types essential for comprehensive analysis while presenting limitations requiring critical awareness. My independent learning journey involved progressing from descriptive, source-dependent analysis toward critical, theoretically informed evaluation integrating diverse perspectives. This evolution demonstrates the intellectual development that LO4 seeks to assess, showing capacity for autonomous learning, critical resource evaluation, and sophisticated engagement with complex organisational issues.

REFERENCES

Akerlof, G.A. (1970) 'The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market mechanism', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), pp. 488-500.

Anti-Slavery International (2022) Supermarket Supply Chains and Modern Slavery. London: Anti-Slavery International.

Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005) 'Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership', The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 315-338.

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009) 'Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions', Annual Review of Psychology, 60, pp. 421-449.

Barrientos, S. and Smith, S. (2007) 'Do workers benefit from ethical trade? Assessing codes of labour practice in global production systems', Third World Quarterly, 28(4), pp. 713-729.

Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006) Transformational Leadership. 2nd edn. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bebchuk, L.A. and Hirst, S. (2019) 'Index funds and the future of corporate governance: theory, evidence, and policy', Columbia Law Review, 119(8), pp. 2029-2146.

Bloomberg (2024) Tesco PLC Shareholders. Available 

British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2020) Review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. London: BIICL.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2023) Seafood Industry Labour Rights Tracker. London: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.

Butler, S. (2020) 'Tesco appoints Ken Murphy as chief executive', The Guardian, 21 February. Available

Butler, S. and Kollewe, J. (2023) 'Tesco workers at distribution centres to strike over pay', The Guardian, 17 January. Available 

Caldwell, C., Hayes, L.A. and Long, D.T. (2008) 'Leadership, trustworthiness, and ethical stewardship', Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), pp. 497-512.

Carpenter, D. and Moss, D.A. (eds.) (2014) Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CBI (2023) Social Value in Public Procurement. London: Confederation of British Industry.

ClientEarth (2024) Greenwashing in Corporate Climate Communications. London: ClientEarth.

Coffee, J.C. and Palia, D. (2016) 'The wolf at the door: the impact of hedge fund activism on corporate governance', Journal of Corporation Law, 41(3), pp. 545-607.

Competition and Markets Authority (2023) Interim Report: Road Fuel Market Study. London: CMA.

Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.

ETI (2023) Thailand Shrimp Supply Chain Assessment. London: Ethical Trading Initiative.

Financial Reporting Council (2018) The UK Corporate Governance Code. London: FRC.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and de Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, M. (1970) 'The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits', The New York Times Magazine, 13 September, pp. 32-33.

Gillan, S.L. and Starks, L.T. (2000) 'Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: the role of institutional investors', Journal of Financial Economics, 57(2), pp. 275-305.

Groceries Code Adjudicator (2016) Investigation into Tesco PLC's Compliance with the Groceries Supply Code of Practice. London: GCA. Available

Groceries Code Adjudicator (2024) Annual Report 2023-24. London: GCA.

Hampton-Alexander Review (2023) FTSE Women Leaders Review. London: Hampton-Alexander Review.

House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (2014) Accounting Irregularities at Tesco. London: The Stationery Office.

Institute for Human Rights and Business (2021) Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment Progress Report. London: IHRB.

International Labour Organisation (2023) Global Estimates of Modern Slavery. Geneva: ILO.

ISS (2023) Tesco PLC 2023 AGM Voting Recommendations. Rockville: Institutional Shareholder Services.

Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976) 'Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure', Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp. 305-360.

Jones, R. (2023) 'The impact of automation on retail employment', Journal of Retail Studies, 12(2), pp. 89-107.

Kantar (2024) UK Grocery Market Share Data September 2024. London: Kantar.

Lawrence, F. and McSweeney, E. (2020) 'Revealed: Tesco and Aldi selling prawns peeled by slaves', The Guardian, 23 June. Available 

Leblanc, R. and Gillies, J. (2005) Inside the Boardroom: How Boards Really Work and the Coming Revolution in Corporate Governance. Toronto: Wiley.

Levy, D.L., Brown, H.S. and de Jong, M. (2010) 'The contested politics of corporate governance: the case of the global reporting initiative', Business & Society, 49(1), pp. 88-115.

London Stock Exchange (2024) Tesco PLC Share Price Data. Available 

Lyon, T.P. and Montgomery, A.W. (2015) 'The means and end of greenwash', Organization & Environment, 28(2), pp. 223-249.

Mantouvalou, V. (2020) 'The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 three years on', Modern Law Review, 81(6), pp. 1017-1045.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) 'Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts', Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853-886.

Morning Consult (2024) UK Brand Trust Rankings. Washington DC: Morning Consult.

MSCI (2023) Tesco PLC ESG Ratings Report. New York: MSCI.

Northouse, P.G. (2021) Leadership: Theory and Practice. 9th edn. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Phillips, W. and Trautrims, A. (2021) 'Addressing modern slavery in supply chains: an institutional perspective', Supply Chain Management, 26(2), pp. 155-169.

Post, C. and Byron, K. (2015) 'Women on boards and firm financial performance: a meta-analysis', Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), pp. 1546-1571.

PRI (2022) Human Rights in Investment: Guide for Responsible Investors. London: Principles for Responsible Investment.

Ruddick, G. (2022) 'Tesco's Booker acquisition delivers synergies', Retail Week, 12 April. Available 

Schepers, D.H. (2010) 'Challenges to legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council', Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), pp. 279-290.

Serious Fraud Office (2017) Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the Serious Fraud Office and Tesco Stores Limited. London: SFO.

Smith, J. (2022) 'Tesco's ethical sourcing initiatives in Southeast Asia', Supply Chain Quarterly, 15(3), pp. 34-41.

Spence, M. (1973) 'Job market signaling', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), pp. 355-374.

Tesco PLC (2020) Modern Slavery Statement 2020. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC.

Tesco PLC (2021) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2021. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC.

Tesco PLC (2022) Responsible Sourcing Framework. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC.

Tesco PLC (2023) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2023. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC.

Tesco PLC (2024) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024. Welwyn Garden City: Tesco PLC. Available  

Tourish, D. (2013) The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge.

UN Environment Programme (2020) Sustainable Seafood Systems. Nairobi: UNEP.

United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.

Westphal, J.D. (1999) 'Collaboration in the boardroom: behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties', Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), pp. 7-24.

Which? (2023) Consumer Attitudes to Ethical Shopping Survey. London: Which?.

Wood, Z. (2022) 'Tesco navigates Brexit supply chain challenges', The Guardian, 8 March. Available at:

Wood, Z. (2023) 'Tesco commits to net zero emissions', The Guardian, 15 September. Available at: 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tesco Financial Performance Summary 2020-2024

Source: Tesco PLC Annual Reports (2021-2024)

Appendix B: Tesco Board Composition 2024

Source: Tesco PLC Annual Report 2024