INSTRUCTIONS
ASSESSMENT 3: CASE SUBMISSION
Case 5: Governance Issues at Bharat Pe
Value: 10% (900 words, +/-10%)
Learning Outcomes
 Understand the ASX Corporate Governance Principles
 Apply corporate governance principles to an entrepreneurial Fintech firm
 Understand role of independent audit
 Evaluate the impact of lapses of corporate governance on stakeholders
 Recommend measures to strengthen corporate governance practices
Purpose
This case examines governance irregularities at Bharat Pe, a fintech business in India.
Bharat Pe developed a code-based payment app to allow merchants to accept digital
payments via a QR Code.
The co-founder and Managing Director, Ashneer Grove, was entangled in a
controversy when an audio clip was found that purportedly showed Grover abusing a
bank employee for declining an investment.
Bharat Pe was planning an IPO and came under intense investor scrutiny as a result.
Concerns were raised about governance and organisational issues so Bharat Pe
engaged risk consultants to review internal processes and systems. The consultants
found instances of financial irregularities and operational issues.
The company then sacked Madhuri Jain Grover, Ashneer Grover’s wife and head of
controls, over allegations of financial irregularities.
Grover stepped down ahead of the release of a final audit report.
Instructions
Answer the following questions in your submission:
1. What were the reasons behind Grover’s resignation from Bharat Pe?
2. Why are the corporate governance practices at Bahrat Pe under scrutiny?
3. What are the corporate governance weaknesses at BharatPe? What impact did
they have on stakeholders? Are there any issues with organisational culture?
4. What can be done to improve the corporate governance structure and practices at
BharatPe?
You may find it useful to apply the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and
Recommendations as a benchmark for good governance when answering questions 3
and 4, but remember that some of these principles apply to listed entities and BharatPe is
pre-IPO.
Presentation requirements
● Word count: 900 words (+-10%)
● The Case report must be submitted on Moodle in a PDF document. It must
be logically organised and clearly structured.
● Double-space the text of your paper, and use Times New Roman or Arial. The
font size should be 12 pt. (you can follow the structure of the example provided
below).
● Include page numbers (you can follow the structure of the example provided
below).
● Save the file with the following title: Surname_Firstname_Case name (for
example, Smith_Jane_Tesla Case.pdf). Five per cent (5%) will be deducted
from the final mark for the assessment if your file is not saved as a PDF,
or with the correct title format (refer to your rubric for details).
● All written components should be thoroughly proofread and edited
Referencing requirements
● You are required to cite a minimum of 3 resources. You must fully reference any
material that you use.
● For this assignment you will use the latest Chicago (Notes) referencing style. For
guidance on how to reference and the different referencing styles, please refer to
this link .
● Your citations and Reference list DO NOT count towards your word limit
Marking Criteria
Practice – This component assesses your understanding of corporate
governance practices at entrepreneurial firms like Bharat Pe. It is assessed in
Q1 and Q2.
/20
Impact – This component assesses your understanding of the impact of
corporate governance weaknesses and failures on stakeholders. It is assessed
in Q3.
/20
Principles – This component assesses your understanding of the impact of
corporate governance principles and is assessed in Q4.
/30
Reflexive writing
/20
Referencing
/10
Initial Mark
/100
Assessment not saved as a PDF file (-5% penalty)
Assessment not saved with correct file name (-5% penalty)
Presentation requirements not followed to the extent they make the
assignment difficult to read (-5% penalty)
Late submission of assessment (-10% penalty per day)
Final Mark
/100
Practice – This component assesses your understanding of corporate
governance practices at entrepreneurial firms like Bharat Pe. It is
assessed in Q1 and Q2.
/20 Comments for
improvement
High distinction
Corporate governance practices at Bharat Pe have been well summarised with key
issues clearly highlighted. The reasons for the increased scrutiny have been clearly
identified and well explained.
(16-20 marks)
Distinction
Corporate governance practices at Bharat Pe have been well summarised with key
issues highlighted. The reasons for the increased scrutiny have been identified and
well explained.
(14 marks)
Credit
Corporate governance practices at Bharat Pe have been summarised with some key
issues highlighted. The reasons for the increased scrutiny have been identified and
explained with some clarity.
(12 marks)
Pass
Corporate governance practices at Bharat Pe have been partially summarsed.
The reasons for the increased scrutiny have been identified and explained with
some clarity.
(10 marks)
Fail
Corporate governance practices at Bharat Pe have been not been summarized
or the reasons for the increased scrutiny have not been identified and explained.
(0-8 marks)
Impact – This component assesses your understanding of the impact of
corporate governance weaknesses and failures on stakeholders. It is
assessed in Q3.
/20
High distinction
Current weaknesses in corporate governance have been clearly identified and
explained and the impacts on the main relevant stakeholders have been
accurately described.
(16-20 marks)
Distinction
Current weaknesses in corporate governance have largely been identified and
explained and the impacts on the main relevant stakeholders have been well
described.
(14-15 marks)
Credit
Current weaknesses in corporate governance have largely been identified and
explained, with some omissions, and the impacts on the main relevant
stakeholders have been described but more detail is required,
(12-13 marks)
Pass
Current weaknesses in corporate governance have partially been identified and
explained, with omissions. The impacts on the main relevant stakeholders have
been addressed but more detail is required,
(10-11 marks)
Fail
Current weaknesses in corporate governance have not been explained. The
impacts on the main relevant stakeholders have not been addressed in sufficient
detail,
(0-9 marks)
Principles – This component assesses your understanding of the
impact of corporate governance principles and is assessed in Q4.
/20
High distinction
Submission shows a strong understanding of corporate governance
principes and their application to this case.
(24-30 marks)
Distinction
Submission shows a good understanding of corporate governance principes and their
application to this case.
(21-22.5 marks)
Credit
Submission shows a solid understanding of corporate governance principes and
their application to this case.
(12-13 marks)
Pass
Submission shows some understanding of corporate governance principes
but their application to this case but is limited.
(10-11 marks)
Fail
Submission shows no understanding of corporate governance principes and their
application to this case or application is incorrect.
(0-9 marks)
Reflexive writing
/20
High distinction
The entry clearly and consistently explains the students' point of view/opinion in
relation to their chosen challenge. Written expression skillfully communicates
meaning to readers with clarity and fluency. Within word limit
(16-20 marks)
Distinction
The entry explains the student's point of view/opinion in relation to to their chosen
challenge with considerable clarity and consistence. Within word limit
(14-15 marks)
Credit
The entry attempts to explain the student's point of view/opinion in relation to their
chosen challenge, but this is not always clear. Within word limit
(12-13 marks)
Pass
The entry attempts to explain the student's point of view/opinion in relation to their
chosen challenge., but this is very unclear. Within word limit
(10-11 marks)
Fail
The student's point of view in relation to their chosen challenge is not present, or it is
unclear to the point that it is incomprehensible. Response may be significantly under
or over prescribed word limit.
(0-9 marks)
Referencing
/10
Pass
A minimum of three resources (academic and grey literature) have been used and
referencing style is consistent.
(10 marks)
Fail
Fewer than three resources (academic and grey literature) used and referencing style
is inconsistent.
(0 marks)
Student name: Monash ID
Case Report: Deforestation in Brazil
Word count: ?
Deforestation in Brazil has risen dramatically over the past decade. Although I was
aware of some of the global impacts of deforestation, reading the article by Rausch
& Gibbs1 has enhanced my knowledge and understanding of this issue in Brazil. The
rapid expansion of soybean agriculture is one of the major factors contributing to
deforestation there. The reason behind this increase in production is a desire to
expedite development, however this has led to the destruction of vast natural areas
for the sole purpose of soybean cultivation.
This mode of development is contributing to the erosion of Brazil's fragile
ecosystems. Soybean production is threatening biodiversity hotspots, such as the
savannas and rainforests, and vulnerable local species are at risk of extinction.
Soybean production is also associated with high rates of soil erosion, compaction
and degradation. In addition to environmental harms, Indigenous populations are
being forced to relocate deeper into the rainforests to preserve their traditional
practices, and subsistence farmers are being pushed off the land to make way for
large-scale producers.2
There are multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that relate to this matter,
with the most important being, Goal 15 'Life on Land'. The UN estimates that almost
90 percent of global deforestation is due to agricultural expansion, which reflects the
situation of soybean production in Brazil today. By addressing this SDG several other
goals can be tackled by reducing poverty and inequalities (SDG 1), improving health
and well-being (SDG 3), and providing greater employment opportunities (SDG 10).
1 Rausch, Lisa L., and Holly K. Gibbs. 2016. "Property Arrangements and Soy Governance in the
Brazilian State of Mato Grosso: Implications for Deforestation-Free Production" Land, vol.5, no.2, 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020007
2 Fearnside, Philip 2017, "Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon"
Yale Environment 360, April 18, Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the
Brazilian
Amazon - Yale
E360;
Milhorance, Flavia 2022, "An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling
soy" Dialogo Chino, May 11, An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling soy
(dialogochino.net).
Doing this requires understanding the various stakeholders involved in the soybean
industry and the factors influencing production.
The intersection between soybean agriculture, deforestation and climate change is
complex. There are many different factors that are driving this issue and multiple
different stakeholders involved.3 The socio-ecological model is a conceptual
framework that shows how soybean cultivation contributes to deforestation, the
impact on different groups of people and the ecosystem.
As the socio-ecological model highlights, there are diverse economic, political and
social stakeholders and factors related to or affected by the soybean industry in
Brazil. Many subsistence farmers have lost their land and livelihoods to ranchers and
illegal land grabbers, or to local drug traffickers who control certain areas and
facilitate deforestation to fund their illegal activities. Without stronger legislation
around land claim titles and opportunities to gain employment in alternative
industries, small-scale farmers and landless migrants are pushed into further poverty
and heightened risk of exploitation.4
3 Fearnside, Philip. M. 2008, "The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of Brazilian
Amazonia", Ecology and Society, vol.13, no.1, 7-9.
4 Fearnside, "Roles and Movements", 15; Rausch & Gibbs "Property Arrangements", 6.
This conceptual framework also highlights how global food chains fuel the production
of soybeans which increases the price of soybeans and, consequently, their value to
institutions such as the Ministry of Agriculture who is not compelled to tighten the
Brazil Forest Code which strengthens measures to protect Brazil's natural
environment. However, some have noted that tightening the Brazil Forest Code may
force ranchers and landowners to curb their farmland expansion, but may also
negatively impact small-scale farmers and landless migrants by reducing labour and
agricultural opportunities.5
Recognising that factors and stakeholders at each level of the social ecology are
interconnected and have different consequences for diverse groups is therefore
critical to developing a holistic understanding of deforestation in Brazil and crafting
meaningful responses to this challenge.
5 Rausch & Gibbs "Property Arrangements", 3.
Reference list
Fearnside, Philip. M. 2008, "The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation
of Brazilian Amazonia", Ecology and Society, vol.13, no.1, p1- 23.
Fearnside, Philip 2017, "Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon" Yale Environment 360, April 18, Business as Usual: A
Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon - Yale E360.
Milhorance, Flavia 2022, "An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling soy"
Dialogo Chino, May 11, An Amazon indigenous village's flight from sprawling
soy
(dialogochino.net).
Rausch, Lisa L., and Holly K. Gibbs. 2016. "Property Arrangements and Soy
Governance in the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso: Implications for
Deforestation-Free Production" Land, vol.5, no.2, p.1-7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land5020007