ACCA SBL September 2026: The Mendelow Mistake That Made Task 2(b) the Worst-Answered in the Exam

Writing "Shareholders: high power, high interest, key players" scores zero in SBL. The SD25 examiner said Task 2(b), a 14-mark Mendelow question, was "answered very poorly" — and unjustified classifications were the main reason.

What the SD25 SBL examiner actually said

Task 2(b) asked candidates to evaluate the power and interest of five stakeholder groups in relation to the success of Levwell's acquisition of Dulit, then recommend how to manage each. It was the worst-answered part of the exam. The examiner listed five failures, and none of them was "didn't know Mendelow".

First, no justification. Most candidates "simply listed" the levels of power and interest. The marking rule is brutal: if your unjustified classification differs from the model answer, you score nothing for that group. Justify it and you can score even where you land in a different box.

Second, bundling. The requirement said five groups. Many candidates merged Levwell employees with Dulit employees, and Levwell guests with Dulit guests, producing three groups instead of five. Their interest levels were different, so a single classification was wrong — and the candidate threw away two groups' worth of marks.

Third, wrong context. The question said "in relation to the success of the acquisition". Most answers assessed power and interest in the day-to-day running of the hotels: "guests have a high interest in service quality". True, irrelevant, zero.

Fourth, wrong quadrant strategy. Candidates put a group in high interest / low power and then recommended "keep satisfied". That is the low interest / high power strategy. High interest / low power is "keep informed". Getting the matrix backwards costs the recommendation mark on every group you misplace.

Fifth, "key players" is not a recommendation. The examiner was explicit: naming the quadrant does not explain how to manage the group. You need a practical action Levwell could take.

Wrong answer vs correct answer

Wrong: "Levwell shareholders — high power, high interest. Key players. Keep satisfied. Employees — high interest, low power. Keep informed through regular communication."

Four claims, no justification, one wrong strategy, employees bundled into one group, nothing about the acquisition. Realistic score: 0 to 1 marks out of a possible 6 for those groups.

Correct: "Levwell shareholders have high power over the acquisition because a rights issue or a rise in gearing to 55-60% needs their support, and high interest because the deal changes the risk profile of their investment. They are key players, so Levwell should engage them early — present the strategic rationale and financing plan before any vote. Dulit employees have low power over whether the deal happens, but high interest because their jobs, systems and management will change. Keep them informed: communicate directly after announcement, confirm no relocation is planned given the hotels are in different locations, and set out the integration timetable."

Each group: one justified power call, one justified interest call, one justified recommendation. That is the 3-marks-per-group structure the examiner spelled out — five groups, 14 technical marks, full marks available.

What to do in the exam

1. Count the groups before you write. If the requirement or exhibit names five, write five headings. Never merge two sets of employees or customers just because they share a label.

2. Write "because" after every classification. "High power because…" "Low interest because…" Tie the reason to the specific decision in the requirement — here, the acquisition — not the routine business.

3. Turn the quadrant into an action. After "key players" or "keep informed", add what Levwell should actually do, and why that suits the group. The examiner marks the action, not the label.

The numbers

SBL passed 51% in June 2026, and has sat between 50% and 53% for three years. The pass mark has not moved; the technique gap has. Task 2(b) carried 14 technical marks plus 4 professional marks for evaluation — 18% of the exam — and the professional marks were capped too, because a list is not an evaluation.

Mendelow is not the hard part. Justifying it is.