What are the limitations of ratio analysis, and how should non-financial and ethical factors inform a financial decision?
Explain the limitations of ratio analysis, evaluate the role of non-financial and ethical factors in decision-making, and recommend a course of action using both financial and qualitative information
WACE Year 12 Accounting and Finance Unit 4 on the limitations of ratio analysis and decision-making: why ratios can mislead, the role of non-financial and ethical factors, and how to combine financial and qualitative information into a recommendation.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
SCSA wants you to explain why ratios can mislead, evaluate non-financial and ethical factors, and reach a justified recommendation using both.
Limitations of ratio analysis
Because of these limits, ratios are best used as a group, compared over time and against similar businesses, and read alongside the notes to the accounts.
Non-financial factors
A decision based only on numbers can be poor. Non-financial factors include the skill and morale of staff, the strength of the brand and customer loyalty, the state of the economy and competition, the quality of management, and legal or regulatory changes. These can outweigh a favourable set of ratios, or rescue an investment that looks weak on paper.
Ethical factors
A decision that maximises short-term profit might damage the environment, mistreat workers or mislead customers, harming the business's reputation and long-term value. Ethical and financial considerations therefore often point in the same direction over the long run.
Building a justified recommendation
The hardest marks in this dot point come from turning analysis into a defensible recommendation. A strong answer follows a clear shape. First, state what the ratios show, in plain terms (for example, profitability has fallen and is below the benchmark). Second, qualify that evidence by naming the relevant limitations: is the figure distorted by a one-off cost, an unusual accounting policy, or a seasonal timing effect? Third, bring in the non-financial factors that the numbers cannot capture, such as staff capability, brand strength, market conditions and the quality of management. Fourth, weigh the ethical dimension: who is affected by the decision, and how. Finally, recommend a course of action and justify it by reference to all of the above, ideally with a review trigger (for example, monitor next year once the one-off cost drops out). The examiner is testing judgement, not arithmetic: the ratios are evidence to be interpreted and weighed, never a verdict to be applied mechanically.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SCSA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
WACE 20227 marksA business is deciding whether to close a branch whose net profit margin is 4 per cent against a company average of 10 per cent. Explain three limitations of relying on this ratio alone, and identify two non-financial and one ethical factor that should inform the decision.Show worked answer →
A 7 mark response needs three limitations plus the named factors.
Limitations. First, the ratio is historical, describing the past rather than guaranteeing the future. Second, it may be distorted by one-off events (for example a refurbishment cost this year) that overstate expenses and understate the margin. Third, a single ratio in isolation needs a benchmark and context; different accounting policies can also make the comparison with the company average unfair.
Non-financial factors. The loyalty of the local customer base and the branch's role in maintaining brand presence and market share in that region.
Ethical factor. The effect on employees who would lose their jobs, and the wider impact on the local community. A sound recommendation weighs the ratio as evidence alongside these factors rather than deciding on the number alone. Markers reward three genuine limitations and correctly classified non-financial and ethical factors.
WACE 20235 marksExplain why a decision that maximises short-term profit may not be in a business's long-term interest, using one ethical and one non-financial consideration.Show worked answer →
A 5 mark response needs the argument with both considerations applied.
Ethical consideration. Cutting costs by mistreating workers, misleading customers or damaging the environment may lift this year's profit but can breach the trust of stakeholders, attract penalties, and harm the business's reputation, reducing long-term value.
Non-financial consideration. Eroding product quality or customer service to save cost can lift short-term margins while driving away loyal customers and weakening the brand, lowering future sales. Because reputation and customer loyalty drive long-run profitability, ethical and financial interests usually align over time, so a purely short-term, profit-maximising choice can destroy more value than it creates. Markers reward a clear short-term-versus-long-term argument with one ethical and one non-financial point.