Competing Models Of Corporate Governance

There are three internal and one external governance mechanisms used for owners to govern managers to ensure they comply with their responsibility to satisfy stakeholders and shareholder’s needs. First, ownership concentration is stated as the number of large-block shareholders and the total percentage of the shares they own (Hitt, Ireland, Hoskisson, 2017, p. 317). Second, the board of directors which are elected by the shareholders. Their primary duty is to act in the owner’s best interest and to monitor and control the businesses top-level managers (Hitt, Ireland, Hoskisson, 2017, p. 319). Third, is the

In the corporate form of ownership, the shareholders are the owners of the firm. The shareholders elect the directors of the corporation, who in turn appoint the firm’s management. This separation of ownership from control in the corporate form of organization is what causes agency problems to exist. Management may act in its own or someone else’s best interests, rather than those of the shareholders. If such events

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

The following paper will compare and contrast corporate governance in the U.S. and European Union. Because corporate governance regulations are not yet uniform across all EU countries, we have chosen to examine Poland in particular. We will first present U.S. corporate governance and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and then examine how Poland's corporate governance regulations compare. Finally, since we have already learned about Corporate Social Responsibility for U.S. companies, we have examined Corporate Social Responsibility in Poland, looking specifically at the largest airline in Poland, LOT.

A general phenomenon about the corporations is that shareholders must accept majority rule in a company. Shareholders who own majority of the shares, feel that they have right to make majority of all decision because they have more at stake. Minority shareholder can also participate in company affairs by checking majority shareholders power, and promote transparency, ethical practices and good governance (OECD, 2004) but they are often regarded as an unnecessary burden a “dead weight” in corporation (Shkolnikov, 2006)

There are many governance systems worldwide: -  The anglo-saxon system is based on the ‘public company’ -  The continental European model is based on the ‘family ownership’ or State Ownership also for listed companies -  The German (Japan) model is founded on the co-existence of major banks and other shareholders in the capital -  The Korean ‘chabeols’ (a family and the State allied as main owners) -  The Scandinavian model based on the presence of workers and trade unions in the representative bodies

In light of recent global business scandals, corporate governance has become a significant topic. It can be understood as a dichotomy between the shareholders and the management of a company. Navigating this relationship is often problematic as the shareholders provide oversight while management makes daily executive decisions on their behalf. When managed appropriately, this balance between shareholders and management can result in improved efficiency, conflict resolution and a contribution to improving the standards and efficiency of the entire operation. This paper will examine the nature of both roles, how they often are in conflict and discuss the corporate ethics of this relationship. For a student of business organization, understanding how varying elements of a company resolve their issues is critical and can serve as a lesson that can be applied in other endeavors.

1. This article focuses on the Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (GIM, 2003) study which found that strong shareholder rights lead to higher stock price returns and thus value. This is a great indicator that good governance has a direct effect on the performance of the firm. The article finds that corporate governance has a positive impact on the firm / management / shareholders. However good governance is not always the correct metric of evaluation for firms and boards. The primary finding of the article is from an economic analysis defending the relation between corporate governance and performance. This article examines the relationships among corporate governance / corporate performance / capital structure / and corporate ownership structure. Many of the past studies have taken into consideration only one measure of governance, while this study focused on seven different governance measures. The article also looks at the performance of a firm and the relationship it has with management turnover or disciplinary actions required.

This separation of the owners and managers of the business is the central reason for the existence of what is now referred to as corporate governance. As discussed by Smith (Smith, 1776),Berle (Berle, 1932) and Tricker (Tricker, 2012), this created two differing schools of though. The first is referred to as agency theory, which proposes that those placed in charge of a firm will act in their best interests and not those of the shareholders. This argument is countered by stewardship theory which takes the view that those charged with being directors will seek to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

Agency problem is a potential conflict between the agent and shareholders in the interest. It is shown that ownership is separated from management. This cause not only is the divergence of ownership and control, but also the information is asymmetrical. When ownership is separated

By expanding the spectrum of interested parties, the stakeholder theory stipulates that, a corporate entity invariably seeks to provide a balance between the interests of its diverse stakeholders in order to ensure that each interest constituency receives some degree of satisfaction (Abrams, 1951). The stakeholder theory is therefore appears better in explaining the role of corporate governance than the agency theory by highlighting the various constituents of a firm. Thus, creditors, customers, employees, banks, governments, and society are regarded as relevant stakeholders. Related to the above discussion, John and Senbet (1998) provide a comprehensive review of the stakeholders’ theory of corporate governance which points out the presence of many parties with competing interests in the operations of the firm. They also emphasize the role of non-market mechanisms such as the size of the board, committee structure as important to firm

As explained by Schelker (2013), the agency problem between the owners and the management of a firm is at the heart of the corporate governance literature. Hence, there is a need for a

Most of the literature on corporate governance finds its roots in agency theory the relationships normally occurs when the principal hires the agent to perform a service on the principals ' behalf. the decision making authority is delegated by the principal to the agent.However the relationship between the principal and the agent can not be as simple and smooth as it appears (Theory of Mallin, 2010).

The paper reviews three important theories in corporate governance, different theories using different terminology, and views corporate governance from different perspective. Some articles are used to support these theories in this paper. From the Cadbury Report in 1992, we can get the information that corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled, which involves a set of relationship between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders, and the objectives for which the corporation is governed. There are mainly three important theories included in corporate governance, which are agency theory, transaction cost theory and stakeholder theory, each theory views

Governance in the Oxford dictionary is defined as “control or influence”, while corporate is defined as “shared by all members of the group”. Therefore corporate governance refers to the structures and processes for the direction and control of members of a group. It is concerned with holding the balance between economic and social goals and between individual and communal goals. The governance framework is there to encourage the efficient use of resources and equally to require