The Breakdown Of Dick Smith Electronics

Corporate governance in itself has no single definition but common principles which it should follow. For example in 1994 the most agreed term for corporate governance was “the process of supervision and control intended to ensure that the company’s management acts in accordance with the interest of shareholders” (Parkinson, 1994)1. Corporate governance code is not a direct set of rules but a self-regulated framework which businesses choose to follow. This code has continued to change in the past 20 years in accordance with what is happening in the business world. For example the Enron scandal caused reform in corporate governance with the Higgs Report which corrected the issues which were necessary. Although it does not quickly fix problems, it gives a better framework to

The fall of the Australian education Behemoth Vocation Ltd makes a good case study of corporate failure under the title of education. In the aftermath of the collapse of Vocation(Evans, 2014), I start to think about the possibility of saving the company from administration with better application of 3rd version of ASX corporate governance principles. In addition, I would like to introduce the stakeholder theory(Ruf, Muralidhar, Brown, Janney, & Paul, 2001) to analyze the case and support my argument.

Farrar, J. (2008). Corporate Governance: theories, principles and practice. 2nd ed. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press

Phenomenal growth of interest in corporate governance has emerged in recent years. The body of literature on the subject has grown markedly in response to successive waves of large corporate failures. Furthermore, there have been numerous attempts to define what constitutes ‘good corporate governance’ and to provide guidelines in order to enhance the quality of corporate governance.

To the extent of prevention of corporate failure, I argue that three ASX principles and recommendations could halt the demise of Dick Smith. Firstly, the 2nd principle which is “Structure the board to add value” by structuring the board with a majority of independent directors would prevent CEO dominance because some suggest that independent outside directors can reduce the influence of dominant individuals (ASX, 2014, p. 17). In accordance with Gallagher and Bennie (2015, p. 20), the independent directors are likely to focus on the company’s objectives and not to make decision relying on others. Furthermore, an addressing of independent directors would reduce the reliance on management, and create the effectiveness on monitoring (Dechow et al. 1996 cited in Christensen, Kent, and Stewart (2010)), as well as capability to lessen the conflict of interest between managers and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4). Thus, DSE’s board would be more active to monitor the CEO’s performances because independent directors pay attentions to the interest of company (Gallagher & Bennie, 2015, p. 20) and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4)

The article is written to help readers gain a solid understanding the roles of corporate governance, both inside and outside the company. Its goal is simply to impart information, not make claims or arguments on its own. I will be judging it mainly on the sources gathered, numerous examples and explanations given and the overall effectiveness it possesses in effectively communicating its ideas.

The good corporate governance is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), which include specific director's duties that director must follow to enhance the well practice within the

In my opinion corporate governance fails because of bad decisions made by the CEO’s, Board of Directors, Shareholders, and Top Management. “One of the many problems that defenders of America's free market system fail to address is the severe dysfunction at the top of the nation's big public companies. Cases in point include some of the biggest bankruptcies of the last decade: Lehman Brothers, General Motors, WorldCom, Enron and many more” (Cohan, 2009). Our text states that “good corporate governance means better strategic management” (Wheelen&Hunger, 2012 pg. 63) which means that corporate governance fails because of poor strategic management. “The systemic failure of corporate governance

How the latest edition (3rd) of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles plausibly halts the failure of Dick Smith Electronics will be discussed in this essay. I argue that ASX Corporate Governance Principles is one of the corporate governance practices that many listed entities in Australia should comply with in order to achieve good corporate governance preventing the collapse of corporations and increasing investors’ confidence. Regarding Dick Smith Electronics as a listed entity, it would survive and continuously operate as a biggest Australia electronic retailer if the better application of this practice is fully adopted.

The Australian Securities and Investments launched civil proceedings in the supreme court of New South Wales against James Hardies Industries, its directors and officers. It was found that each of them had failed in his duty to exercise care and diligence and breached the Corporation Act 2001.This case is considered as a landmark decision in Australia corporate governance as it sheds light on role of directors and executives when taking important matters to the board and implementing them.

Under the gold standard all national governments promised to follow the “rules of the game.” This meant defending a fixed exchange rate. What did this promise imply about a country’s money supply?

In Australia the corporate failures means the “insolvency” that a company cease its business operation(Michaela 2012, 365-366). The categories of corporate failures are six possible reasons that lead the failure of corporate(Mickelwaith 2006, 2-6). The accounting theory is a way to explain the accounting practice or prescribe how accounting should be done(Michaela 2012, 133-134). Additionally, the corporate governance was defined that the framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes can be exercised and controlled by corporate(Council 2014, 3).

Corporate governance refers to ‘the ways suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting return on their investment’ (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997: 736). Corporate governance discusses the set of systems, principles and processes by which a

The rise and fall of the Royal Bank of Scotland is characterized by poor corporate governance which allowed for the complete dominance of the executive management over the board of directors and a massive principal-agent problem. Positive social dynamics and the power of weak ties allowed for compliance while intimidation and bullying tactics silenced questions, concerns and opposition. The board’s utter compliancy and borderline negligence enabled rampant, unchecked empire-building at the cost of shareholder value and led to a spiral of unaccountability and gross incompetence. Stakeholders’ loss of confidence from misinformation and misdirection was an inevitability that sealed

Corporate governance is founded on laws, policies, processes, systems and behaviours and together they provide a system for the way in which an organisation is directed, administered and controlled. As such, the Charity Commission, (the ‘Commission’) recognises that to deliver its strategic aims, objectives and priorities successfully, it needs sound corporate governance arrangements in place, (Charity Commission UK). Corporate Governance is not - or should not be - about debate and discussion on executive compensation, shareholder protection, legislation and so on. In recent times, corporate governance became not only a subject of fierce debate and public outcry, but also, as a result of this and arising legislation, a subject which been wearisome for many company directors. The hidden gem here is to a great