The Impact Of Senior Management On Corporate Governance

People often question whether corporate boards matter because their day-today impact is difficult to observe. But, when things go wrong, they can become the center of attention. Certainly this was true of the Enron, Worldcom, and Parmalat scandals. The directors of Enron and Worldcom, in particular, were held liable for the fraud that occurred: Enron directors had to pay $168 million to investor plaintiffs, of which $13 million was out of pocket (not covered by insurance); and Worldcom directors had to pay $36 million, of which $18 million was out of pocket. As a consequence of these scandals and ongoing concerns about corporate governance, boards have been at the center of the policy

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)

While they have arrangement and discharging control over the directors of the enterprise, shareholders in expansive organizations, for example, the criminogenic Shell, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Ford Motors, La Roche-Hoffman, BHP, A.H. Robins, General Electric, Johns-Manville, James Hardie, all enterprises whose disregard and willful dismissal of surely understood norms of conduct has brought about shocking mischief, have minimal impetus to guarantee that these supervisors carry on legitimately. This happens because financial specialists who don't lawfully own the property of the company used to do any harm, they have no individual legitimate obligation regarding any such damages brought about by the misapplication of that property. The rich shareholders who are continually telling the riches less and poor people to be responsible and in charge of the route, in which they act and live, are, in law, unreliable for the (regularly detestable) behavior of their companies. It deteriorates the

In my review of A Primer on Corporate Governance by Cornelis A. de Kluyver I intend to examine, evaluate, and break down his key points. The book provides a general view on how corporations govern themselves, and the internal and external forces that effect and constrain them. The biggest external force is of course the US Government and the variety of laws and regulations imposed upon corporations. Internally, they are managed by the CEO and board of directors along with a set group of committees and corporate guidelines.

The span of control within an organization can be small, with few subordinate for manager and it can be large with big reporting groups and few supervisors.

In an attempt to downplay the extent to which corruption and fraud have penetrated to the heart of global capitalism, commentators have seized on the fact that many of Parmalat’s former top executives are related to claim that the scandal is simply a case of a “family firm” failing to adhere to good corporate governance practices. Not surprisingly, Parmalat’s top executives are going along with this story, insisting they were only acting “under orders” from the padrone. The scandal, however, has engulfed other major firms. There are the accounting firms—Grant Thornton and Deloitte and Touche, and the banks—Citicorp and Bank of America. Citicorp is directly linked to the $1.5

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 first section of this essay focuses on the possible causes of corporate failures including dominant CEO, poor strategy decision and the failure of internal control. Secondly, it discusses how the third edition of corporate governance principles and recommendations could be applied to prevent the causes of the failure. The 1st, 2nd, and 7th principles along with specific recommendations will be mentioned in this section. However, the context is concerned solely with the causes stemming from Dick Smith itself.

This case attempts to study and analyze the decisions of the Sunbeam Board of Directors (BOD) during Albert Dunlap’s stint as the Sunbeam’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). This analysis will comprise the CEO hiring and his shareholder primacy view, first year and second year CEO compensation package review and will conclude the BOD’s decision to fire the CEO. In July, 1996 Sunbeam was a dying brand, which struggled to survive in the increasingly competitive market-place and needed a savior.(case p. 2) Sunbeam’s BOD brought in Al Dunlap to turnaround this ailing firm, based on Dunlap’s proven ‘restructuring and downsizing’ track record. “For much of his career before coming to Sunbeam, Dunlap was known as the poster child of corporate restructuring (case p.1).”

Introduction: A discussion on corporate regulation and governance is of great importance in today’s economic world. A number of high profile collapses such as HIH, One Tel, Harris Scarfe, Ansett, focuses ones attention on governance issues.

There have been calls for the resignation of the CEO and Chairman due to the poor performance of the company which highlights potential issues that the board is not delivering to their strategy development through accurate systems and monitoring. Sound corporate Governance (GC)

What is the history of such organizations and how did they collapse? There were a number of factors that contributed to the firm's failure. This paper is an attempt to make an introspective analysis of select cases in retrospect to understand the pathology of failures and make a proper diagnosis for prescribing remedies.

Corporate governance is a model in which processes and relations by which corporations are controlled and directed. It can also be defined as a system of laws and authoritative approaches by which corporations are directed and controlled. This is achieved by considering the internal and external structures of the corporations. The intentions include monitoring actions of management and directors to moderate agency risks, which may be rooted in the misdeeds of corporate officers. This ensures that these risks and conflicts are prevented and moderated using policies, laws, customs, processes, and institutions that have great impacts on the way a corporation is controlled. This corporate governance has great impacts on firm performance,

Corporate governance includes all the rules, regulations, procedures and practices that guide a company in achieving their objective. Corporate Governance(CG) creates a support platform for a company’s stakeholders; the owners, the board, employees, the community and the regulators. Corporate governance policies are instituted to protect the interest of stakeholders through monitoring and controlling all management practices. Questions arise regarding the need to regulate corporate governance; if it is widely believed that good corporate governance leads to better financial performance, then firms would not need to be reminded to adopt these practices, however various recent company failures have revealed that good corporate governance practices are still lacking in many firms. The global financial crisis coupled with the fall of Enron, WorldCom and more recently the Volkswagen AG scandal in 2015 has led to high investor and society expectations regarding CG of companies.

This paper will discuss the corporation WorldCom, a telecommunications company that was based in Mississippi. In 2002 WorldCom was involved in one of the largest accounting scandals in the United States. WorldCom inflated its assets by nearly $11 billion dollars, which eventually lead to about 30,000 employees losing their jobs, as well as, 180-billion dollars in losses for its investors. The CEO at the time of this accounting fraud was Bernard Ebbers and led to him receiving a 25-year prison sentence. This paper will go into the details of how WorldCom was able to manipulate its accounting records to deceive its internal auditors, as well as, investors.