corporate governance Essay

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

There are a number of people that are critical to the corporate process. These include the directors of corporations, officers, and shareholders. The primary role of the directors is that of oversight (Loewenstein, 1998). The directors are hired by the shareholders, and their duty is to oversee the actions of the corporate executive. The directors hire the CEO and set his/her salary and benefits. The directors also play a role in oversight of the strategy and operations - this tells them about the merits of the executive that they have hired. Since Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was enacted, directors have seen their oversight role expanded (Skinner, 2006). There must be within the director group some financial experience to provide explicit financial oversight of the firm. The law prescribes certain committees as well, including audit and compensation committees, and SOX has also increased the liability that director's face, while expanding the role that directors play in the firm.

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

Prior to the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, referred to herein as “SOX,” the board of directors’ pivotal role was to advise senior leaders on the organization’s strategy, business model, and succession planning (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the board had the responsibility for risk management identification and risk mitigation oversight, determining executive benefits, and approval of significant acquisitions (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, for many public organizations, audit committees existed before SOX and provided oversight of internal processes and controls. Melissa Maleske (2012) advised that the roles and responsibilities of the board were viewed “…from a perspective that the board serves management” (p. 2). In contrast, Maleske (2012) noted that SOX regulations altered the landscape “…to a perspective that management is working for the board” (p. 2). SOX expanded not only the duties of the board and the audit committee, but also the authority of these bodies (Maleske, 2012, p. 2).

ITC Ltd.’s strategy plan for compliance with the current acceptable standards or norms relative to social responsibility today is well thought out, especially for a company that sells potentially dangerous products, and try to meet and listen to all demands and laws in place since the start of their business. Even though in 2014 a new bill was passed for the majority of companies to build accountability and also have the government looking over the private sector (Banerjee, 2013). “The CSR provision requires affected companies to spend at least 2 percent of their average net profits made in the preceding three years on CSR” (Banerjee, 2013). Even though this bill has caused a lot of uproar for companies, ITC has actually already been

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘governance’ as ‘the act, manner, fact or function of governing, sway, control’. ‘To govern’ is ‘to rule with authority’, ’to exercise the function of government’, ‘to sway, rule, influence, regulate, determine’, ‘to conduct oneself in some way; curb, bridle (one’s passions, oneself)’, or ‘to constitute a law for’.

Directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and hold on to executives and have rewarded even poorly performing executives. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees. Furthermore, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company. Excessive CEO pay is essentially a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists' call "economic rents" from shareholders (Economic rent is distinct from economic profit, which is the difference between a firm's revenues and the opportunity cost of its inputs). The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these costs. At approximately two-thirds of US companies, the CEO sits as the board's chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.

It is the board's responsibility to consider and authorize a suitable remuneration package for the company's chief executive officer (CEO), make recommendations with respect to the attractiveness of dividends and dividends pay out, approve stock splits, form the audit committees, approve the company's financial statements, oversee management’s involvement in the shareholders and other stakeholders long-term interests and recommend or discourage major decisions such as acquisitions and mergers.

Most corporate financing decisions in practice reduce to a choice between debt and equity. The finance manager wishing to fund a new project, but reluctant to cut dividends or to make a rights issue, which leads to the decision of borrowing options. The issue with regards to shareholder objectives being met by the management in making financing decisions has come to become a major issue of recent times. This relates to understanding the concept of the agency problem. It deals with the separation of ownership and control of an organisation within a financial context. The financial manager can raise long-term funds internally, from the company’s cash flow, or externally, via the capital market, the market for funds

Boards members rarely have an understanding of key enterprise strategies or risks. They have no clear sense of their companies’ prospects 5 to 10 years down the road. They have limited time, lack of industry specific expertise and different definitions of success that prevent them from successfully performing

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).

At Paramount the unitary board exists, where according to the textbook, a unitary board is when a company has a single governing body (Tricker 2009). A non- executive director is defined as a person who is not involved in the day to day management of an organisation but rather in business tasks such as strategic planning, and monitoring of executive directors. An executive director tends to be more involved in the managerial aspects of the company.

Here we see a failure of the board to look at management critically. They accepted only the information presented to them by the CEO and did not demand a better picture on the state of RBS’s business in mortgage trading even while the CEO’s story seemed to constantly be changing. The board exists as a watchdog to the executive management yet nothing was done to hold the CEO accountable to the truth.

Corporate governance can be defined as the process, customs, laws by which the affairs of a company are managed and controlled it also

Corporate Governance refers to the way a corporation is governed. It is the technique by which companies are directed and managed. It means carrying the business as per the stakeholders’ desires. It is actually conducted by the board of Directors and the concerned committees for the company’s stakeholder’s benefit. It is all about balancing individual and societal goals, as well as, economic and social goals. Corporate Governance is the interaction between various participants (shareholders, board of directors, and company’s management) in shaping corporation’s performance and the way it is proceeding towards. The relationship between the owners and the managers in an organization must be healthy and there should be no conflict between the