Corporate Governance Trends Across The World - A Comparison
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Corporate & Insolvency
Published:
Updated:
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE TRENDS ACROSS THE
WORLD: A COMPARISON Aakash K & Mohammed Rohin, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
Corporate governance refers to the set of mechanisms, processes, and principles that govern the way corporations are managed and controlled. Effective corporate governance is crucial to the long-term success of any company, as it helps ensure that decision-making is transparent, accountable, and in the best interests of shareholders and other stakeholders. This dissertation paper aims to analyse the trends in corporate governance across different parts of the world, with a particular focus on how they compare to each other. The paper will cover the key aspects of corporate governance, such as board structure, shareholder rights, executive compensation, and disclosure requirements, and assess how these differ between countries and regions.
The paper will begin by providing an overview of the current state of corporate governance globally, highlighting some of the key challenges and opportunities faced by companies and regulators. It will then move on to compare and contrast the corporate governance practices in different regions of the world, including North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. In North America, the paper will examine the corporate governance practices in the United States and Canada. The paper will highlight the differences between the two countries, such as the prevalence of dual-class share structures in Canada and the greater emphasis on independent directors in the US. The paper will also analyse the impact of recent regulatory changes, such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the US, on corporate governance practices in the region.
In Europe, the paper will compare the corporate governance practices in countries such as the UK, Germany, and France. The paper will highlight the differences in board structures and shareholder rights, as well as the role of stakeholders in corporate decision-making. The paper will also examine the impact of recent regulatory developments, such as the European Union’s Shareholder Rights Directive, on corporate governance practices in the region.
In Asia, the paper will analyze the corporate governance practices in countries such as Japan, China, and India. The paper will highlight the differences in board structures and shareholder rights, as well as the role of family ownership and government influence in corporate decision-making. The paper will also examine the impact of recent regulatory developments, such as the Companies Act in India, on corporate governance practices in the region. In Africa, the paper will examine the corporate governance practices in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. The paper will highlight the challenges faced by companies in the region, such as weak legal systems and political instability, and assess how these have affected corporate governance practices.
The paper will also examine the impact of recent regulatory developments, such as the King IV Report in South Africa, on corporate governance practices in the region. Finally, the paper will draw some conclusions about the overall trends in corporate governance across the world. It will highlight some of the key similarities and differences between different regions, as well as the challenges and opportunities faced by companies and regulators. The paper will also provide some recommendations for how companies and regulators can improve corporate governance practices in the future. In conclusion, this dissertation paper will provide a comprehensive analysis of the trends in corporate governance across the world.
By comparing and contrasting the corporate governance practices in different regions, the paper will provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by companies and regulators in ensuring effective corporate governance. The paper will be of interest to academics, practitioners, and policymakers who are interested in improving corporate governance practices and promoting sustainable long-term growth. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
10. CALPERS
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
11. CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation
12. CEO
Chief Executive Officer
13. CERC
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
14. CFO
Chief Financial Officer
15. CFT
Corporate Fraud Task
16. CG
Corporate Governance
17. CII
Confederation of Indian Industries
18. CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
19. CRISIL
Credit Rating Information Services of India Limited
20. ED
Enforcement Directorate
21. EEC
European Economic Community
22. ERISA
Employee Retirement Income Security Act
23. FI
Financial Institutions
24. FICCI
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry
25. FII
Foreign Institutional Investor
26. FRC
Financial Reporting Council
27. GAAP
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
28. GATT
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
29. GDP
Gross Domestic Product
30. ICAEW
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales
31. ICAI
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
32. ICGN
International Corporate Governance Network
33. ICICI
Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India
34. ICSI
Institute of Chartered Secretaries of India
35. IDBI
Industrial Development Bank of India
36. IFC
International Finance Corporation
37. IFCI
Industrial Financial Corporation of India
38. IMF
International Monetary Fund
39. IPO
Initial Public Offering
40. IRDA
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority have shaken investor confidence. The failures of these companies have highlighted the importance of business ethics and good corporate governance practices such as transparency, ethical business practices, and upholding auditor and stakeholder interests. 1 Corporate governance is important for decision-making and other administrative activities of companies since public money and resources are being used. Corporate governance also assigns responsibilities and rights to personnel such as directors, CEOs, managers, and others and directs them to achieve the corporate mission and objectives fairly and smoothly. 2. Corporate governance has been recognized since the conception and existence of the corporate sector, but it gained more attention after the Watergate scandal.
Committees such as Cadbury, Rutterman, Hampel, and Turnbull were formed in the UK to recognize various measures for effective corporate governance, with the Cadbury Committee specifically tasked to draft a code of practices for corporations in the United Kingdom. The committee recommended various guidelines for the board of directors, including non-executive, executive, and independent directors. 3 In North America, the United States and Canada have different corporate governance practices. The US has a greater emphasis on independent directors, whereas Canada has a prevalence of dual-class share structures. Recent regulatory changes, such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the US, have had an impact on corporate governance practices in the region. Corporate governance practices differ in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.
The United Kingdom employs a unitary board structure, Germany employs a two-tier board structure, and France employs a unitary board structure with a separate supervisory board. The role of stakeholders in corporate decision-making varies throughout different nations as well. Recent statutory changes, such as the European Union's Shareholder Rights Directive, have had an influence on regional corporate governance practices. Asia, including Japan, China, and India, has distinct corporate governance practices. Family ownership and government influence play a significant role in corporate decision-making in these countries. Recent regulatory developments, such as the Companies Act in India, have had
1 A closer look at Business Education
Corporate Governance, Aspen Institute, Business Society July 2006.
2 (Mallin, 2016).
3 (Mallin, 2016)
an impact on corporate governance practices in the region. In Africa, South Africa and Nigeria have different corporate governance practices. Weak legal systems and political instability have affected corporate governance practices in the region. Recent regulatory developments, such as the King IV Report in South Africa, have had an impact on corporate governance practices in the region.4 In conclusion, corporate governance is a crucial aspect of any company, and well-defined standards are necessary to regulate it.
1.2 Concept of Corporate Governance
Corporate governance is a collection of structural, administrative, and cultural safeguards that ensure businesses are run in the long run in the best interests of their shareholders and other stakeholders. This entails a commitment to maintaining interaction with the organization and its major stakeholders. Corporate governance is defined as "the structure of relationships and corresponding responsibilities among a core group consisting of shareholders, board members, and corporate managers that are designed to foster competitive performance required to achieve the corporation's primary goal. "Corporate governance is concerned with the directors' total accountability and responsibility to key stakeholders like as employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, and the general public.
It is concerned with the methods through which corporate finance providers ensure a return on their investment. It refers to a combination of legislation, regulation, and suitable voluntary private-sector practises that allow businesses to attract financial and human resources while also respecting the interests of other stakeholders and society as a whole5Transparency, the protection and enforcement of all shareholders' rights and prerogatives, as well as directors capable of independently approving the corporation's strategy, major business plans, and decisions, are fundamental parts of good corporate governance. They are also capable of hiring management on their own, analyzing management's performance and honesty, and dismissing management as required. Corporate governance
4 Byomakesh Nayak, “Do We Need Corporate Governance Rules or self-Governance
Spirit? ”, (2009) 4 Comp LJ, 7 5 Innovative off-balance sheet financing also provides further avenues for funding, but a large proportion of such items are subject to disclosure and as such technically in the know of investors and lenders. Human ingenuity can, and does, of course find ways to beat the system, but in any case, it is noteworthy that those funds are also eventually from others. implies many things to different individuals, and there does not appear to be a single definition that neatly binds the phrase together. Corporate governance is an interdisciplinary topic that interests legislators, businesspeople, accountants, economists, and historians. In an attempt to describe corporate governance, it is defined as the mechanism within a firm that bridges the expectation gap between promised and actual results.
It appears that this definition favours business owners and shareholders while ignoring the existence of other stakeholders. business governance may be described as the distribution of power and authority to the stakeholders of a business body. According to the governance working group of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences in 1996, governance is the process by which forces society wield power and authority and influence and implement policies and choices affecting public life and economic and social progress. In India, the Kumar Mangalam Birla Committee Report noted that the fundamental purpose of corporate governance is to maximise long-term shareholder profit while protecting the interests of other stakeholders.
The Committee on Corporate Governance of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Narayanamurthy) in 2003 was even more clear in emphasising the need of include stakeholders as vital contributors to the country's success and prosperity. This is especially important in nations such as the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa, where companies have a large effect on economic growth and development. As a result, it is critical that these nations create excellent corporate governance practices to guarantee that all stakeholders' interests are appropriately protected. 67 In the United Kingdom, the Companies Act 2006 sets out the legal framework for corporate governance. It defines the roles and obligations of directors and offers a framework for corporate management.
The Act mandates directors to act in the best interests of the firm and its shareholders while also taking into account the interests of other stakeholders such as employees and the larger community. 8Similarly, in Europe, the European Union has developed a framework for corporate governance that includes legislation and voluntary codes of conduct. The business Governance Action Plan of the European Union intends to enhance openness, accountability, and long-term thinking in business decision-making. It also strives to 6 Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2003). Report of the SEBI Committee on Corporate Governance. Securities and Exchange Board of India.
7 Narayanmurthy Committee Report, Preamble, available at
http://www. sebi. gov. in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1293094958536. pdf accessed on 20 August, 2015 8 Financial Reporting Council. (2018). The UK Corporate Governance Code. Financial Reporting Council. guarantee that shareholders have a meaningful say in corporate governance and that their rights are protected. 9In Africa, corporate governance has become increasingly important as the continent seeks to attract foreign investment and promote economic growth. The African Corporate Governance Network (ACGN) was established in 2002 to promote good corporate governance practices. 10
1.3 Importance of Corporate Governance to a Country
Corporate governance has become an essential component of a country's economic infrastructure. Just as it is the government's responsibility to provide clean water and air, efficient communication, and other basic necessities to its citizens, it is also the government's responsibility to create an orderly and transparent business environment that inspires confidence and trust on the part of both domestic and international investors. According to research, foreign investors are unwilling to engage in poorly regulated enterprises in countries with limited shareholder protection and insufficient legal institutions since the expense of monitoring and getting information may be expensive.
Similarly, in countries where laws related to corporate governance are weak or poorly implemented, domestic investors may prefer to invest overseas in countries where governance standards and legal protection are perceived as more favorable, unless domestic stock returns are significantly more attractive. In the last century and a half, corporations have grown significantly, and in many cases, their assets and revenues exceed the GDP of several countries combined. However, corporations are still run by individuals, and human nature being what it is, there is a real possibility of wealth expropriation by those in operational control of the enterprise, aided by greed and apparent successful role models. It is in a country's best interest to contain such practices, but governments are often hesitant to intervene proactively in such matters.
11 Another important reason for ensuring good corporate governance is the inevitability, in the case of large corporations, of involving other people's money in financing their operations. 9 European Corporate Governance Institute. (2008). Corporate governance: An international review. Oxford University Press. 10 Amoako-Adu, B. , & Baulkaran, V. (2011). Corporate governance in Africa: A survey of African companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 241-264.
11 Firmsi Leuz, Christian, KarlV Lina and Francis E. Warnock, “Do Foreigners Invest Less
Poorly Governed Firms?”, (2006) Working Paper 12222, National Bureau of Economic Research. The study used US investments in foreign countries as a proxy for foreign investments in general.
12Equity capital and debt capital, including various hybrid forms of credit, constitute the sources of funding of any corporation. When such large proportions of money are infused into the corporate sector by people who are absentee owners and absentee lenders, a great deal of trust and public confidence is automatically brought into play. It is the duty of the state to protect and respect that confidence as the entire superstructure of the corporate edifice rests on this frail foundation. The slightest hint of erosion of that confidence can lead to disastrous consequences, such as eventual demise in the case of banks and financial institutions, and alarming downslide in the case of equity markets.
13The state's devolved responsibilities include protecting the orderly and transparent governance of the corporate sector, as well as intervening to minimize and control damages to the economy through pre-emptive bailouts, especially in the case of banks and financing institutions, in order to contain the contagion effects of entity failures. Some people consider good corporate governance to be the single most important issue, while others claim it is just one of the factors affecting corporate life. Corporate governance varies in importance in different phases of a firm's life cycle or even in an economy's development. It involves issues as diverse as corporate responsibility, who the constituents of a company are, and the standards that should govern corporate behavior.
A strong corporate governance structure is essential for the efficient use of corporate capital because it ensures that corporations consider the interests of a wide range of stakeholders, including the communities in which they operate. It fosters the trust and confidence necessary for the seamless operation of a strong market economy. A thriving market economy lowers the cost of capital and distributes wealth in the most equal way possible. 14 International capital flows enable enterprises to obtain patient capital from a much wider pool in an increasingly linked globe. Even if a company does not seek overseas funding, strong performance constantly boosts the trust of domestic investors and regulators. Governance improvements are expensive, yet failing to adopt sound governance practises has consequences that go beyond regulatory issues.
Companies who do not implement relevant governance measures will have to pay a considerable risk premium in today's public markets while vying for scarce capital. While no process can guarantee that fraud will not occur,
12 Supra note 32 at 9.
13 Id. , at 10.
14 Ananya Mukherjee, “Corporate Governance Reforms in India”, Journal of Business of
Ethics, (2002), 249 - 268 corporate governance attempts to raise the cost of committing fraud, make it more difficult by installing stringent checks and balances. 15
1.4 Objectives
of Corporate Governance around the Globe The set of rules, practices, and processes that guide and regulate a company is known as corporate governance. Its goal is to guarantee that businesses operate transparently and responsible to shareholders, workers, consumers, and society as a whole. This section of the dissertation will look at the goals of corporate governance throughout the world, with a particular emphasis on Asia, Africa, and Europe. Asia: across recent years, there has been a rising recognition across Asia of the importance of corporate governance. The Asian financial crisis of 1997 highlighted the need for better corporate governance practices to prevent future economic instability16. The objectives of corporate governance in Asia are diverse, reflecting the region's varied economic and social landscape.
Some of the key objectives include: Strengthening the role of independent directors: Independent directors are critical to ensuring that boards are impartial and that decisions are made in the best interests of shareholders. In many Asian countries, however, independent directors are not yet fully established, and there is a need to enhance their role in corporate governance17. Improving openness and disclosure: Improving transparency and disclosure is a core goal of corporate governance in Asia. This involves providing investors with timely and accurate information, as well as holding firms responsible for their activities. Enhancing shareholder rights: Corporate governance in Asia aims to enhance shareholder rights and ensure that shareholders are given a greater say in the management of companies. This
15 Kshama V Kaushik and Kaushik Dutta, “Corporate Governance Myth to Reality”, 1st ed.
2005, 1. 16 J. P Singh, “Improving the Quality of Corporate Governance in India”, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 43, No. 1, July 2007, 113.
17 Ibid.
includes measures such as proxy voting and the right to call extraordinary general meetings. 18 Africa: Corporate governance in Africa has traditionally been characterized by weak legal and regulatory frameworks, leading to a lack of accountability and transparency. The objectives of corporate governance in Africa are thus focused on improving these frameworks, as well as enhancing the role of stakeholders in corporate decision-making. Some of the key objectives include: Creating a strong legal and regulatory framework: The goal of corporate governance in Africa is to create a strong legal and regulatory framework that ensures corporations operate in a transparent and responsible way. This includes measures such as establishing independent regulatory bodies and strengthening corporate laws.
Enhancing the role of stakeholders: In many African countries, the role of stakeholders, such as employees, customers, and communities, is often overlooked in corporate decision-making. Corporate governance in Africa aims to enhance the role of these stakeholders and ensure that their interests are considered. 19 Strengthening board oversight: Corporate governance in Africa recognizes the critical role of boards in ensuring that companies are well-managed and that risks are effectively managed. As such, there is a need to strengthen board oversight and ensure that boards are independent and impartial. Europe: Europe has long been at the forefront of corporate governance, with many countries having established strong legal and regulatory frameworks.
The objectives of corporate governance in Europe are thus focused on ensuring that these frameworks are continuously improved and that companies operate in a socially responsible manner. Some of the key objectives include:
18 Ibid.
19 Lai Osoand Bello Semiu, “The Concept and Practice of Corporate Governance in
Nigeria: The Need for Public Relations and Effective Corporate Communication”, available at: http://www. krepublishers. com/02-Journals/JC/JC-03-0-000-12-Web/JC-03-1-000-12-Abst- PDF/JC-03-1-001-12-039-Oso-L/JC-03-1-001-12-039-Oso-L-Tt. pdf accessed on 13 August, 2015.
Enhancing transparency and accountability: Corporate governance in Europe aims to enhance transparency and accountability by ensuring that companies disclose relevant information in a timely and accurate manner. This includes measures such as mandatory reporting on nonfinancial issues and the establishment of whistleblowing mechanisms. Promoting social responsibility: Corporate governance in Europe recognizes that companies have a responsibility not only to their shareholders, but also to society as a whole. As such, there is a focus on promoting social responsibility and ensuring that companies operate in an ethical and sustainable manner. Strengthening shareholder rights: Corporate governance in Europe aims to strengthen shareholder rights and ensure that shareholders are given a greater say in the management of companies.
This includes measures such as the right to vote on key issues and the establishment of shareholder committees.
1. 5 Regulations and Corporate Governance
Regulations generally operate under the assumption that more information is beneficial for investors and regulators. To achieve this, regulations focus on requiring companies to disclose information about their activities to increase transparency. However, the potential implications of how this information will be used by stakeholders are often overlooked. The regulatory environment can also stifle business growth by imposing strict rules that require constant attention and compliance. As a result, companies may struggle to conduct their operations efficiently in a real-world setting20. For example, research analysts may have to hedge their analysis with caveats and disclaimers, which could render their findings useless. Even when companies voluntarily engage in good governance practices, mandatory regulations may not necessarily reward individual companies.
The regulatory environment applies uniformly to all companies in a particular sector, regardless of whether they need reforms or not. This approach raises the costs of compliance for the entire 20 A classic example of the consequences of over-regulation is the Indian public sector, which is subject to oversight of a series of agencies like the Central Vigilance Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, etc. Most major management decisions are reviewed later with the huge benefit and hindsight. This takes away the entrepreneurial and risk-taking abilities of both the management and market, rendering such entities inefficient. industry, and all users of financial markets ultimately pay the price for these reforms. While regulations are necessary, they are not the only solution to governance issues.
Other reforms, such as accounting practices, audit procedures, and reducing conflicts of interest, must be considered. According to Ira Millstein, Chairman of the OECD's Business Sector Advisory Group on Corporate Governance, legislation should be based on four principles: fairness, openness, accountability, and responsibility. 21Fairness includes the protection of shareholder rights, particularly those of minority and international shareholders, as well as the execution of contracts. Transparency is defined as the timely dissemination of adequate, clear, and comparable information about a company's financial performance, governance, and mission. The responsibility of the corporate board in providing independent supervision of management performance and keeping managers accountable to shareholders is referred to as accountability.
Responsibility guarantees that firms follow other rules and regulations that represent societal values. 22Corporate governance is ultimately determined by the collective ethics of an organization's management and boards. While regulations can help to increase compliance, voluntary adoption of good governance practices is critical. Markets respond positively to companies that engage in self-governance, but there is little evidence of such practices in recent years. Thus, more regulations may be necessary, but they should not be the only solution. 23
1. 6 Development of Corporate Governance Codes in the World
The Cadbury Committee Report from the United Kingdom was the first important work in developing a corporate governance Code. Following the late 1980s corporate excesses and failures, regulators gave corporate governance serious consideration. Following the collapse of Polly Peck, a UK conglomerate, which highlighted the failure of corporate governance in the UK, the Cadbury Committee was formed in May 1991. In December 1992, the Cadbury Committee Report (Cadbury report) suggested a code of best practise, which became essential for corporations intending to list on UK stock exchanges. The research had a considerable influence on increasing corporate governance standards in the UK, and it is seen as a
21 http://www. oecd. org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/40823806. pdf accessed
on 23 August, 2015.
22 Ibid.
23 Vasudha Joshi, “Corporate Governance
The Indian Scenario”, Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi, ed. 1, (2004), 20. predecessor of subsequent reports such as Greenbury, Hambel, and Turnbull, each of which improved a different component of the standard. The 1995 Greenbury Report focused on executive compensation and presented suggestions to curb high levels of executive income. The report advocated for increased openness and accountability in determining executive compensation, and it suggested that executive directors' pay be linked to the company's success. 24 The Hambro Report of 1998 examined the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors and recommended that they be appointed for a term of no more than six years.
The study also suggested that non-executive directors be given better access to corporate information as well as more assistance and training to help them perform their duties more successfully. The Turnbull Report of 1999 focused on internal control and risk management, making suggestions to improve the performance of listed firms' internal control systems. According to the research, organizations should have an internal audit role, and the board should examine the efficacy of internal control systems on a regular basis. 25The Financial Reporting Council, which succeeds and replaces the Combined Code of 1998, adopted a combined code in July 2003, following substantial examinations of the role and efficacy of non-executive directors and audit committees, among other things.
The updated code tries to unify diverse publications and legislation on the issue, incorporating the Cadbury and Greenbury studies as well as portions of the Higgs report. 26The Higgs Report of 2003 examined the function and efficacy of non-executive directors and advised that the chair of the board be independent from the CEO and that the role of non-executive directors be reinforced. The study also suggested that the board's nominating committee be in charge of appointing directors. 27 The revised code provides guidance on complying with the Turnbull Committee provisions on internal control and the Smith Group provisions on audit committees and the auditor. The updated law uses the 'comply or explain' method and gives the board a major role in business governance rather than management, as typical trade corporations in the United Kingdom do. 24 Greenbury, R. (1995).
Directors' Remuneration: Report of a Study Group Chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. London: Gee & Co. Ltd. 25 Turnbull, N. (1999). Internal Control: Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. 26 Financial Reporting Council. (2003). Combined Code on Corporate Governance. London: Financial Reporting Council. 27 Higgs, D. (2003). Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors. London: Gee & Co. Ltd.
It strives to increase board effectiveness and investor trust by increasing corporate governance standards. Smaller businesses are given exemptions from complying with the standards, recognising that not all provisions will be proportionate or relevant to them. 28 The key impacts on firms as a result of this Code are: (i) increased board size, more transparent and rigorous procedures for director appointment. (ii) Expanding the chairman's function in many more areas and cementing the distinction of the duties of chairman and CEO. (iii) Non-executive directors will be obliged to devote more time and effort, and boards' structure and performance will be evaluated formally. (iv) Increased legal responsibility and significant reputational harm for non-executive directors.
(v) Increased the audit committee's responsibility in analysing financial performance and maintaining auditor independence. In late 2000 and early 2001, a series of accounting scandals rocked the US capital markets. These scandals had far-reaching consequences, impacting the lives of many ordinary US investors and sending shockwaves across the entire globe. Some of the biggest accounting scandals in recent times were uncovered, including Enron29, WorldCom30, and Tyco31, which resulted in significant losses for investors and employees alike. These scandals were caused by various factors, including weak corporate governance structures, a lack of accountability, and a lack of transparency in financial reporting. Investors had lost faith in the system, and it was clear that something needed to be done to restore investor confidence in capital markets.
In response to these scandals, there was a clamoring for the US government to take action. In July 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed into law. Very few laws have had such a wide-ranging and far-reaching impact on public accounting, financial disclosure, and general corporate governance as this law.
28 Sir Robert Smith, Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance (2003).
29 In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. , 235 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S. D. Tex. 2002).
30 In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig. , 294 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S. D. N. Y. 2003).
31 re Tyco Int'l, Ltd. Sec. Litig. , 253 F. Supp. 2d 610 (D. N. H. 2003).
SOX has a significant impact on the business sector, particularly because it incorporates some of the most stringent corporate governance standards in the world. Furthermore, to police the accounting industry, a new body called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has been established, and this body, along with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is responsible for interpreting the provisions of this Act. 32 SOX is primarily concerned with directors and the top management team. For example, it requires management to make a declaration of responsibility for creating and maintaining internal controls and financial reporting systems. A declaration describing the efficacy of such internal controls is also necessary.
Furthermore, the CEO and CFO must sign off on any financial statements issued by the company, and external auditors must provide a certificate attesting to managerial assertions. SOX also demands the publication of a code of conduct for the company's top financial officers, severe independence standards for directors, and a description of a financial expert on audit committees, as well as the identity of such an expert. The law also places strict conditions on loans to directors. Critics of SOX argue that many of the requirements were already in place, sometimes by regulation and sometimes by convention. They ask whether these were not required earlier and whether finance executives could lie and cheat on their way to stock market glory. However, SOX has done a lot of good in raising standards of honesty in the corporate world.
Because the penalties are so stiff and reputation risk so high, companies and executives tend to go the extra mile in ensuring that they run a clean ship. Implementation of the SOX provisions is likely to be a one-time cost. Once the compliance structures are in place, the costs are expected to plateau, much the same as with other laws. The compliance costs of SOX are not insignificant, but they are not as high as some critics have claimed. The benefits of the law are expected to outweigh the costs over the long term. The Cadbury Committee Report of December 1992 recommended a code of best practice in the United Kingdom, which became mandatory for firms intending to list on UK stock exchanges.
The study had a significant impact on strengthening corporate governance standards in the United Kingdom, and it is seen as a predecessor of following reports such as Greenbury, Hambel, and Turnbull, each of which enhanced a different aspect of the standard. 33The
32 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 17 C. F. R. pt. 200 (2003).
33 Cadbury, A. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance: The Code of Best Practice. London: Gee & Co. Ltd.
Financial Reporting Council, which follows and replaces the Combined Code of 1998, established a combined code in July 2003, following extensive reviews of the function and efficacy of non-executive directors and audit committees, among other things. The new code aims to integrate disparate research and laws on the subject by including elements from the Cadbury and Greenbury investigations, as well as the Higgs report. And further the code gives recommendations on how to comply with the Turnbull Committee and Smith Group reports' rules on internal control and audit committees. In contrast to the conventional management-centric strategy of UK trading businesses, the updated code emphasizes the importance of the board's fundamental role in the company's governance. The updated law intends to increase board effectiveness and investor trust by increasing corporate governance requirements.
It includes allowances for smaller businesses, acknowledging that not all requirements will be proportionate or relevant to them. The key changes brought about by the updated code include an increase in board size, more transparent and rigorous processes for appointing directors, an expansion of the chairman's participation in many more areas, and a strengthening of the separation of the responsibilities of chairman and chief executive. Non-executive directors will be obliged to devote more time and effort, and boards' structure and performance will be evaluated formally. The revised code further increases the legal risk and potential reputational loss for non-executive directors. In addition, the audit committee's responsibility in analyzing financial performance and supporting auditor independence is expanded.
Late in 2000 and early in 2001, the United States' financial markets were rocked by some of the most significant accounting scandals in recent history, disrupting the lives of many ordinary US investors and sending shockwaves throughout the world. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was introduced in response to a clamoring for the US government to restore investor confidence in capital markets. Few laws have had such a wideranging and far-reaching impact on public accounting, financial disclosure, and general corporate governance than this law. SOX, which became legislation in July 2002, had a significant impact on the business sector, particularly because it incorporates some of the strictest corporate governance regulations in the world. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established to oversee the accounting industry.
This institution is in responsibility of interpreting the Act's obligations, together with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SOX focuses particularly on directors and the senior management team. It requires management, for example, to make a statement of responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal controls and procedures for financial reporting, as well as a statement about the effectiveness of such internal controls, and it requires the CEO and CFO to sign off on any financials issued by the company. SOX also requires a certificate from external auditors attesting managerial assertions, disclosure of a code of ethics for the company's senior financial officers, stringent independence norms for directors, definition of financial expert on audit committees, and requiring companies to disclose the name of such expert, and strict conditions on loans to directors.
Some skeptics ask whether these provisions were not required earlier and whether finance executives could lie and cheat on their way to stock market glory, SOX has done a lot of good in raising standards of honesty in the corporate world. The penalties are so stiff, and reputation risk is so high that companies and executives tend to go the extra mile in ensuring that they run a clean ship. The implementation of SOX provisions is likely to be a onetime cost. Once the compliance structures are in place, the costs are expected to plateau, much the same as with other laws. In addition to the Cadbury and SOX frameworks, there are various additional models and standards for corporate governance, such as the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, the King Code of Corporate Governance, and the Global Reporting Initiative standards34.
The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance are widely regarded as a worldwide standard for corporate governance, emphasising openness, accountability, and shareholder rights protection. The principles address a wide variety of topics, including the role of shareholders in corporate governance, equitable shareholder treatment, board obligations, and disclosure and openness35. The King Code of 2009 The King Code of 2009 (King III) is a comprehensive corporate governance code that was introduced in South Africa in 2009. It builds on the earlier King I and King II codes, which
34 Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016).
35 OECD, Principles of Corporate Governance (2004).
were introduced in 1994 and 2002, respectively. King III was created in response to the global financial crisis of 2008, which highlighted the importance of strong corporate governance in preventing corporate failures. The ideals of openness, accountability, justice, and responsibility underpin the King III code. It emphasizes the need of corporations adopting a stakeholder-inclusive approach to corporate governance that considers the interests of all stakeholders, including shareholders, workers, customers, suppliers, and the broader community. The King III code provides guidelines for the structure and composition of boards, the role and responsibilities of directors, the management of risk, the protection of shareholder rights, the disclosure of information, and the ethical conduct of companies.
It also includes specific recommendations for sustainable development, which emphasize the importance of environmental and social responsibility. One of the key features of the King III code is the requirement for companies to conduct regular assessments of their own corporate governance practices. This helps companies to identify areas where they may need to improve and to develop strategies for implementing these improvements. Another significant aspect of the King III code is the notion of "apply or explain. " Companies are expected to follow the code's guidelines, but if they do not, they must explain why. This contributes to the promotion of openness and accountability in corporate governance. The King III code has been widely embraced by South African corporations and is credited with enhancing corporate governance practices in the country.
It has also had considerable impact in other regions of the world, serving as a model for corporate governance regulations in other nations. The King IV code of 2016 The King IV code of 2016 is the latest version of the King code, and was introduced in South Africa in November 2016. Like its predecessors, King IV is a voluntary code that provides guidelines for corporate governance practices in South Africa. King IV builds on the principles and recommendations of King III, but also includes new and updated guidance on a range of issues, including the role of technology in corporate governance, integrated reporting, and the role of stakeholders in corporate governance. One of the key features of King IV is its focus on the sustainability of companies.
The code emphasizes the need for companies to take a long- term view of their operations and to consider the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their activities. Another important feature of King IV is its recognition of the importance of technology in corporate governance. The code encourages companies to embrace technology and to use it to enhance transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. In addition, King IV emphasizes integrated reporting, which entails disclosing information on a company's financial performance as well as its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices in a single report. This contributes to a more complete view of a company's activities and their influence on society and the environment.
The King IV code has been highly accepted by the South African business sector, and is viewed as a significant step forward in encouraging good corporate governance practices in the country. It has also had considerable impact in other regions of the world, serving as a model for corporate governance regulations in other nations.
1.7 Research Objectives
1. To examine the different corporate governance practices and frameworks in Asia, Africa,
Europe, and America and compare them with each other to identify similarities and differences.
2. To assess the impact of corporate governance on firm performance in Asia, Africa, Europe, and
America by analyzing the financial data of companies in different regions.
3. To explore the role of government regulations and laws in promoting good corporate
governance practices in Asia, Africa, Europe, and America and to identify the gaps in the current legal framework.
4. To investigate the influence of cultural factors on corporate governance practices in Asia,
Africa, Europe, and America and how they affect the relationship between stakeholders and the firm.
5. To identify the best corporate governance practices and frameworks from Asia, Africa, Europe,
and America and provide recommendations for improving corporate governance in other regions based on these practices.
1.8 Scope
and Limitation The scope of this dissertation paper is to conduct a comparative study of corporate governance practices across different regions of the world, including Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. The paper aims to identify the best corporate governance practices from each region and provide recommendations for improving corporate governance in other regions based on these practices. The dissertation will involve a comprehensive review of relevant literature on corporate governance, an analysis of financial data from companies in each region, and an examination of the role of government regulations and cultural factors in shaping corporate governance practices in these regions. This dissertation paper may have some limitations, including the availability of financial data and the completeness of the literature review.
The study may also be limited by the language barriers and differences in data collection methods across different regions. Additionally, the research may be constrained by the subjectivity of the data analysis and the complexity of comparing corporate governance practices across different cultures and legal systems. Finally, the scope of this study may not cover all the aspects of corporate governance and may focus on a specific set of practices, which may not be representative of the broader range of practices in each region. Further, the Dissertation is limited to the jurisdictions of Asia, America, Europe and Africa.
2.1 Emerging Trends and Issues
Corporate governance refers to the collection of principles, regulations, and practises that regulate how an organization is administered and controlled. It is the process by which businesses are directed and managed while keeping numerous stakeholders in mind, such as shareholders, workers, consumers, suppliers, and the greater community. Corporate governance has been practiced for centuries, with the first instance of a business being administered by a board of directors dating back to the 1600s. However, it was not until the 20th century that the concept of corporate governance began to take shape in its current form. In the early years of nurturing the concept of corporate governance, this concept of law also saw its branches coming out.
For a long time, the focus was solely on the role of the "Board of Directors," but now the system of corporate governance has broadened its scope to include management, the secondary market, institutional investors, other stakeholders, particularly employees, whistleblower policy, and the most recent addition, corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility. Corporate governance has grown in importance in recent years as a result of a series of highprofile corporate crises highlighting the need for more accountability and transparency in the business sector. The collapse of Enron and WorldCom in the early 2000s brought corporate governance to the forefront of public attention and led to the introduction of a number of new regulations and standards aimed at improving corporate governance practices. 36The engagement of the Board of Directors in corporate governance is crucial.
The board of directors is in charge of overseeing management and ensuring that the company is run in the best interests of its stakeholders. The board is also in charge of developing the company's strategy and ensuring that it is consistent with the organization's overall aims and objectives. 37The issue of poor governance is one of the most significant issues that the Board of Directors faces in corporate governance. The philosophers proposed 'independence' of directors as a solution to the problem of poor governance. Later finding the independent directors without the specialized knowledge handicapped in the case of proper monitoring; the independent people with specialized knowledge of financial accounts were asked to be preferred over others for the bare minimum number.
This was necessitated with the formation of special committees called the Audit Committee constituting of Directors to look over the auditing system of the company is in line with the standard accounting practices. The real scrutiny is possible only by a financially literate person. 38To ensure that the Board of Directors is fulfilling its responsibilities, a number of different committees have been established. The Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing the company's financial reporting and internal controls, while the Remuneration Committee is responsible for setting executive compensation. The Nomination Committee is responsible for identifying and recruiting new board members. These committees ensure that the work of the directors, especially the independent directors, is like a watchdog in the best interests of the stakeholders.
39The emphasis on financial and other liability disclosure has been prominent in the near past, as the main reason for the major corporate failures has been embezzlement in their financial statements. The emphasis on the whistle-blower policy, which is gaining momentum each year, though still most of the nation's system does not provide the desired level of protection to whistle-blowers, yet the growing emphasis on the same is a good sign. 40emerging perception of corporate governance rating Credit Rating Agencies is also picking up, giving the corporations a constant evaluator for their performance. Further the stress is on Scrutiny of Media especially the financial press has been suggested in India by the Narayan 36 John C. Coffee Jr. , The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 1618, 1632-33 (1989).
37 Michael Useem, The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U. S. and U. K. , 14 Bus. Hist. 1, 6 (1972).
38 Ibid
39 Andrew J. Sherman, Raising Capital (2017).
40 John C. Coffee Jr. , supra note 3.
Murthy Committee (2003) to ensure that the true picture must be shown by media on the corporate affairs as they are the major sources of information to the general public. 41The latest addition to the construction of corporate governance is the concept of 'Corporate Social Responsibility' (CSR).
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine developments in corporate governance in various regions of the world. The research examines and contrasts corporate governance practises around the globe, including North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The report also evaluates and compares major components of corporate governance, such as board structure, shareholder rights, CEO remuneration, and transparency standards, across nations and regions.
3.2 Research Design
The research design adopted for this study is a doctrinal approach that aims to analyze and compare the corporate governance practices in different regions of the world. The study uses a comparative research design to evaluate the similarities and differences between corporate governance practices in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
3.3 Data Collection
The data for this study is collected from various sources, including academic journals, research papers, reports, and websites. The research uses both qualitative and quantitative data to analyze the trends in corporate governance across the world. The qualitative data is collected through a review of existing literature on corporate governance practices across different regions of the world. The literature review helps to identify the key aspects of corporate governance, such as board structure, shareholder rights, executive compensation, and disclosure requirements, and assesses how these differ between countries and regions. The quantitative data is collected through a survey of corporate governance practices across different regions of the world. The survey is conducted using a questionnaire that is sent to a sample of companies operating in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The survey helps to gather information on the corporate governance practices adopted by companies in different regions of the world. 41 Richard M. Steinberg, The Role of Corporate Culture in the Enron Debacle, 32 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, 12-14 (2007).
3.4 Data Analysis
The data collected for this study is analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative data is analyzed through a thematic analysis approach that aims to identify and categorize the key themes that emerge from the literature review. The quantitative data is analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify the key trends in corporate governance practices across different regions of the world. The survey data is also analyzed using inferential statistics to test the hypotheses developed for this study.
3.5 Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are developed for this study:
1. The corporate governance practices in North America are different from those in Europe, Asia,
and Africa.
2. The board structure, shareholder rights, executive compensation, and disclosure requirements
vary between countries and regions.
3. The regulatory developments have an impact on corporate governance practices in different
regions of the world.
4. Companies in different regions of the world face different challenges in implementing effective
corporate governance practices.
3.6 Conclusion
This research methodology chapter provides a doctrinal approach to analysing and comparing developments in corporate governance practises around the globe. The research design used for this study is a comparative research design that compares and contrasts corporate governance practises in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. This study's data was gathered from a variety of sources, including academic publications, research papers, reports, and websites. Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are used to analyse the data. Inferential statistics will be used to test the hypotheses produced for this investigation.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Corporate governance is a concept that is not limited to any particular region or country. It is a universal concern that is essential for the smooth functioning of any company, regardless of its location. However, the approach to corporate governance may vary depending on the region's cultural and regulatory environment. In this chapter, we will examine the current trends and issues in corporate governance in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America.
4.1 Corporate Governance Trends in Europe
Focus on Shareholder Engagement: In recent years, European companies have been focusing on engaging with shareholders more actively. Many companies are adopting practices such as regular shareholder meetings and increased communication to ensure that shareholder interests are aligned with those of the company. Increased Diversity on Boards: European companies have been working towards increasing the diversity on their boards. There has been a focus on appointing more women, minorities, and younger directors to bring in fresh perspectives and ideas to the boardroom.42 Greater Emphasis on Sustainability: European companies are increasingly focusing on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. There is a growing recognition that companies need to consider their impact on the environment and society while ensuring long-term shareholder value.
4.2 Corporate Governance Trends in Africa
Focus on Anti-Corruption Measures: In many African countries, corruption has been a major issue in corporate governance. To address this issue, there has been a focus on implementing anti-corruption measures such as strengthening regulatory frameworks and increasing transparency. Increased Transparency and Accountability: African companies are increasingly focusing on improving transparency and accountability to stakeholders. This includes increased reporting and disclosure requirements and greater engagement with shareholders and other 42 Birkmose, H. , & Rose, C. (Eds. ). (2018). Comparative corporate governance: A regional analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing. stakeholders43. Strengthening Board Independence: African companies have been working towards strengthening the independence of their boards.
This includes appointing more independent directors, ensuring that board members have the necessary skills and expertise, and establishing board committees to oversee specific areas such as audit and remuneration. Emphasis on Local Content: Many African countries have been placing an emphasis on local content in corporate governance. This includes ensuring that companies employ and train local workers, use local suppliers and contractors, and contribute to the development of local communities.
4.3 Corporate Governance Trends in Asia
Increased Role of Independent Directors: In many Asian countries, there has been a growing emphasis on the role of independent directors in corporate governance. This includes ensuring that independent directors have the necessary skills and expertise to oversee the company's operations and to provide effective oversight of management. Focus on Risk Management: Asian companies are increasingly focusing on risk management as part of their corporate governance practices. This includes identifying and assessing risks, developing risk management strategies, and ensuring that the board is regularly updated on the company's risk profile. Emphasis on Stakeholder Engagement: Asian companies are placing an increasing emphasis on engaging with stakeholders.
This includes regular communication with shareholders, customers, and employees, and ensuring that their interests are aligned with those of the company. 44 Adoption of International Standards: To strengthen their corporate governance practises, several Asian nations have adopted international standards such as the OECD Principles of Corporate 43 Okoye, I. , Idowu, S. O. , & Amaeshi, K. M. (Eds. ). (2018). Corporate social responsibility in sub-Saharan Africa: Sustainable development in its embryonic form. Springer. 44 Rediker, K. J. , & Seth, A. (Eds. ). (2016). The handbook of board governance: A comprehensive guide for public, private, and not-for-profit board members. John Wiley & Sons.
Governance and the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. 45
4. 4 Corporate Governance Trends in America:
Focus on Shareholder Rights: In America, there has been a focus on shareholder rights in recent years. This includes increased shareholder activism, the adoption of proxy access, and the use of say-on-pay votes to provide shareholders with a greater say in executive compensation. Emphasis on Board Diversity: American companies have been working towards increasing board diversity in recent years. The push for diversity on boards has been driven by several factors, including pressure from investors, changing demographics, and the need for a broader range of perspectives in decision-making. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a new rule in 2020 requiring companies to disclose the diversity of their boards, including gender, race, and ethnicity. This move was aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in the corporate world.
Many companies have responded by increasing their efforts to diversify their boards. Many African companies are working to address the challenges of poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation through initiatives such as community development programs and sustainable agriculture practices. In Asia, the trend towards more accountable and transparent corporate governance is growing, driven in part by the increasing presence of foreign investors. In countries such as Japan, there has been a push for greater shareholder activism and increased accountability for corporate decision-making. Another trend in Asia is the rise of family-owned businesses, which are a significant portion of the region's economy. Corporate governance in family-owned businesses can be more challenging than in publicly traded companies, as there are often competing interests and potential conflicts of interest.
However, many family-owned businesses in Asia are working to adopt best practices in corporate governance to ensure longterm success and sustainability. 46In conclusion, corporate governance trends vary across different regions of the world, driven by a range of factors including regulation, investor pressure, and cultural norms. However, there are some common themes, including a focus on board diversity, ESG factors, and transparency and accountability. As the global business
45 OECD. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. OECD Publishing.
46 Hansmann, H. , & Pargendler, M. (2013). The evolution of shareholder voting rights: Separation of ownership and consumption. Yale Journal on Regulation, 30(3), 337-404. landscape continues to evolve, companies must prioritize effective corporate governance practices to ensure long-term success and sustainable growth.
5. CONCLUSION,
SCOPE
AND FURTHER WORK Corporate governance practices are constantly evolving across the world with a focus on transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. In Asia, countries such as Japan, South Korea, and China have been making strides in improving their corporate governance practices. Japan, for instance, has introduced a stewardship code and a corporate governance code to encourage institutional investors to engage with companies on governance issues. South Korea has also implemented a stewardship code, as well as strengthened the role of independent directors and established a new stock exchange specifically for startups. Meanwhile, China has been introducing new regulations to improve transparency, strengthen shareholder rights, and crack down on corporate misconduct.
North America, particularly the United States and Canada, have unique corporate governance practices that are influenced by their legal systems, regulatory reforms, and corporate scandals. In response to corporate scandals, regulatory changes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the CSA's new dual-class share structure rules have had a significant impact on regional corporate governance practises, resulting in increased transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. In Europe, there are significant differences in corporate governance practices across countries, but also some common themes and trends, such as the importance of independent directors, shareholder rights, and ESG considerations.
Recent legal changes, such as the European Union's Shareholder Rights Directive, have had a considerable influence on regional corporate governance practises and are expected to determine the future of corporate governance in Europe and beyond. It is important for companies and investors to stay informed and engaged, and to embrace best practices and principles of good corporate governance. In Africa, corporate governance practices face unique challenges due to cultural norms, political instability, and the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement. However, there have been some notable improvements in recent years, with regulatory developments such as the King IV Report in South Africa and the SEC's code of corporate governance in Nigeria having a positive impact. But, there is a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure that companies comply with these standards.
Corporate governance practices in Asia, particularly in emerging markets such as India and Southeast Asia, have been gaining momentum in recent years. India has made significant progress in improving its corporate governance practices, but there is still room for improvement in terms of promoting transparency, accountability, and shareholder rights. In Southeast Asia, countries such as Singapore and Malaysia have been implementing new regulations to improve corporate governance practices, such as strengthening the role of independent directors and enhancing shareholder rights. Overall, corporate governance practices will continue to evolve in response to new challenges and opportunities, such as the increasing importance of sustainability and the rise of new technologies.
It is essential for companies, investors, and regulators to keep pace with these changes and work together to create a more stable and sustainable business environment that benefits all stakeholders, including investors, employees, and the wider community. By embracing best practices and principles of good corporate governance, companies can enhance their long-term value creation, attract investment, and build trust with stakeholders.
REFERENCES
1. John A. Boatright, "Ethics in Finance", 2014, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 3rd edition,
Chapter 7, Page 137.
2. Dan Dalton, Catherine M. Daily, John L. Johnson, and James R. Ellstrand, "Number of
Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis", 1998, Academy of Management Journal, Volume 41, Issue 2, Page 197.
3. Sanjay Anand, "Corporate Governance and Business Ethics", 2017, Routledge, London,
Chapter 5, Page 87.
4. Ruth V. Aguilera and Cynthia A. Williams, "Convergence and Diversity in Corporate
Governance Regimes and Capital Markets", 2007, Academy of Management Review, Volume 32, Issue 1, Page 8.
5 Marc Goergen, "International Differences in Corporate Governance Practices
The Evidence from the BRIICS", 2017, European Journal of Finance, Volume 23, Issue 7-9, Page 593.
6 Yasser Alhenawi, "Corporate Governance in Saudi Arabia
An Overview", 2018, Palgrave Macmillan, London, Chapter 5, Page 88.
7. Marleen Willekens and Frank Verbeeten, "Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility:
Evidence from Europe", 2018, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 149, Issue 2, Page 411.
8 Shann Turnbull, "Corporate Governance Failures
The Role of Institutional Investors in the Global Financial Crisis", 2011, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, Chapter 8, Page 117.
9. Jeffrey N. Gordon and Mark J. Roe, "Understanding and Implementing the Corporate Duty to
Monitor: Lessons from the WorldCom Inc. Litigation", 2004, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 29, Issue 2, Page 377.
10. Akin O. Akinbote and Olumuyiwa G. Owolabi, "Corporate Governance and Firm Performance:
Evidence from Nigeria", 2018, Journal of African Business, Volume 19, Issue 2, Page 260.