Jump to content

Talk:Corporate governance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Organizations

I deleted the Organizations section because the Organizations listed were already cited in the References/ Links section.

The user who added the Organizations section should create a Wikipedia entry for each Organization mentioned because, as someone has pointed out, this entry is getting too long. Those organizations may be involved in corporate governance but they do not help the entry. If you expand on 10 organizations, this is an unhealthy case of bias. Why choose these organizations to represent corporate governance of any country? That's why it's more appropriate they are mentioned in the References section but anything longer than that deserves an own entry.

203.217.78.72 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous

Insert non-formatted text hereCopied from other page now a redirect (by 194.154.129.7) Mark Richards 23:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The modern trend of developing corporate governance standards and codes of best practice began in the early 1990’s in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada in response to numerous problems, misdoings and scandals in the corporate performance of leading public companies of these countries, caused, among other reasons, by a lack of effective control mechanisms over management. The first documents published in this area, including the Cadbury Report in the U.K., the General Motors Board of Directors Guidelines in the U.S., and the Dey Report in Canada, have each proved influential sources for similar documents in other countries. Over the past decade, good corporate governance principles and codes have been developed in different countries and issued from stock exchanges, corporations, institutional investors, or associations (institutes) of directors and managers with the support of governments and international organizations. As a rule, compliance with these governance recommendations is not mandated by law, although the codes linked to stock exchange listing requirements may have a coercive effect. For example, companies quoted on the London and Toronto Stock Exchanges formally need not follow the recommendations of their respective national codes. However, they must disclose whether they follow the recommendations in those documents and, where not, they should provide explanations concerning divergent practices. Such disclosure requirements exert a significant pressure on listed companies for compliance.

In contrast, the guidelines issued by associations of directors, corporate managers and individual companies tend to be wholly voluntary. For example, The GM Board Guidelines reflect the company’s efforts to improve its own governance capacity. Such documents, however, may have a wider multiplying effect prompting other companies to adopt similar documents and standards of best practice.

Corporate governance issues are receiving greater attention in both developed and developing countries as a result of the increasing recognition that a firm’s corporate governance affects both its economic performance and its ability to access long-term, low-cost investment capital.

According to the definition offered by the Cadbury Report, corporate governance is a system by which business corporations are directed and controlled. The corporate governance structure specifies the relations, and the distribution of rights and responsibilities, among primarily three groups of participants – the board of directors, managers, and shareholders. This system spells out the rules and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs, it also provides the structure through which the company objectives are set, as well as the means of attaining and monitoring the performance those objectives. The fundamental concern of corporate governance is to ensure the conditions whereby a firm’s directors and managers act in the interests of the firm and its shareholders, and to ensure the means by which managers are held accountable to capital providers for the use of assets.

Snore

The above three paragraphs really put me to sleep. If someone has had their No-Doz and sees any good info there, let's put it into the article. NuclearWinner 03:14, 14 December 2004 (UTC)

Forget it. Copyvio from a Russian site. Mikkalai 06:19, 14 December 2004 (UTC)
And half of the article itself, b.t.w.Mikkalai

Is this article getting too long?

The article seems to be getting a bit too lengthy and is becoming hard to manage. Any ideas on how it could be divided up? --Yu Ninjie 06:37, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. There are repetitions, unparalelism and not very niteresting paragraphs. Rodrigoleite 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As a general Wiki rule, I think histories of topics, if greater than a third of a page should be separately broken out. Comments? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a great new paper by Stuart L. Gillan "Recent Developments in Corporate Governance: An Overview" which gives a nice overview of the current Corporate Governance domain and how to divide it. It is downloadable via the sciencedirect website if you have a subscription to the Elsevier scientific magazine. It's in the Journal of Corporate finance 12.

If you want to divide the article, there is always the possibility of opening up a new article called "Good Corporate Governance", I've seen quite a few parts that could fit in there. You could also add references to optimal board size as defined in some scientific articles.

128.84.178.76

slashing of the dividend at International Flavors and Fragrances

Aren't we getting a little personal? How does slashing a dividend (which hundreds of corporations do every year) rate with criminal malfeasance? Is any of the major players at IFF indicted for anything?

In the grand scheme of things, how important is this? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion on 6 September and replaced with Spanish version

A user deleted the English version and replaced with the Spanish verison. Knowing some Spanish, it is CG but as this is the English version I've reverted it to the previous version. Below is the Spanish version as it appeared:

Corporate governance es el conjunto de procesos, políticas leyes e instituciones que afectan la manera en cómo la corporación es dirigida, administrada o controlada. Corporate Governance también incluye las relaciones entre los distintos actores involucrados y las metas por las que la corporación es gobernada. Los involucrados son : accionistas, directivos, también se incluyen los empleados, proveedores, clientes, bancos u otros prestamistas, reguladores, el ambiente y la comunidad en general.

Corporate governance está relacionada con "Accountability" y un estándar estricto de comportamiento, escencialmente para la implementación de lineamientos y mecanismos para asegurar el buen comportamiento y para proteger a los accionistas.

"Accountability" es ser responsable solidario, es decir, la obligación de aceptar las consecuencias del fracaso en cuanto al desempeño esperado.

Reglas reelevantes incluye leyes aplicables del país, así como reglas internas dela coorporación. Sistemas y procesos que están relacionados con asuntos como delegación de autoridad.

La estructura del gobierno corporativo especifica en detalle las reglas y procedimientos para la toma de decisiones en los negocios corporativos. Provee la estructura por medio de la cual la compañía fija sus objetivos, así como el logro y monitoreo del desempeño de los mismos objetivos.

Gobierno Corporativo es el mecanismo por el que los individuos son motivados para alinear su comportamientos con el de todos los participantes. Contents [hide] 

   * 1 Principles
   * 2 Mecanismos y controles
         o 2.1 Controles Internos del gobierno corporativo
         o 2.2 Controles Externos al gobierno corporativo
   * 3 Role de el contador

[edit]

Principles

Los elementos clave para un buen gobierno corporativo incluyen, la honestidad, confianza e integridad, apertura, orientación de desempeño, responsabilidad y accontability, respeto mutuo, y compromiso con la organización. 

   * Integridad y comportamiento ético: La organización debe desarrollar un código de conducta para los directores y ejectuvos que promueva la toma de decisiones ética y responsable.

   * Disclosure and transparency: El proceso de revelar, hacer públicos los roles y responsabilidades para proveer a los accionistas un alto grado de accountability. Con esto se mantiene la integridad de los reportes financieros. La revelación de hechos materiales concernientes a la organización debe puntualmente balanceada para asegurar que todos los inversionistas tengan acceso a información clara.

Asuntos que cubre el corporate gobernance: 

   * vigilancia de la preparación de los estados financieros
   * controles internos y la independencia de los auditores
   * revisión de compensación para altos ejecutivos
   * la forma en cómo los individuos son nominados a posiciones en los consejos
   * los recursos a disponibilidad de los directores para llevar a cabo sus tareas
   * vigilar y administrar el riesgo
   * políticas de dividendos

[edit]

Mecanismos y controles

Los mecanismos y controles del corporate governance están diseñados para reducir las ineficiencias que provienen de la moral y selección adversa. Por ejemplo, monitorear el comportamiento de los gerentes, un ente independiente que certifique la exactitud de la información que los directores proveen a los accionistas. [edit]

Controles Internos del gobierno corporativo

Monitorea las actividades y las acciones correctivas para lograr las metas de la organización. [edit]

Controles Externos al gobierno corporativo 

   * deudores
   * auditores externos
   * regulaciones gubernamentales
   * presión de los medios
   * takeovers
   * competencia
   * mercado laboral directivo

[edit]

Role de el contador

El reporteo financiero es un elemento crucial para el funcionamiento efectivo del gobierno. Contadores y auditores son los principales proveedores de información a los participantes en el mercado de capitales. Los directores a título de la compañía esperan que se prepare la información financiera dando cumplimiento con los estatudos y obligaciones éticas, y se ponen en manos de los auditores competentes.

Un área de preocupación es si la firma contable audita y hace consultoría. Esto resulta en conflicto de interés que pone en duda los reportes financieros. El poder del cliente corporativo para iniciar y terminar la consultoría de servicios y más aún, seleccionar y despedir firmas contables contradice el concepto de un auditor independiente.

El colapso de Enron es un ejemplo de un acto tendensioso para llevar los reportes financieros a un error. Enron tuvo grandes pérdidas por crear ilusiones de que un tercero estaba contractualmente obligado a pagar la suma de muchas de las pérdidas. De cualquier modo, éste tercero era una entidad en la que Enron tenía una substancial participación económica. En discusiones de prácticas contables con (Arthur Andersen), el socio a cargo de la auditoría, las miradas son inevitablemente guíadas por el cliente generalemente.

De cualquier modo, un buen reporteo financiero no es suficiente condición para medir la efectividad de un gobierno corporativo si el usuario informado no puede ejercer un monitoreo debido por un alto costo.

Suggest move of PR and CG to PR

The following section is from the author of a paper on PR and CG. I suggest that the author do the following: 1. Improve the grammar and sentence structure eg "its image" rather than "it's image", "Public relations is a form of managerial profession" rather than "Public relations became a managerial profession" 2. Add bits of stakeholder theory mentioned in the passage to be added to the section of stakeholder theory. 3. Survey results must be backed by proper referencing methods. 4. The original source seems to be a working paper or unpublished thesis (?) rather than a refereed journal article 5. The passage is more relevant to the entry on public relations rather than CG. Suggest that once all of the above points have been met, that this be moved to "public relations" entry.

Public Relations and Corporate Governance

Public relations became a managerial profession in corporations, thus; public relations professionals counsel and participate in managerial decisions of organizations. In addition, public relations helps to manage relationships with the financial community, investors and stakeholders in order sustain organizational responsibility, tranparency and accountability. A company's share price is influenced not only by its financial performance but also by the perception investors have of the company. As a consequence, it is important to maintain reputation and image of the company which are the outcomes of consistent corporate behavior and good governance. Any kind of misconduct or mismanagement can drop a corporation’s share prices immediately. Through public relations a company can also manage it’s image and reputation which will enable the company to build trust and confidence in the financial community and society Therefore, it is important to have a qualified management structure with consistent and credible communication.[1]

Financial Communication & Investor Relations

As investors, markets and regulations have demanded greater transparency of company's accounting and strategy, the financial media has increased its coverage and monitored companies’ activities because businesses are really newsworthy for them. On the other hand, technological developments like internet quickened the communication facilities, so that, news can rapidly and easily be delivered all over the world. In addition, media become more sensitive towards operations of businesses and they leave more space to cover well known companies and brand names. As a result of this, companies tend to manage these relationships and they develop communication strategies to fulfill the needs of media for a better coverage which contributes to reputation of that company. Accordingly, a transparent company which conducts good communication with the financial community and general public via media will gain trust and confidence of financial community and media. Development of effective communication between companies and investment community is essential for corporate governance. Financial Communications is about communicating up to date corporate information to financial community and publics. In addition, it is setting and maintaining good relations with financial community. Finacial communication helps to create investor confidence and to overcome false perceptions in the market, which will in return increase the stock prices of a company.

A corporation must be trustable and fair to all kinds of public. This can be acquired through openness and transparency which are the most important elements of corporate governance. A company must be transparent to the financial community with their financial standings and must maintain regular disclosure activities.. On the other hand, a company must maintain regular communication with the financial community and must be responsive and prepared for unusual events which can effect the company’s financial situation. The company should try to avoid rumors about the company and control them continuosly.

Financial communications help to build interest to the company and to it’s stocks in the financial market so that companies which are transparent have easiness in attracting new capital. Through financial communication company can attract new investors. Also, public relations managers or investor relations specialists communicate with current shareholders of the company about current situation of the company and get their approval for financial activities. Public relations managers should seek to create shareholder loyalty. Moreover, financial communication increases company prestige and creates favourable opinions in the financial community. So that, employess of the company will be proud of that company and work efficiently. Financial communication and investor relations activities must be done in order to provide transparency and accountability to the company, because those are fundamental components of corporate governance codes.

Corporate Governance, Reputation and Stakeholder management

The stakeholder theory says that corporations should be run for the benefit of all “stakeholders,” not just the shareholders. Stakeholders of a company include any individual or group that can influence or is influenced from a companies practices. The stakeholders of a company can be suppliers, consumers, employees, shareholders, financial community, government and media. Companies must properly manage the relationships between stakeholder groups and they must consider interest of each stakeholder group carefully. Therefore, it becomes essential to integrate public relations into corporate governance to manage the relationships between these stakeholders which will enhance the organization’s reputation. Corporations or institutions which behave ethically and governed in a good manner builds a reputational capital which is a competitive advantage. According to Fombrun, a good reputation enhances profitability because it attracts customers to products, investors to securities and employees to its jobs. Company’s reputation is an asset and wealth that gives that company a competitive advantage because this kind of a company will be regarded as a reliable, credible, trustwothhy and responsible for employees, customers, shareholders and financial markets. In addition, according to MORI’s survey of about 200 managers in the private sector, 99% responded that the management of corporate reputation is very (83%) or fairly (16%) important.

A company which has a good governance, tend to be a good citizen in its community. So that, public relations professionals must work in coordination with the top management to shape a unique identity through coherent and consistent messages. Reputation is a reflection of companies’ culture and identity. Also, it is the outcome of managers efforts to prove their success and excellence. In that sense, good governance principles must be injected into the corporate culture. It is a fact that corporations with good governance structures seem to be more credible in the eyes of public and investors. Ethical business practices increase financial earnings of a company.

Reputation is sustained through acting reliable, credible, trustworthy and responsible in the market. It can be supplied by consistent communication activities both internally and externaly with key stakeholder groups. This directly influences a public company’s stock prices in the financial market. Therefore, this repuation makes a reputational capital as a strategic asset and advantage for that company. As a consequence, public relations must be used in order to establish long lasting relationships with the stakeholders, which will enhance the reputation of the company.

References

  1. ^ Özekmekçi, Abdullah, Mert (2004) "The Correlation between Corporate Governance and Public Relations", Istanbul Bilgi University

Systematic Revision Process

Looking at the article and the comments on this Talk page, I have begun a multi-month, gradual process of revising this article.

First, I will go through and provide references for as much of what is already in the article as I can. Help from anyone monitoring this page would be welcome. At the same time, I will make minor edits in organization. The intention here is to identify the wheat within the chaff.

Second, I will carve out and discard that which does not have adequate references or is not supported by the material in the "additional reading" section. The intention here is to discard the chaff.

Third, I will reorganize the remaining content into a more coherent structure. Some of this will happen during the First and Second stages.

Anything new that is added along the way will have supporting references or be deleted.

Sound good?

JLFahey (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

History Needs work

This paragraph is extremely hard to interpret:

In the 19th century, state corporation lawless enhanced the rights of corporate boards to govern without unanimous consent of shareholders in exchange for statutory benefits like appraisal rights, to make corporate governance more efficient. Since that time, and because most large publicly traded corporations in the US are incorporated under corporate administration friendly Delaware law, and because the US's wealth has been increasingly securitized into various corporate entities and institutions, the rights of individual owners and shareholders have become increasingly derivative and dissipated. The concerns of shareholders over administration pay and stock losses periodically has led to more frequent calls for corporate governance reforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.131.254 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I think sections of this article are really messy. My comments to each one: Definition => why to have a definition section? The term was defined in the lead section. I suggest eliminating this. History => ok Parties to corporate governance => maybe an enhanced version, with a clear discussion for each party. Or delete altogether, trying not to eliminate good isolated insights in current text. Principles => ok (some overlap with mechanisms and controls?) Mechanisms and controls => ok (some overlap with principles?) Systemic problems of corporate governance => redundant with other parts Role of the accountant => looks like a subsection, within principles maybe, or mechanisms and control Regulation => each subsection here brings an insight, however it is far from a complete regulation discussion of corporate governance Corporate governance models around the world => ok Codes and guidelines => maybe merge with Regulation? Do a Regulation, codes and guidelines section? Or rather, a Principles, guidelines and regulation session? Corporate governance and firm performance => definitely a must have section, however the world knows better than this text here... a thorough survey of the recent (and not so recent) academic works here would do wonders. I hope I had the time. Rodrigoleite (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of academic survey papers to the list of readings. Mark.
I think there should also be a section about Ownership Structures, where a discussion of concentration measures is included. For example, CR1, CR2, and other types of concentration ratios could be explained. --Forich (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ownership Structures would be worthwhile. Mark

Mark ok7 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

management question

management relevance into diffrent sector of organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.96.58 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

india

The statements regarding india throughout the text are not really relevant and should be deleted. What do you think? zaoul (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Zaoul) 217.91.94.234 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. India is important as a quickly developing economy, but so are many others. Mark ok7 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) No, you can't delete this because the concept use about indian corporate governance are sound and ethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.195.26 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC) The Corporate Sector in India faces challenges in their functioning as corruption and bribery are the order of the day here. However, the Indian corporate sector is now on the way to following ethics and compliance. The reference to India should not be deleted. ————

What's with the "powerful critique" from some marginal leftist paragraph?

What's up with the huge paragraph starting with "A powerful critique of the Anglo-American model,"? I don't begrudge these scholars their opinion, but why not put it on a separate page and link to it? Why should the opinion of some leftists based on the example of a single enterprise (which has not yet become a globally spread out respected multinational, despite the alleged superiority of its management practices) take up so much space in a fairly generic description of business practices of various nations? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Mark ok7 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Non Anglo-American Model - East Asian

"In East Asian countries, family-owned companies dominate." Not entirely correct a few are state dominated. So I've changed it to "In many East Asian countries, family-owned companies dominate."

As a consequence, I've also added "The State also has a significant input in corporate governance in a number of East Asian economies. In some economies it dominates corporate governance completely. Aside from Vietnam and other socialist states that most likely have higher state control levels, China has a high level of state dominance with over with 80% of listed firms with state control. Singapore also has a relatively high level of about 50% and Malaysia also has relatively high levels. Accordingly, some renowned countries in East Asia have a relatively high degree of state ownership and control"

A lot more could be said, but a separate section might be the best way to go.

Comments are welcome. Mark

A section on the model applied in other East Asian countries. For example, Japan's main-bank, Keiretsu model and the chaebol model of corporate governance adopted in the South Korean economy. Mark ok7 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)by Mizen

Non Anglo-American Model - Corporate governance in Europe

The Corporate governance model applied in much of Europe needs to be expanded and discussed under its own heading. For example, the German two tiered, stakeholder, strong bank model. Also other European models.

I have a bit on this, but not the time at present.

Mark

Mark ok7 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership structures

I'm creating this new section. I'll put it as section 11: right between Codes and guidelines and Corporate governance and firm performance. A tentative first paragraph might look like this:

"The Ownership structure of a corporation is the abstract visualization of the multiple stakeholders' layers which affect its governance. It follows a system (currently under development by academics) which allows to classify corporations in ways that are useful for the policy-makers. Thus, Ownership Structures are always devised after some observable measures of ownership concentration. Unlike more familiar measures, like the Gini Coefficient, these ones must also bring information about the balance held between each stakeholder's incentives, and their respective degree of influence on decision-making."--Forich (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

NYT Op-ed from Icahn

Icahn, who's leading the Shareholders for America campaign, had a recent editorial in the NYT where he discusses some of the major issues [1]. I hope to get around to helping this article sometime. II | (t - c) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I think the Definition needs more work. Certainly other authorities on the subject need to be quoted such as Schleifer & Vishny, Cadbury, Denis & McConnell and so forth. As a consideration, in a search of Google Scholar I cannot find any papers or peer reviewed articles on Corporate Governance by Gabrielle O'Donovan, so I'm not convinced of her credentials in the area. At least there should be more input from other sources.

As a general comment, I think contributes should be more rounded and contribute a wider view rather than just quoting one source.

What do you think?

Cheers Mark. Mark ok7 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Mark. I like a definition by Oliver Hart, because it is very precise and theoretical, unlike many definitions out there. Is this one, Hart (1995, p. 678):

Corporate governance issues arise in an organization whenever two conditions are present. First there is an agency problem, or conflict of interest, involving members of the organization -these might be owners, managers, workers or consumers. Second, transaction costs are such that this agency problem cannot be dealt with through a contract.

--Forich (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Might want to look at the definitions I have on one of my pages. See http://corpgov.net/?page_id=3573 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpgov (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the definition still needs more work. Citing the Cadbury code is far too narrow and too UK-centric. Most other countries in the world face completely different corporate governance issues than the UK (and the USA) and hence the emphasis on processes is *not* appropriate or to the very least far too narrow. --131.251.133.28 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Impact of Corporate Governance

i think there is a great literture regarding this topic, and it shouls be written in greater depth (i am new here, so please forgive my wrongdoings. beeri בארי הר-טוב (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Research on Systemic problems of corporate governance

This section seems to be original thought Dw31415 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition and structure of article

Overall, the definition and view of corporate governance (see in particular first paragraph) are still too Anglo-centric. I have tried to improve the article, but then my changes keep on being undone by others. Also the list of references is biased in a similar way. More importantly, the first paragraph fails to state the AIM of corporate governance:

Corporate governance is "the system by which companies are directed and controlled".[1] It involves regulatory and market mechanisms, and the roles and relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders, and the goals for which the corporation is governed.[2][3] Lately, corporate governance has been comprehensively defined as "a system of law and sound approaches by which corporations are directed and controlled focusing on the internal and external corporate structures with the intention of monitoring the actions of management and directors and thereby mitigating agency risks stemming from the devious deeds of these corporate officers"[4]

There is talk about systems and processes, but what is supposed to be the AIM of corporate governance? 82.69.84.26 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Guha's comment on this article

Dr. Guha has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

One area of concern is whether the auditing firm acts as both the independent auditor and management consultant to the firm they are auditing. This may result in a conflict of interest which places the integrity of financial reports in doubt due to client pressure to appease management. The power of the corporate client to initiate and terminate management consulting services and, more fundamentally, to select and dismiss accounting firms contradicts the concept of an independent auditor. Changes enacted in the United States in the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (following numerous corporate scandals, culminating with the Enron scandal) prohibit accounting firms from providing both auditing and management consulting services. Similar provisions are in place under clause 49 of Standard Listing Agreement in India.

Add "Economists such as Guha (2009) have analyzed issues related to auditor-client collusion, showing that firms can maintain the credibility of their external auditors by hiring auditors who have many other clients." Please cite:

Guha, Brishti (2009) : Malfeasance and the Market.2009,VDM Verlag Dr Muller,e.K. ISBN 978-3-8364-3994-7.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Guha has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Brishti Guha, 2005. "Honesty and Intermediation: Corporate Cheating, Auditor Involvement and the Implications for Development," Working Papers 18-2005, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Corporate Governance per country?

Hello all,

Just a point about the list of countries by corporate governance (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Corporate_governance#List_of_countries_by_corporate_governance). What is it about? If someone knows more about this ranking and especially of the meaning of the scoring, I would be more than happy to see some text about it!

DaOurZ (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Business governance, Enterprise governance, Company governance

I created redirects here under the assumption these are similar terms; however Corporation, Business, and Company are distinct articles - from what I understand a company is a particular type of legal business entity, and corporations are a particular type of company. Tule-hog (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_governance/Archive_1&oldid=1252024514"