he corporate sector of Australia has previously been regarded to hold the same core features as those of the United States and the United Kingdom.7 These issues will be discussed thoroughly in the later sections. The goal of corporate governance, which offers guidelines to direct the decisions and responses of the board and management, has been widely agreed to be concentrated on ‘enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain.’8 Quite frequently this is understood as ‘maximising shareholder value,’9 and quite frequently as well can be understood as allowing profit and advantage today to the detriment of profit and advantage in the future. Indeed, temporary shareholder profit and corporate advantage is simpler to determine and easier to integrate in corporate decision making and could even be reasonable to quick fix or temporary shareholders.10 However, an exclusively short-range focus may result in inadequate ventures in training and innovation, for instance, so that potential competitive advantage is risked, to the absolute loss of the shareholders.11 Due to these grounds, defining the corporate objective only in relation to ‘maximising shareholder value’ is not enough. A more adequate way to define the corporate objective is ‘maximising wealth creating potential.’12 This is tantamount to sustaining the company for the gain of every shareholder by pursuing actual long-term economic growth. Theorising Corporate Governance Two major features of present-day companies are the distribution of equity among shareholders, and the separation of control and ownership.13 The concept of agency cost is defined by Jensen and Meckling (1976) as the ‘sum of (1) the monitoring expenditures of the principal, (2) the bonding expenditures by the agent, and (3) the residual loss.’14 Agency costs, more particularly, may comprise the direct losses of advantages or assets and/or expropriation because of managerial ineptitude or lenience.15 Management, as argued by Shleifer and Vishny (1997), can carry out asset expropriation in a variety of ways, such as directly pilfering wealth from the accounts of the company, transferring the assets of the company through ‘subjective’ pricing to their own companies, or trading valuable company resources to their own companies at low prices.16 However, management lenience could be the more unfavourable kind of agency cost. Management may boost their purchase of luxuries at the expense of the company, or raise their position by enlarging the company’s size even though the expansion is not justified on competence bases.17 The direct expropriation of a company’
Cite this document
(“International corporate governance Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/28313-international-corporate-governance
(International Corporate Governance Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 Words)
“International Corporate Governance Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/finance-accounting/28313-international-corporate-governance.
Cited: 0 times
International Corporate Governance: Different Principles, One Goal Name Name of Professor Word Count (excluding footnotes and reference page): 3, 450 Introduction Corporate governance is defined as the mechanism by which organisations are governed and regulated.1 Contemporary profit-oriented organisations are regarded as public companies.2 This essay will discuss and compare the corporate governance system in the UK with the systems of the United States, China, and OECD countries, particularly Canada, in order to substantiate the argument that “regardless of what form of regulation, principles or prescription, the main aim of corporate governance should be th…
This research aims to evaluate and present the concept of Corporate Governance and the main principles for UK Corporate Governance Code such as leadership, effectiveness, accountability, remuneration and relations with shareholders.For the purpose of this research work the two UK listed Companies that will be analyzed are Carillion Plc and Deutsche Bank.
There is a hierarchical difference in various corporate that exist even in the same country. Therefore, it is prudent to justify that corporate structure differ from one organization or country to another. However, structures and organizations in various corporate is the way in which different structures are formed is to achieve a common goal, that is, managerial accountability1.
Notably, corporate governance is related to the functioning of the Board of Directors (BOD) and comprises of specific rules as well as regulations on the basis of which the BOD is required to make decisions. Moreover, the relationship between stakeholders and managers of companies are maintained by the code as well as principles of corporate governance (Calder, 2008).
Number o f world renowned scandalous catastrophes generated an environment of uncertainty and suspicion on the part of the shareholder. Accordingly, government, different dictatorial boards and the media expanded the extent of their inspection further than the aberrant companies.
3.3. A critical analysis/evaluation of the results which includes an explanation of the significant findings................................................
United States, China, and OECD countries, particularly Canada, in order to substantiate the argument that “regardless of what form of regulation, principles or prescription, the main aim of corporate governance should be the maximisation of shareholder value.”3
nance codes were developed on the basis of the Cadbury report and the Greenbury report during 1990’s and early 2000’s, these codes were not sufficient to prevent banking crisis in the UK. Therefore, it can be inferred that failure of corporate governance policies of banking
The industrial revolution played a great role in the evolution of accounting in the business world. People were more interested in engaging in good business practices evidenced this. Hence, there was a need to separate between the owners and managers of businesses. Its main aim was to safeguard the interests of the shareholders.
n as it failed to safeguard the interest of shareholders by stipulating strong governance codes like compulsory appointment of independent directors to the board , evaluation of non-independent directors’ performance by the independent directors , not following international
12 pages (3000 words)Coursework
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Coursework on topic International corporate governance for FREE!