|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Corporate governance:|
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) 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (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. ————
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?
- 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. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2012 (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". 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. 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"
There is talk about systems and processes, but what is supposed to be the AIM of corporate governance?