Author(s)
Hilb, MartinKeywords
LISTED COMPANYCORPORATE PERFORMANCE
RISK MANAGEMENT
PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC REFORM
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
CORPORATE IMAGE
CONSENSUS
INCOME
SMALL COMPANIES
CORPORATE CONTROL
LARGE COMPANIES
LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES
RATE [BOARD
COMPETITORS
INTERNAL CONTROL
FINANCIAL CRISIS
INCENTIVE STRUCTURE
INTERNAL AUDIT
STAKEHOLDERS
INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS
GLOBAL STANDARD
DECISION-MAKING
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
CORPORATE STRATEGY
COST OF CAPITAL
FIRMS
FINANCIAL CRISES
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
FAMILY BUSINESS
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
STAKEHOLDER
SMALL FIRMS
BOARD MEMBERS
REPUTATION
CORPORATE FAILURES
INDIVIDUALS
CEO
GOOD GOVERNANCE
GOVERNANCE PRACTICE
COMPENSATION PACKAGE
MANAGERS
HUMAN RESOURCE
CORPORATIONS
SUBSIDIARY
CORPORATE SCANDALS
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE
SOCIETY
SHAREHOLDERS
REFORM PROGRAMS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BOARD MEMBER
GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
GLOBAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
PUBLIC COMPANIES
LISTED COMPANIES
RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
FINANCE CORPORATION
INDEPENDENCE REQUIREMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC
SHAREHOLDER
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
SPONSORS
TRANSITION ECONOMIES
BOARD MEETING
COMPANY
GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
SHAREHOLDER VALUE
MOTIVATIONS
COLLECTIVE
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11096Abstract
The new corporate governance concept is articulating goes back to the roots of good corporate governance, which is the ability to act as a visionary and effective decision body, exerting both strategic leadership and control. It's also an invitation to think twice about the applicability of "best practices" in different legal contexts and business models. Arguably, despite some common features, the appropriate corporate governance of a family business company will differ from that of a large listed company. In addition, both the financial crisis and previous cases of large corporate failures have raised critical questions about the role of board directors in risk management. Are boards sufficiently equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills and expertise to provide the appropriate strategic vision and control function? The answer is certainly more complex and nuanced than it seems. Overly generalist boards may not grasp certain technicalities (with dreadful consequences), yet overly technical boards may completely miss the big picture.Date
2012-08-13Identifier
oai:openknowledge.worldbank.org:10986/11096http://hdl.handle.net/10986/11096
Copyright/License
CC BY 3.0 UnportedCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Corporate Governance Country Assessment : MalawiWorld Bank (Washington, DC, 2014-10-16)This ROSC assessment of corporate
 governance in Malawi benchmarks law and practice against the
 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
 Principles of Corporate Governance and covers public
 interest entities (including public limited companies,
 financial institutions, and parastatal companies) with
 special focus on the companies listed on the MSE. This
 report should be read in conjunction with the Accounting and
 Auditing ROSC Malawi, which reviews issues related to
 accounting, auditing, and financial reporting in more
 detail. Growth in 2006 has been estimated at 6.5 percent.
 Inflation and bank lending rates have declined significantly
 over the past few years. Malawi qualified for debt relief
 under the World Bank s Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
 (HIPC) initiative in 2006. The business environment has
 improved, and the private sector is optimistic about the
 future; the Malawi Business Survey 2006 conducted by the
 Malawi Confederation of the Chambers of Commerce and
 Industry (MCCI) rated the business environment good to very
 good with better expectations in the next 12 months. The
 Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) 2006-2011 sets
 a future growth target of more than 6 percent annually for
 the five-year period, which will increase per capita income
 to US$450 by the end of 2011. For this purpose, Malawi is
 seeking to increase domestic and foreign investment.
-
A Guide to Corporate Governance Practices in the European UnionInternational Finance Corporation (World Bank Group, Washington, DC, 2015-06-25)As one of the most rapidly changing
 corporate governance environments in the world, Europe
 represents a microcosm of the exciting innovation happening
 in the corporate governance arena, ranging from new
 approaches to board-level corporate governance practices to
 changes in regulatory requirements at the legislative level.
 Representing a diverse mix of nations at various stages of
 economic development and market maturity, the European Union
 as an entity is demonstrating the broad value of a
 prioritized focus on corporate governance while accounting
 for individual country and company circumstances. This
 publication, a guide to Corporate Governance practices in
 the European Union, offers an overview of the changes taking
 place across the EU’s corporate governance landscape. It
 provides a focused examination of specific regulations and
 practices as well as a frank assessment of the challenges
 that remain. The value of this publication is that it
 examines the issues from all sides. It assesses the steps
 forward and steps backward, the progress made and the gaps
 that remain, presenting the sometimes widely varying
 perspectives of owners, boards, management, and other
 stakeholders to create a complete picture of the European
 corporate governance environment.
-
Corporate Governance Country Assessment : United KingdomWorld Bank (Washington, DC, 2013-03-12)The UK has one of the most complete corporate governance frameworks in the world. Key to its success are a strong and self-aware institutional investor community, an innovative and flexible set of regulations (including the Combined Code on corporate governance, which can claim to be the first and most influential of its kind), and a deep awareness of the benefits of good corporate governance. The consultation process is broad and deep. Emerging market countries can learn a great deal from the UK's experience. The existing regulatory structure is complex; over the past 10 years many UK listed companies (and foreign companies with shares traded in the UK) have migrated to market tiers with relatively low corporate governance requirements. The growth of foreign ownership has raised questions as to whether or not the UK's shareholder engagement-based approach can continue to be effective. As in many countries, the 2008 global financial crisis has raised concerns about the fundamental ability of the corporate governance framework to deliver long-term sustainability. This report assesses the United Kingdom's corporate governance policy framework for listed companies. It describes the corporate governance framework, assesses compliance with the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, and provides policy recommendations. Some of the recommendations are based on the indirect impact of the UK's corporate governance framework on corporate governance reform in other countries.