Unit 1: Conceptual framework of corporate governance
Corporate Governance, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility notes · PTU syllabus (MCOP303-18)
On this page
Unit summary
Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled. This unit covers the history of the corporate form and governance models, corporate objectives and ownership patterns, agency problems, global governance models — Anglo-American, German, Japanese and French — the Cadbury and Hampel reports, OECD principles, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and whistle-blowing.
After this unit you can
- Explain the evolution of the corporate form and corporate objectives and ownership patterns
- Explain agency problems in corporate governance
- Compare the Anglo-American and relationship-based governance models
- Explain the Cadbury and Hampel reports, OECD principles, SOX and whistle-blowing
PTU syllabus topics
- History of corporate form and models
- corporate objectives and ownership patterns
- agency problems
- global governance models (Anglo-American, German/Japanese/French relationship models)
- Cadbury Report
- Hampel Report
- OECD recommendations
- SOX Act
- whistle-blowing
Ownership
Dispersed shareholders
Concentrated: banks, groups, cross-holdings
Board
Single board, independent directors
Two-tier (Germany) or insider-heavy (Japan)
Focus
Shareholder value
Stakeholders and long-term relationships
Control by
Capital markets
Banks and stakeholders
Topic 1
History of the corporate form and corporate governance
- Evolution: chartered companies (East India Company, 1600) → joint stock companies with limited liability (UK Companies Act, 1844–1862) → separation of ownership and control (Berle and Means, 1932) → modern governance codes (1990s onwards).
- Corporate governance (Cadbury, 1992): "the system by which companies are directed and controlled"; OECD: a set of relationships between management, board, shareholders and other stakeholders that provides the structure through which objectives are set and performance monitored.
Corporate objectives and ownership patterns
- Shareholder primacy: maximise shareholder value (Friedman). Stakeholder approach: balance interests of employees, customers, suppliers, community (Freeman). Enlightened shareholder value: UK Companies Act 2006, Section 172; India's Section 166(2) requires directors to act for members, employees, community and environment.
- Ownership patterns: dispersed ownership (USA, UK — agency problem between managers and shareholders); concentrated/promoter ownership (India, continental Europe, Asia — conflicts between controlling and minority shareholders); state ownership (PSUs); institutional ownership (mutual funds, FPIs).
Topic 2
Agency problems
An agency relationship exists when principals (shareholders) appoint agents (managers) to act for them.
Shareholders vs managers
Empire-building, perks, short-termism, risk avoidance
Shareholders vs debt holders
Risky projects, excessive dividends, asset substitution
Majority vs minority shareholders
Promoter-controlled firms in India
Company vs society
Externalities, pollution
- Agency costs: monitoring costs (audits, boards), bonding costs (manager's commitments), residual loss.
- Solutions: performance-linked pay, ESOPs, independent directors, audit committees, debt covenants, market for corporate control (takeover threat), shareholder activism, stewardship codes.
Topic 3
Global governance models
Countries
USA, UK, Australia, India (formally)
Germany, Japan, France
Ownership
Dispersed; institutional investors
Concentrated — banks, families, cross-holdings
Board
Unitary board with independent directors
Germany: two-tier (supervisory + management board, co-determination with employees); Japan: keiretsu, main bank system
Control mechanism
Market for corporate control, disclosure
Relationships, long-term monitoring
Focus
Shareholder value
Stakeholders, stability
- French model: mix — unitary or two-tier boards, state and family ownership, cross-shareholdings.
Topic 4
Cadbury and Hampel reports; OECD principles
| Report | Key recommendations |
|---|---|
| Cadbury Committee (UK, 1992) | Code of Best Practice: separate chairman and CEO, majority of independent non-executive directors, audit committee, directors' responsibility statement, internal control reporting, "comply or explain" |
| Greenbury (1995) | Remuneration committees and disclosure of directors' pay |
| Hampel Committee (UK, 1998) | Principles over prescriptions; Combined Code merging Cadbury and Greenbury; board accountability to shareholders; institutional investors to vote |
| OECD Principles (1999, revised 2004, 2015, 2023) | Effective framework, rights of shareholders and equitable treatment, institutional investors, role of stakeholders, disclosure and transparency, responsibilities of the board, sustainability and resilience (2023) |
Topic 5
Sarbanes–Oxley Act and whistle-blowing
- SOX Act (USA, 2002) — passed after the Enron (2001) and WorldCom scandals:
- Section 302: CEO and CFO certify financial reports.
- Section 404: management's assessment of internal controls, attested by auditors.
- PCAOB established to oversee auditors; auditor independence (ban on certain non-audit services, partner rotation).
- Independent audit committees; criminal penalties for fraud; protection for whistle-blowers (Section 806).
Whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowing is the disclosure by an insider of illegal, unethical or improper practices to people who can act.
- Internal (to management, audit committee) vs external (regulators, media).
- India: Vigil mechanism mandatory for listed companies and specified companies (Section 177(9)–(10), SEBI LODR Reg. 22); Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 for public servants; SEBI informant mechanism for insider trading (rewards).
- Dilemma: loyalty to the organisation vs duty to the public; need for protection against retaliation.
Example
Satyam (2009) and the Infosys whistle-blower complaints (2019) shaped India's emphasis on audit committees and vigil mechanisms.
Key terms
- Corporate governance
- System by which companies are directed and controlled
- Separation of ownership and control
- Shareholders own; managers control (Berle and Means)
- Two-tier board
- Separate supervisory and management boards
- Comply or explain
- Principle of complying with codes or explaining deviations
- Whistle-blowing
- Insider disclosure of wrongdoing
Quick revision
- Corporate form evolution; Berle and Means; shareholder vs stakeholder objectives.
- Agency problems: managers vs owners; majority vs minority.
- Anglo-American vs German/Japanese/French models.
- Cadbury (1992), Greenbury, Hampel (1998), OECD principles.
- SOX 2002 (Sections 302, 404, PCAOB); whistle-blowing and vigil mechanism.
Important exam questions
Practice questions written to the PTU exam pattern for this unit's syllabus: short answers (Section A style) and long answers (Sections B and C style).
Short-answer questions
- Q1.Define corporate governance.
- Q2.What is the Anglo-American model?
- Q3.What is co-determination?
- Q4.State two recommendations of the Cadbury Committee.
- Q5.What is Section 404 of SOX?
- Q6.What is a vigil mechanism?
Long-answer questions
- Q1.Explain the evolution of the corporate form and corporate objectives.
- Q2.Compare the Anglo-American, German and Japanese models of governance.
- Q3.Explain the recommendations of the Cadbury and Hampel committees and the OECD principles.
- Q4.Explain the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the role of whistle-blowing.
Stuck on this unit?
Message SBS on WhatsApp for help with Corporate Governance, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, or to ask about studying M.Com at Synetic.