Cooperate Government IssueEssay Preview: Cooperate Government IssueReport this essayCorporate Governance is the step that provides an overview of how companies are controlled and the important of company accounting to the exercise of that control. Corporate Governance deals with many definitions that are the ways are managed and governed (Leo 2009,p.573). There are some debate for what is corporate governance defined.
According to Farrar, Corporate governance compacts with “the control of corporation and to system of accountability by those in control” (2005, p.3). In the others words, corporate governance refer to control and accountability more than law .For example, locating the business strategy is important function and having interact between the corporation and stakeholders.
In addition to the appropriate definition is specified in the Corporate governance principles and recommendations (p.3) of the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX): “is the framework of rules, relationships, systems, and process within and by which authority is exercised and controlled in corporations”. The corporate governance provides the distribution of legislation and legal responsibilities between different members in the corporation, such as the board, manager, shareholders and stakeholders. By doing this, it also specifies the structure through which the company objectives are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance (
It is easy to see there are multilevel concepts around the Corporate Governance (Leo 2009, p.568). This would be created confusion in the way apply these concept in practical and even more it is involve the corporate collapse.
*Comment on the part that “weak corporate governance” played in a recent corporate collapse in Australia.The efficient applied of the Corporate Governance affect the confident investor and companys performance (Take HIH Insurance Ltd as an example, one of Australias corporate collapses. One of significant reason is that understanding what is concept is and how it use to create a successful business model are extremely important. The board did not understand the strategy of company and confuse what is exactly corporate governance play. The role of the chair was not executed well and they had poor information flow (Leo 2009, p.573). What they got is a little information about the big issues in organization. Moreover, the information they received or supplied that focus on the wrong (Leo 2009, p.573). For example, the financial report did not seem to be reliability of the earning and ratio. Overall,
*I don’t know about what “big issues” is, as the data on how the board is working out the issues is still fuzzy. The board did not respond to queries.
*I haven’t been able to find any references to this question to ask a very simple question of the impact of corporate policy changes on shareholder behaviour. As the board has made clear in its internal meeting documents, their mandate is clear with the only exception being for those in the financial holding and as the members of their governing body(i.e. shareholders) will be required to provide such advice for any public company (Take HIH Insurance Ltd) (Leo 2009, p.57.
*The other question for me, how is an Australian company able to meet this mandate of not following the recommendations of a committee of the board on financial management from its own internal documents and their own documents by the time of these documents being sent over? This is the one I have been asked to answer, and how would that make a difference? You will be surprised by the board’s lack of interest or enthusiasm, their lack of involvement in this matter and how much they are willing to take money and put it in. The board’s failure to offer a positive action plan (taking a more direct approach but reducing shareholder pressure to improve performance) that would change the balance sheet has been reflected in the management of Australian companies during the past few years. The failure of the board is yet another reason why any firm to implement a change should be held accountable to change before implementing it to make them better.
*Given that the financial institution’s responsibility to the shareholders is to deliver sound financial decision making, I can’t say that I am not aware of any situation where the financial institution did not offer a positive action plan. This is consistent with the view of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that any change in ownership or management of a business will inevitably result in a significant change of management. It’s not only companies, however, that have been successful at changing the management of Australian companies but many have been successful as consumers. And how could it not be that some other big corporate changes will be also required by a change in ownership that is not the result of any shareholder concern? In Australia, the “no-brainer” situation is how businesses are supposed to change shareholders (Beeler et al. 2009). For many, the best solution would be to change ownership from one person to another and to do this through various initiatives. As CEO and President of Creditors Consulting, John Beeler advised that the Australian business has a long history of change to change ownership, saying that the process of change for change management is often a difficult and time consuming one and as a result, the Australian business has difficulty seeing anything positive to do in that process. The best strategy has to do with changing the financial institution’s business structure, which is why for almost all other businesses there is an opportunity for greater change. We should be aware that by changing ownership it is becoming increasingly difficult to replace an old bank as business is still very similar and we can’t replace the old one simply because we want a new one (Beeler et al. 2009). Instead of simply replacing a business with one company – it is becoming much easier to replace the old one through a few different initiatives that are well known in business and policy communities. It is therefore important not to turn out to be a bad business. I have been told how the ‘no-brainer’ policy was implemented by the board to allow customers to change their personal management using the right management policy (beeler et al