In 2007, corporate governance has become a well discussed topic in the business press. Newspapers carried detailed reports of corporate fraud, accounting scandals, excessive compensation, and other perceived organizational failures, many of which resulted in legal action, resignation, and bankruptcy. Central to these stories was the suggestion that somehow corporate governance was to blame. That is, a functional deficiency in the system of checks and balances designed to prevent abuse by managers. This case examines the different systems of corporate governance, which were adopted in the United States and various countries in Europe and Asia. Management, director independence, auditor independence, double board compared with unitary board structure, comply or explain, and legislative compared to market solutions studied. Readers were asked to estimate what the control system or the elements that they consider most effective. Abundant examples - including Johnson & Johnson, BMW Group, Michelin, Heineken, Toyota, Samsung, Posco, PetroChina, Infosys, and many others - are used to illustrate the "Hide
. by David F. Larcker, Brian Tayan Source: Stanford Graduate School of Business 33 pages. Publication Date: January 15, 2008. Prod. #: CG11-PDF-ENG
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Diamond Foods Inc.
Vereinigung Hamburger Schiffsmakler und Schiffsagenten e.V. (VHSS): Valuing Ships
Note on Carbon Markets
Jet Airways (India) Limited – Brand Building and Valuation
Jet Airways (India) Limited – Brand Building and Valuation
Wal-Marts Sustainability Strategy (A)
Creating a Volume-Flexible Firm
SOX-POX
NUCOR: Value and Transition
NUCOR: Value and Transition
