Introduction
In an attempt to reduce corporate scandals that affect investors, organisations, countries and the world as a whole, several governance codes, practises and schemes were developed. Recent corporate scandals in international circles have increased the awareness of corporate governance codes in global investment. The executives of firms who are supposed to manage these companies engage in corrupt practises that adversely affects their organisations. The senior management of companies' together with auditors and other regulators are also seen as not active in performing their monitoring and auditing roles respectively thus shareholders confidence dwindled. Meanwhile the advancement of global commerce among countries has led to the creation of principles and schemes that can be compared. This has benefited Accounting and financial reporting standards. Advancement in global ventures and combination of global capital structures resulted in consistency of corporate governance strategy, as global financiers ask for guarantee to their funds invested.
The broad objective of this paper therefore, is to assess the impacts of corporate governance; regulations, Investor protection, governance codes, bank risk taking and performance in emerging markets. The paper will also examine the level of compliance among nations or countries and firms and their impacts on global enterprise development and economy. Further, the report will assess the impact of corporate governance codes to non developed or developing countries. It will again assess the impact of local governance practises to that of global schemes and identify the problems and challenges faced by the governance industry in terms of codes, investor protection, regulation and risks taking in banks and thus make necessary suggestions for improvement.
This paper will examine the corporate governance codes put forward by all stakeholders and it (paper) will also show how good corporate governance practises can positively affect firms' performance globally. Every organisation's aim is to maximise shareholders wealth. When owners of a firm lose confidence in their businesses the value of that organisation will reduce and new capital will not be invested (Kim and Nofsinger, 2004).
According to the Cadbury report (1992), “corporate governance refers to the process whereby organisations are supervised and guarded”. Corporate governance again refers to the situation whereby firm's goals are recognized, attained and scrutinized. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also identified “corporate governance by association that transpire among firm's directors, its owners and other users”. The firm's goals are reached as a result of the framework adopted and a way of achieving aims and scrutinizing feat is reached
Business governance is alarmed due to associations and tasks among corporate officers, executive, owners and users inside authorized and regulatory structure. Governance applies to every business group, trade and non governmental organisations (NGO), including civil division.
Corporate governance elements include the executive, responsiveness, assessment and alleviation of threat which is essential to every good governance practice. Notwithstanding the sufficient and reliable scheme of control. Also included in several definitions is the improved monitoring, controlling and directing by executive within set procedures.
Better governance offer a structure for an establishment to follow its plan in a moral and efficient approach and offer protection alongside waste of funds, human, monetary, material or logical. Better governance demands enthusiasm to relate the courage as well as the legal and not just developed schemes or reports. Meanwhile, improved governance standards will lead fresh savings into firms, particularly in non developed countries.
According to (Benston and Kaufman, 1996; Barth et al., 2006), a lot of governments, are of the view that a bank's private governance schedules, together with its ownership composition,will not generate a wanted provision of resources, and thus came up with set of laws to monitor bahaviors of banks. Keeley, 1990 also said when creditors of banks get to know that the state or governments has insured their investments, they will then be reluctant to scrutinise the behaviours of banks thoroughly intensifying the abilities.
According to Jensen and Meckling (1976) conventional agency problems among bank managers and shareholders affects the risk taking abilities in banks.
Meanwhile bank executives haven gathered bank-specific human investment, benefit from confidential settlement of control, and own large share of their non-human wealth related to the financial institution, they will tend to apportion resources in an extremely safe rather than a value-maximizing style (Demsetz and Lehn, 1985; Saunders et al., 1990).
According to La Porta et al., (1998), investor protection laws vary from country to country. There is evidence of intra-country difference in regulations and their implementation influence ownership arrangements, payment of dividend and valuations in the market. Investor protection laws and the ownership structure of the bank may determine how executives of banks alter bank risk in their favour (Shleifer and Wolfenzon, 2002;
Moreover, several provisions in country-level laws protecting shareholder may not be binding due to the flexibility in business contracts and regulations of companies to either select “opt-out” and turn down definite provisions or assume added provisions not registered in their law statute (Easterbrook and Fischel, 1991; Black and Gilson, 1998).
A typical example are companies advancing security rights by rising disclosure, choosing well-functioning and autonomous corporate boards, commanding penal machinery to stop senior executive and domineering owners from appointing expropriation of marginal stockholders. This will explain why there is bound to be varying degrees of protection to their shareholders within the same nation.
John et al., 2005). Leaven and Levine (2006) said unproductive investor protection laws give bank managers an edge over shareholders to use insider information to their benefit.
Contrary, large stockholders have greater motivation and authority to limit executives' judgment than small stockholders even in the absence of efficient financier security act. (Shleifer and Vishny, 1986; Caprio et al., 2005).
This according to Leaven and Levine (2006) explains why, a large voting shareholder with cash-flow privileges will have the influence and monetary incentive to stop directors from taking exceptionally secure funds.
Meanwhile, bank policy and product market environment affects the decision of
Conflicting interests between shareholders, executives, and bank clients or investors (Buser et al., 1981; Morck et 3al., 1988). Moreover, Gorton and Rosen (1995) and DeYoung et al. (1996) argue that strong competition that reduces the licenced cost of serving banks strengthen rewards for both
shareholders and directors to boost risk. The next issue worth considering is the frequency with which the state (government) keeps establishing policies pertaining to banks with the clear goal of restraining risk taking in banks. Meaning, exclude one of
these possible significant governance features from the analyses might defer mistaken
inferences on the other probable determinants of risk taking in banks.Prowse (1997) and Macey and O'Hara (2003) all contributed their quota on bank governance work.
In their work Leaven and Levine (2006) assembled data on the identity, if any, of domineering shareholders and their voting and monetary privileges, the ownership claim of top executives and data on whether large shareholders serve as executive directors on the company's board and whether the bank's initiator or his or her family are still
linked with the bank. It was found that, banks with domineering stockholders display considerably higher risk taking behaviour than widely-held, banks controlled by management (Leaven and Levine 2006).
Contrary to the above, Demsetz et al. (1997) in their study of U.S. banking institution, on the other hand, did not come across that which licence cost apply, an autonomous outcome on risk in banking institution, nor does the relationship linking ownership structure and risk in bank depend on licensed cost. Meanwhile, Caprio et al (2007) discover that banking institutions with domineering stockholders and considerable monetary rights are more greatly treasured. This explains the interpretation behind evidence that monetary rights focus develops corporate governance and cuts expropriation by insiders.
Leaven and Levine (2006) sported a substitute, though probable balancing, reason for the optimistic alliance flanked by monetary rights and valuating of banking institution.
Moreover, domineering stockholders induce executives of banking institutions to raise risk pertaining to banking sector, with optimistic effect on valuations of banking sector.
According to Shleifer and Vishny, (1997) and Maher and Andersson, (2000),
rapidly developing studies and surveys has focussed more or less, wholly on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations and U.S. organisations. A typical example by Gompers et al. (2002) utilized disparity in takeover defence provisions to create companies governance key of U.S. companies and establish that companies with physically powerful
owners or antidirector rights have improved effectively show, superior valuation of market, and purchases are likely to be prepared.
A question that was tackled by Klapper and Love (2002) is which companies within countries have relatively improved governance practises ? La Porta et al. (1998) disagreed that better protection of owners boosts readiness of stockholders in offering finance and must reveal in lesser expenses and
Immense relieve of the use of finance from external sources. This explain why we should find companies with the greatest needs for financing in the future since it will be advantageous to use improved governance mechanisms today. Lastly, the most essential and tricky matter was addressed, thus the question was to consider whether or not firm-level differences in corporate governance affair for performance, valuation of the market and access to external finance or funds.
Laeven and Levine (2006) used the Demirgüç-Kunt and Detragiache (2002) measure to also conduct their analysis of the generosity of the deposit insurance system and obtain the same result. Their result differ from that of Demirgüç-Kunt and Detragiache (2002) and Barth et al. (2004), who concluded that more generous deposit insurance makes state banking scheme more prone to complete breakdown.
The next issue worth considering is responsibility which is keen on governance structures, thus includes accountability to owners and other users of firms' information. Organisational governance underpins capital market assurance in firms and in the regime that controls these firms.
Governance focuses on ownership, because ownership and therefore financing results in businesses being formed and expanding. Different systems of governance are seen as best practice in different countries but the debate on governance has been on the Anglo-Saxon model where ownership and management are separate, and companies can obtain a listing on a stock exchange where their shares are bought and sold.
Corporate governance codes
The Cadbury committee in the UK was set up because of the lack of confidence perceived in financial reporting and in the ability of auditors to provide the assurances required by the users of financial statements. The main difficulties were considered to be in the relationship between auditors and boards of directors. In particular, the commercial pressures on both directors and auditors caused pressure to be brought to bear on auditors by the board and the auditors often capitulated. Problems were also perceived in the ability of the board of directors to control their organisations.
Responsibilities
The directors for instance are accountable for the development of effective organisational governance of their institutions, whilst the auditors offer the owners with an outside goal check on senior management's financial reports. Also owners are linked to the corporation's officers via financial reporting system. Meanwhile other stakeholders, usually staff members are indirectly attended to via the firms' financial reporting statements.
The Best Practice Code integrated in this Cadbury Committee statement and presently altered by current reports was intended for senior officers of all UK civil firms, but senior officers of all companies were advised to apply this scheme.
Under requirements the directors of the firms' board are to convene for meeting regularly. They must control the overall affairs of the business by scrutinising managerial activities and decisions. This explains why key purchases or disposals of firms' properties are brought to the attention of the organisations board of directors. Division of labour must be employed at senior management's level of the firm so that an individual will not have the overall say or be authoritative. This would help in building separate portfolios for the position of board chairman and managing director or chief executive officer being (CEO).
This Cadbury account sees non executive directors (NEDs) as crucial persons because of their ability to make autonomous decisions devoid of intimidation by CEO and other directors. For the Cadbury code, three or more non executive officers must serve as board members, whilst maintaining a majority as outside executive officers or directors. Again this Cadbury code includes requirements like the time-span of board members or officers and compensation package that are analysed in the Greenbury and Hampel information.
In addition the audit committee, which this Cadbury report sees as essential, liaise with outside and inside auditors to present a discussion for issues to be addressed. Also semi annual and annual reports reviews are done by the said committee. Another condition is that the annual statement must show an impartial and comprehensible ruling of the firm's standing. The Executive should explain their responsibilities for preparing accounts. They must state the companies' ability to continue as a going concern and the effectiveness of its internal controls.
The Greenbury code
The Greenbury report recognized values for the purpose of executives' remuneration and featuring disclosures to be specified in the annual reports and accounts statements. The Greenbury report has more facts than that of Cadbury committee. This report proposes that the remuneration committee must decide executives pay and that this committee must be include only of NEDs. They maintain that the service agreement of executives must be per annum.
The Hampel report
The Hampel report (1998) addressed issues highlighted in the Cadbury and Greenbury codes, which aims to limit the legal load on firms and replacing standards for feature every time. Under Hampel committee, the financial records must hold a declaration of how the firm uses business governance standards.
Secondly the financial records must clearly describe their strategies and also explain if any circumstances under which it with depart from good practice.
Combined Code
The London Stock Exchange later came up with a combined corporate governance act, which resulted from the advice of the Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel acts. Meanwhile other acts or codes have come to being after that of the of the Combined Code ethics in governance.
The Turnbull code (1999, revised 2005) concentrated on managerial risk management and internal control mechanisms whilst the Smith act or code (2003) examined the function of audit committees. Consideration should also be given to the Higgs report (2003) which identified the responsibility of the NED.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
In the US the response to the breakdown of stock market trust caused by perceived inadequacies in corporate government arrangements and the Enron scandal was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002. The Act applies to all companies that are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Act was the most far reaching US legislation dealing with securities in many years and has major implications for public companies. It requires directors to report on the effectiveness of the controls over financial reporting, limits the services auditors can provide and requires listed companies to establish an audit committee. Rule making authority was delegated to the SEC on many provisions.
Sarbanes-Oxley shifts responsibility for financial probity and accuracy to the board's audit committee, which typically comprises three independent directors, one of whom has to meet certain financial literacy requirements equivalent to non executive directors in other jurisdictions.
Along with rules from the SEC, Sarbanes-Oxley requires companies to increase their financial statement disclosures, to have an internal code of ethics and to impose restrictions on share trading by, and loans to corporate officers.
Limitations
The global policies will be difficult to enforce since the laws, regulations and policies pertaining to countries may differ from country to country. Developed countries will have to depend on the requirements of these global supervisors since they are seen as excellent thus affecting their growth and expansion. Firms in third world countries will find it difficult to operate according to the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements in terms of cost since they are not international or multinational firm and the policy is not backed by law.
Contribution of corporate governance codes
The reports have shown the improvement firms enjoy as a result of best practices. Furthermore threats that negatively affected corporate governance processes like one person wielding all the power and influence within a firm was identified. Control mechanisms and managerial risks can now be analysed well due to standards reached. This procedure resulted in improvement in outside NEDs, pay per performance structure and reporting standards framework.
Finally the reference has drawn attention to the essential view and brings to light how these will be achieved. The rational for good corporate governance practises as addressed above will bring about confidence in investors globally and transparency in organisations and markets as a whole.
REFERENCES
