19.01.2014 Views

Who's Running the Company? - International Center for Journalists

Who's Running the Company? - International Center for Journalists

Who's Running the Company? - International Center for Journalists

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

For example: Most codes call <strong>for</strong> a board to have several<br />

independent directors. “Independent” essentially means<br />

a person who is free of material relations with <strong>the</strong> company’s<br />

management or o<strong>the</strong>rs involved with <strong>the</strong> company.<br />

Unclouded by conflicts of interest, such a director can<br />

make decisions based on <strong>the</strong> potential benefits <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

company and its shareholders.<br />

A board stacked with friends or relatives of <strong>the</strong> top<br />

managers is less likely to act as a check and balance in<br />

serving shareholders’ interests.<br />

Companies worldwide often have dominant shareholders<br />

who are members of <strong>the</strong> same family. This is particularly<br />

common in emerging markets. Often, <strong>the</strong> family dominates<br />

<strong>the</strong> board and management, perhaps exerting influence<br />

through special shares that control voting power,<br />

even though <strong>the</strong> family may own only a small percentage<br />

of total shares.<br />

Also common in emerging markets are enterprises that<br />

are ei<strong>the</strong>r owned by <strong>the</strong> state or essentially controlled by<br />

<strong>the</strong> state through <strong>the</strong> make-up of <strong>the</strong> board and management.<br />

This can lead to decisions being made <strong>for</strong> political<br />

reasons ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefit of shareholders.<br />

Governance issues drive major stories<br />

Family-owned companies are <strong>the</strong> bedrock of any successful<br />

economy. Examples include Ford Motor Co. in <strong>the</strong><br />

United States, Tata Group in India and Sabanci Holding in<br />

Turkey. But family-owned companies also may have serious<br />

corporate governance lapses.<br />

At India’s Satyam Computer Systems Ltd., <strong>for</strong> example,<br />

family members attempted to divert assets into two o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

family-owned companies.<br />

As <strong>the</strong> Times of India reported, “The Satyam scandal<br />

came to light on January 7, 2009, with a confession from<br />

<strong>the</strong> company’s founder B Ramalinga Raju that he had<br />

been cooking <strong>the</strong> firm’s books <strong>for</strong> several years.” In his<br />

letter to <strong>the</strong> board revealing <strong>the</strong> fraud, Raju states that,<br />

“What started as a marginal gap between actual operating<br />

profits and ones reflected in <strong>the</strong> books of accounts<br />

continued to grow over <strong>the</strong> years. It has attained unmanageable<br />

proportions....” Later, he describes <strong>the</strong> process<br />

as “like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without<br />

being eaten.”<br />

It was later determined that Satyam had violated several<br />

laws that protect shareholders, and that are designed to<br />

prevent and penalize ef<strong>for</strong>ts to divert company assets<br />

from shareholders to <strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> perpetrators.<br />

For more on <strong>the</strong> Satyam case, see:<br />

http://reut.rs/Icj4hL<br />

http://scr.bi/IA3vm7<br />

http://bit.ly/HEcrLX<br />

Anticipating risk<br />

One best practice cited in corporate governance codes<br />

requires corporate leadership to anticipate and manage<br />

risks <strong>the</strong> company might face. Companies take risks to<br />

generate returns. The board is responsible <strong>for</strong> ensuring<br />

that all business risks are identified, evaluated, disclosed<br />

and managed.<br />

The obligation to manage risk became a key issue after<br />

<strong>the</strong> 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan that ravaged<br />

<strong>the</strong> Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear station, creating a public<br />

health crisis.<br />

Why, critics and journalists asked, did directors of <strong>the</strong><br />

Tokyo Electric Power <strong>Company</strong> Inc. (TEPCO), <strong>the</strong> publicly<br />

traded Japanese energy company, fail to prepare<br />

adequately <strong>for</strong> risks that had been previously identified?<br />

Why weren’t <strong>the</strong>re any independent board members or a<br />

risk committee? Why weren’t <strong>the</strong>re appropriate policies to<br />

identify <strong>the</strong> risks and <strong>the</strong> steps <strong>for</strong> mitigating those risks<br />

should a nuclear mishap occur?<br />

“TEPCO … couldn’t have predicted that <strong>the</strong> tsunami would<br />

hit, but it could have been better prepared <strong>for</strong> such an<br />

event to take place,” research analyst Nathanial Parish<br />

Flannery wrote, noting that outside experts had warned<br />

that <strong>the</strong> nuclear facility was at risk of being damaged even<br />

by a mid-sized tsunami.<br />

But <strong>the</strong>se criticisms and questions mostly came after <strong>the</strong><br />

fact.<br />

Among tools that journalists can use to assess companies<br />

are corporate governance scorecards, which try to help<br />

companies judge how well <strong>the</strong>y comply with good governance<br />

principles and practices. In many countries, <strong>the</strong>se<br />

scorecards are issued annually, and provide ideas <strong>for</strong><br />

stories.<br />

For example, a corporate governance scorecard <strong>for</strong><br />

Vietnam in 2011, released by <strong>the</strong> World Bank’s private<br />

arm, <strong>the</strong> <strong>International</strong> Finance Corporation (IFC), urged<br />

improvement in protecting shareholders’ rights and<br />

treatment. The scorecard studied corporate governance<br />

practices at <strong>the</strong> 100 largest companies listed on <strong>the</strong> Hanoi<br />

and Ho Chi Minh City exchanges.<br />

WHO’S RUNNING THE COMPANY?<br />

11

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!