In the past, many studies have been conducted on the effect of corporate governance on the performance of firms. However, the impact of ethical and philanthropic component of CSR on financial performance has not been much investigated. In this context, the first paper, �The Impact of Ethical and Philanthropic Component of CSR on Financial Performance: A Panel Data Study of BSE 500 Companies� by Poonam Rani and Veerpaul Kaur Mann, examines the impact of ethical and philanthropic components of CSR on the financial performance of BSE-500 companies over the period of 8 years, i.e., 2009-2016. Out of the sample of 500 firms listed on BSE-500, 84 firms were excluded due to non-availability of data on social and community development expenses, 57 firms were excluded due to insufficient data on donations and 160 firms were excluded due to insufficient data on staff welfare expenses. Finally, 199 firms were selected for the purpose of analysis. The study analyzed the impact of charity, donations, staff, and societal welfare expenses on the financial performance of BSE-500 companies and used the Panel Data Regression model. It is observed that instead of indirect attention (donations) toward social responsibilities, direct contribution (social and community development expenses) by the sampled firms brought a significant improvement in their financial performance. The study revealed that the ethical and philanthropic aspect of CSR contributes towards better financial performance (i.e., Return on Equity (ROE) and Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) of firms without influencing the profit-making capacity of their assets i.e., Return on Assets (ROA).

As the rightful owners of the company, it is in the interests of shareholders to make sure that the company is being governed and managed properly. After all, if the company performs badly or goes bust, it is the shareholders who lose the most. In this context, the second paper, �Control Conflict, Costs and Activisms�, presented in the form of a research note, by Shital Jhunjhunwala, makes an attempt to analyze the relationship between ownership, control, conflict, control costs and degree of activism. Corporate governance structures and processes are meant to reduce the conflict of interest caused by different ownership and control structures. Each form of control creates its own set of problems and the governance structure adopted must minimize the associated costs. Similar to the benefits of reduced cost brought about by economies of scale, the right internal and external governance mechanism can reduce control costs. Based on the control matrix, firms incur principal costs, agent cost or conflict cost in varying measure. Firms with managerial control face principal-agent and agent-agent conflict; those with working control encounter conflict among block shareholders and small shareholders; and firms with majority control are besieged with majority-minority conflict. Shareholders can reduce the imbalances in control through activism. The success of activism is dependent on the degree of activism, which may be a nudge (dialog), a shove (public campaign, negative voting, shareholder proposals), a punch (legal action, threat to exit) or the decision to exit. It is also a function of the credentials, financial strength, professional competency and investment size of the activist.

The last paper, a case study, �Chaos at Uber: The New CEO�s Challenge�, by Syeda Maseeha Qumer and Debapratim Purkayastha, has studied the corporate and governance structure that led to crisis at ride-hailing service Uber Technologies Inc. (Uber). Uber followed a �founder-friendly� governance structure wherein Travis Kalanick (Kalanick), the co-founder, because of the special class of shares he owned, enjoyed sweeping authority on the Uber board. The co-founder stepped down as CEO of Uber in the face of a shareholder revolt that made it untenable for him to stay on in that position. His resignation came after a review of practices at Uber including allegations of sexual harassment, a corporate theft lawsuit, defiance of government regulations, reports of misbehavior, and a toxic corporate culture, leading to the departure of some key executives. The case highlights Uber�s boardroom battle which escalated in August 2017 when a small group of shareholders aligned with Kalanick dissented against Uber�s biggest investor Benchmark Capital, after it filed a lawsuit to oust Kalanick from the board. According to some industry observers, Uber ignored corporate governance in its pursuit of growth and valuation, and flouted ethical norms while hiding behind notions of disruption and innovation. Some key challenges before the newly appointed CEO of Uber were: fixing Uber�s culture and helping it evolve some of its own core cultural practices to foster growth and improve stakeholder relationships; working with a splintered board and ushering in corporate governance reforms; and regaining the confidence of its investors, employees, and customers.