The
Corporate Governance (CG) problems are getting complicated
in the modern era as managers are increasingly becoming the
most important assets of the firms. This in turn increases
the dependency of the firms on the managers for wealth creation,
while simultaneously providing more room for the managers
to act on selfish motives, ignoring the interests of the shareholders.
The experts, regulators and researchers are coming out with
new approaches and models to solve the problem. The first
paper, Corporate Governance, Intellectual Capital and
Value Creation, by Maurizio La Rocca, Tiziana La Rocca
and Alfio Cariola, focuses on one such new model to approach
the CG problems. This paper adopts a heterodox approach and
defines the CG relationships through the interaction between
authority and responsibility given to the managers. The responsibility
of the manager of the firm is to work with the objective of
creating wealth for the investors and avoid opportunistic
behavior. He has the intellectual capability to do the same.
According to the authors, the most valuable source of incentive
that can be offered to the manager for firm-specific investment
is the authority given to him/her. The authors conclude that
it is through the interaction between the authority
and responsibility that managers resolve hold-up problems
before and after moral hazard problems. They emphasize that
these two factors balance the incentive problems and explain
the way to encourage innovation and managerial creativity
to achieve success for the firm.
While
the first paper focuses on a new approach to the CG problems,
the second paper, Corporate Governance in India: A Survey
of the Literature, by S Subramanian and
S
Swaminathan, reviews the existing literature in CG in the
Indian context. The survey suggests that the Indian CG system
is moving towards the Anglo-American system. But it can be
observed that the research approaches are also derived from
the works done in the Anglo-American context. But the findings
of the research works in the Indian context do not fall in
line with the findings in the Anglo-American context. For
example, consider the case of the role played by the institutional
investors in ensuring the CG practices in the firms where
they have invested. In the Anglo-American countries, as per
the literature, the institutional investors are very effective
in enforcing good governance practices. But in India, the
institutional investors, particularly the domestic institutional
investors, are not effective. Such interesting findings provide
more research ideas for the future research works in this
field.
While
the literature survey provides a picture of the overall CG
practices of the firms, we need case studies to understand
how CG is actually practised in individual firms. The third
and fourth papers of this issue focus on three such firms.
The
third paper, Corporate Governance Standards and Practices
in Reliance Industries Limited, by S C Das, analyzes
the CG practices of Reliance Industries. The analysis suggests
that though Reliance Industries is doing well on the CG front,
it still has plenty of room to improve. It is worth mentioning
here that although most of the CG issues identified with Reliance
Industries are indeed common to most of the Indian firms,
Reliance is getting the attention as it is Indias largest
private sector firm.
The
fourth paper, Corporate Governance in Indian Banking
Industry: An Experience with SBI and HDFC Bank, a case
study by D P Samantaray and Swagatika Panda, analyzes CG practices,
especially with regard to the transparency and disclosure
norms of two banks in India. It compares one leading private
sector bank namely HDFC bank and another public sector bank
which is also Indias largest bank i.e., the State Bank
of India. The study finds that the CG practices of both the
banks are quite satisfactory in fulfilling regulatory requirements.
They also opine that there is ample room and scope for improvement
for both the players in different areas of disclosure.
-
S Subramanian
Consulting Editor
|