Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
Gaurav Asthana, profile picture
Uploaded byGaurav Asthana
PPTX, PDF37,985 views

Corporate Governance Committee

The document summarizes several committees on corporate governance that were established in India and other countries from 1992 to 2003. It outlines the Cadbury Committee in the UK (1992), King Committee in South Africa (1994, 2002), CII Committee in India (1996), Hampel Committee in the UK (1998), Kumar Mangalam Birla Committee in India (2000), SEBI Committee in India (2000), and Narayana Murthy Committee in India (2003). For each committee, it provides brief details on the country, nature, code/legal reference, and key recommendations regarding board structure, remuneration, audit functions, shareholder interests, and other corporate governance best practices.

News & Politics◦
Downloaded 556 times
COMMITTEES ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE By Gaurav Asthana
What Is CG • India, after the economic initiatives in1991, the Govt. thought it fit to respond to the developments taking placing the world over and accordingly the initiatives recommended by Cadbury Committee Report got prominence. • Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM) and, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) constituted committees to recommend initiatives in Corporate Governance.
India CG Code Securities and Exchange Board Circular Sub: Corporate Governance in listed entities – Amendments to Clauses 35B and 49 of the Equity Listing Agreement (2004, most recently revised April 2014; Clause 49 to be effective October 1, 2014) Issuing Body Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) Legal Basis and Complianc e Mandatory with certain exceptions as to certain recommendations Objectives Make corporate governance framework more effective Scope Listed companies with certain exceptions Predominant Board Structure (listed companies): Unitary
Corporate Governance Guidelines • There shall be a separate section on Corporate Governance in the Annual Reports of company, with a detailed compliance report on Corporate Governance. Non-compliance of any mandatory requirement of this clause with reasons thereof and the extent to which the non-mandatory requirements have been adopted should be specifically highlighted. The suggested list of items to be included in this report is given in Annexure - XII to the Listing Agreement and list of non- mandatory requirements is given in Annexure - XIII to the Listing Agreement. (§ 49.X.A) Legal Reference Anex Xii & Xiii
Mandatory for publicly listed companies • Financial statements and draft audit report, including quarterly / half-yearly financial information • Management discussion and analysis of financial condition • Reports relating to compliance with laws and to risk management • Management letters of internal control weaknesses issued by statutory internal auditors • Records of related party transactions
COMMITTEES ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE S. No. Committee Country Date of Submission 1 Cadbury England 1992 2 King Committee South of Africa 1994 & 2002 3 CII India 1996 4 Hampel England 1998 5 Kumar Mangalam Birla India 2000 6 SEBI India 2000 7 Narayana Murty India 2003
Cadbury Committee Report on Corporate Governance • Published in December 1992 • In response to the occurrence of financial scandals in the 1980’s involving UK listed Companies, which led to a fall in investor confidence • As in the Cadbury Code, the Greenbury Code recommended the establishment of a Remuneration Committee, comprising entirely of non-executive directors, to determine the remuneration of the executive directors. However, in terms of service contracts, Greenbury recommended a maximum notice period of 12 months rather than three years as suggested by Cadbury.
Cadbury Committee Recommendations • retain full and effective control over the company and monitor the executive management • clearly accepted division of responsibilities • no individual has unfettered powers of decision • include non-executive Directors of sufficient Caliber • an agreed procedure for Directors • removal of Company Secretary should be a matter for the Board as a whole
King Committee report • The King Report on Corporate Governance is a ground-breaking code of corporate governance in South Africa issued by the King Committee on Corporate Governance. Three reports were issued in 1994 (King I), 2002 (King II), and 2009 (King III). Compliance with the King Reports is a requirement for companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
King Committee recommendations • Board of directors makeup and mandate, including the role of non-executive directors and guidance on the categories of people who should make up the non-executive directors • Appointments to the board and guidance on the maximum term for executive directors • Determination and disclosure of executive and non- executive director’s remuneration • Board meeting frequency • Balanced annual reporting • The requirement for effective auditing • Affirmative action programs
CII Confederation of Indian Industry Committee • The thrust of this report, therefore, is to suggest certain voluntary recommendations for industry to adopt. • Good corporate governance involves a commitment of a company to run its businesses in a legal, ethical and transparent manner - a dedication that must come from the very top and permeate throughout the organization.
CII Recommendations • No need for German style two-tiered board. • For a listed company with turnover exceeding Rs 100 crores, if the chairman is also the MD, at least half of the board should be independent directors, else at least 30%. • No single person should hold directorships in more than 10 listed companies. • Non-executive directors should be competent and active and have clearly defined responsibilities like in the Audit committee. • Directors should be paid a commission not exceeding 1% (3%) of net profits for a company with (out) an MD over and above sitting fees. Stock options may be considered too. • Attendance record of directors should be made explicit at the time of re- appointment. Those with less than 50% attendance shouldn’t be re- appointed. • Key information that must be presented to the board is listed in the code.
Report of Hampel Committee on Corporate Governance • The Final report emphasised principles of good governance rather than explicit rules • The Hampel Committee was established in 1996 to review and revise the earlier recommendations of the Cadbury and Greenbury Committees. • Hampel did not believe that directors’ remuneration should be a matter for shareholder approval in general meeting.
Hampel Recommendations The recommendations of the following Committees have been outlined as under: • Cadbury Committee • King Committee (CEO & MD Responsible) • CII Committee (Conf. of Indian Industry) • Hampel Committee • Naresh Chandra Committee
Kumara Managalam Birla Committee Report on Corporate Governance • on 7 May 1999, with 18 members under the chairmanship of Kumar Mangalam Birla with a view to promoting and raising the standards of corporate governance. • continuous disclosure of material information • draft a code of corporate best practices • safeguards to deal with insider information and insider trading.
Birla Committee’s recommendations Mandatory Recommendations: • Applicability • Board of Directors • Audit Committee • Remuneration Committee • Board Procedures • Management • Shareholders Non-mandatory Recommendations: • Chairman of the Board 102 • Remuneration Committee • Shareholders’ rights • Postal ballot
SEBI CG Report • This clause is a recent addition to the Listing Agreement and was inserted as late as 2000 consequent to the recommendations of the Kumarmangalam Birla Committee on Corporate Governance constituted by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 1999.
SEBI Recommendations • at least 50 per cent of the board should comprise independent directors • In corporate hierarchy two types of managements are envisaged • i) managed by Board of Directors ii) Managing Director. • Clause 49 requires all companies to submit a quarterly compliance report to stock exchange in the prescribed form. • directors is required to be "financially literate“ • Mandatory certificate either from auditors or practicing company secretaries
Narayana Murthy committee report • NARAYAN MURTHY reports were submitted to SEBI, It praised him by saying, "The suggestion contained in the Narayana Murthy Committee’s report is more elaborate and this would encourage a meaningful discussion at the board level periodically and the company will have the benefit of advice from board members.” • SEBI issued a circular dated August 26, 2003 to all the stock exchanges in this regard.
Narayana Murthy committee recommendations • Training of board members suggested. • There shall be no nominee directors. All directors to be elected by shareholders with same responsibilities and accountabilities. • Non-executive director compensation to be fixed by board and ratified by shareholders and reported. Stock options should be vested at least a year after their retirement. Independent directors should be treated the same way as non- executive directors. • The board should be informed every quarter of business risk and risk management strategies. • Boards of subsidiaries should follow similar composition rules as that of parent and should have at least one independent directors of the parent company. • The Board report of a parent company should have access to minutes of board meeting in subsidiaries and should affirm reviewing its affairs. • Performance evaluation of non-executive directors by all his fellow Board members should inform a re-appointment decision. • While independent and non-executive directors should enjoy some protection from civil and criminal litigation, they may be held responsible of the legal compliance in the company’s affairs.
Differentiation Committ ee Cadbury King Commit tee CII Hampel Kumar Mangala m Birla SEBI Narayana Murty Country England South of Africa India England India India India Nature Legal OECD co-exists With JSE Voluntary Legal OECD Voluntary Legal Voluntary Code Sarbanes- Oxley King 1 Sarbanes -Oxley Internal Check Audit Audit Remuner ation 12 months Determi nation commissi on 1 to 3 years Committ ee Company Act 2013 Director Choosen Stakeholde r interests Nominat ion Non Mandato ry Share Holder’s vote