Corporate Governance and Board Attributes: A Bibliometric View

Numerous high-profile corporate scandals in the 1990s—involving companies like Tyco, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Xerox, AIG Insurance, Lehman Brothers, etc.—elucidated the government’s inadequacy in overseeing shareholder interests. These scandals affected markets worldwide. In order to address corporate misconduct and keep investor trust and strong performance, it is claimed that CG must be improved to a “sound” quality. Some well-known examples include the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the recommendations for corporations made by the EU Cadbury Committee, and the corporate governance standards set out by the OECD. First and foremost, the Cadbury Committee (1992) supported exposure as “a medium for responsibility,” highlighting the need to increase reporting requirements to prevent regulatory complications. ” But instead of trying to pin it down, they summed it up as “the ability for investors and others to assess companies’ performance and governance practice and respond in an informed way”—commercial gest. “Guidance on Good Practices in Corporate Governance Disclosure” (OGCD, 2006) specifies that any major issues with the company’s CG should be disclosed promptly. The “substance over form” principle dictates that the exposure be brief, precise, and easy to understand.