Corporate Governance and Board Attributes: A Bibliometric View
DEEPSHIKHA KUMARI, ANISHA VERMA
Under the Supervision of Dr.Sandeep Kumar Sahu
Bachelor of Business Administration
School of Finance & Commerce
Galgotias University
INTRODUCTION
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.
As a result of these "new" developments, businesses are being pressured to follow "sharpe practice" requirements, claims Dragmore (2009). Reporting on corporate governance and social responsibility, community across time, adding an operations report, balancing financial and non-financial information, and story reporting are all part of these rules. The quality of financial and non-financial information disclosures is influenced by "the robustness" of the reporting morals, which FASB (2001) states is the basis for disclosures of both types of information. In addition, transparency reveals the company's performance, growth strategies, client demand, and issues (Chahine and Filatotchev, 2008). Shareholders are able to evaluate the operation's effectiveness as a result of information disclosure by observing how efficiently the company's funds are being utilised to benefit the star. It is possible to examine "exposure from two perspectives: marketable exposure and financial account exposure," as Solomon (2004) brought out. Information and its disclosure are the areas where account requirements and company law intersect, according to Parker (2007). One universal element of account regulations is the importance of providing stoners with sufficient and timely information so that they can engage in the request informed.
