Talk:Corporate governance/Archive 1

message: I deleted the Organizations section because the Organizations listed were already cited in the References/ Links section.
The user who added the Organizations section should create a Wikipedia entry for each Organization mentioned because, as someone has pointed out, this entry is getting too long. Those organizations may be involved in corporate governance but they do not help the entry. If you expand on 10 organizations, this is an unhealthy case of bias. Why choose these organizations to represent corporate governance of any country? That's why it's more appropriate they are mentioned in the References section but anything longer than that deserves an own entry.
203.217.78.72 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizations

message: Insert non-formatted text hereCopied from other page now a redirect (by 194.154.129.7) Mark Richards 23:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous

message: The article seems to be getting a bit too lengthy and is becoming hard to manage. Any ideas on how it could be divided up? --Yu Ninjie 06:37, 20 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general Wiki rule, I think histories of topics, if greater than a third of a page should be separately broken out.  Comments? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article getting too long? 

message: slashing of the dividend at International Flavors and Fragrances
Aren't we getting a little personal?  How does slashing a dividend (which hundreds of corporations do every year) rate with criminal malfeasance?  Is any of the major players at IFF indicted for anything? 
In the grand scheme of things, how important is this? ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 128.84.178.76

message: Looking at the article and the comments on this Talk page, I have begun a multi-month, gradual process of revising this article.
First, I will go through and provide references for as much of what is already in the article as I can.  Help from anyone monitoring this page would be welcome.  At the same time, I will make minor edits in organization.  The intention here is to identify the wheat within the chaff.
Second, I will carve out and discard that which does not have adequate references or is not supported by the material in the "additional reading" section.  The intention here is to discard the chaff.
Third, I will reorganize the remaining content into a more coherent structure.  Some of this will happen during the First and Second stages.
Anything new that is added along the way will have supporting references or be deleted.
Sound good?
JLFahey (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic Revision Process 

message: This paragraph is extremely hard to interpret:
In the 19th century, state corporation lawless enhanced the rights of corporate boards to govern without unanimous consent of shareholders in exchange for statutory benefits like appraisal rights, to make corporate governance more efficient. Since that time, and because most large publicly traded corporations in the US are incorporated under corporate administration friendly Delaware law, and because the US's wealth has been increasingly securitized into various corporate entities and institutions, the rights of individual owners and shareholders have become increasingly derivative and dissipated. The concerns of shareholders over administration pay and stock losses periodically has led to more frequent calls for corporate governance reforms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.131.254 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Needs work 

message: management relevance into diffrent sector of organisation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.96.58 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  management question 

message: The statements regarding india throughout the text are not really relevant and should be deleted. What do you think?
zaoul (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Zaoul) 217.91.94.234 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  india 

message: What's up with the huge paragraph starting with "A powerful critique of the Anglo-American model,"? I don't begrudge these scholars their opinion, but why not put it on a separate page and link to it? Why should the opinion of some leftists based on the example of a single enterprise (which has not yet become a globally spread out respected multinational, despite the alleged superiority of its management practices) take up so much space in a fairly generic description of business practices of various nations? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the "powerful critique" from some marginal leftist paragraph? 

message: "In East Asian countries, family-owned companies dominate." Not entirely correct a few are state dominated. So I've changed it to "In many East Asian countries, family-owned companies dominate."
As a consequence, I've also added "The State also has a significant input in corporate governance in a number of East Asian economies. In some economies it dominates corporate governance completely. Aside from Vietnam and other socialist states that most likely have higher state control levels, China has a high level of state dominance with over with 80% of listed firms with state control. Singapore also has a relatively high level of about 50% and Malaysia also has relatively high levels. Accordingly, some renowned countries in East Asia have a relatively high degree of state ownership and control" 
A lot more could be said, but a separate section might be the best way to go.
Comments are welcome.
Mark
: A section on the model applied in other East Asian countries. For example, Japan's main-bank, Keiretsu model and the chaebol model of corporate governance adopted in the South Korean economy. Mark ok7 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Anglo-American Model - East Asian 

message: The Corporate governance model applied in much of Europe needs to be expanded and discussed under its own heading. For example, the German two tiered, stakeholder, strong bank model. Also other European models.
I have a bit on this, but not the time at present.
Mark
Mark ok7 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Anglo-American Model - Corporate governance in Europe 

message: I'm creating this new section. I'll put it as section 11: right between Codes and guidelines and Corporate governance and firm performance. A tentative first paragraph might look like this:
"The Ownership structure of a corporation is the abstract visualization of the multiple stakeholders' layers which affect its governance. It follows a system (currently under development by academics) which allows to classify corporations in ways that are useful for the policy-makers. Thus, Ownership Structures are always devised after some observable measures of ownership concentration. Unlike more familiar measures, like the Gini Coefficient, these ones must also bring information about the balance held between each stakeholder's incentives, and their respective degree of influence on decision-making."--Forich (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership structures 

message: Icahn, who's leading the Shareholders for America campaign, had a recent editorial in the NYT where he discusses some of the major issues . I hope to get around to helping this article sometime. II | (t - c) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT Op-ed from Icahn 

message: I think the Definition needs more work. Certainly other authorities on the subject need to be quoted such as Schleifer & Vishny, Cadbury, Denis & McConnell and so forth. As a consideration, in a search of Google Scholar I cannot find any papers or peer reviewed articles on Corporate Governance by Gabrielle O'Donovan, so I'm not convinced of her credentials in the area. At least there should be more input from other sources. 
As a general comment, I think contributes should be more rounded and contribute a wider view rather than just quoting one source.
What do you think? 
Cheers Mark.
Mark ok7 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Mark. I like a definition by Oliver Hart, because it is very precise and theoretical, unlike many definitions out there. Is this one, Hart (1995, p. 678):
Corporate governance issues arise in an organization whenever two conditions are present. First there is an agency problem, or conflict of interest, involving members of the organization -these might be owners, managers, workers or consumers. Second, transaction costs are such that this agency problem cannot be dealt with through a contract.
--Forich (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: : i think there is a great literture regarding this topic, and it shouls be written in greater depth (i am new here, so please forgive my wrongdoings. beeri בארי הר-טוב (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of Corporate Governance

message: This section seems to be original thought Dw31415 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research on Systemic problems of corporate governance

message: Overall, the definition and view of corporate governance (see in particular first paragraph) are still too Anglo-centric. I have tried to improve the article, but then my changes keep on being undone by others. Also the list of references is biased in a similar way. More importantly, the first paragraph fails to state the AIM of corporate governance:
Corporate governance is "the system by which companies are directed and controlled".[1] It involves regulatory and market mechanisms, and the roles and relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders, and the goals for which the corporation is governed.[2][3] Lately, corporate governance has been comprehensively defined as "a system of law and sound approaches by which corporations are directed and controlled focusing on the internal and external corporate structures with the intention of monitoring the actions of management and directors and thereby mitigating agency risks stemming from the devious deeds of these corporate officers"[4]
There is talk about systems and processes, but what is supposed to be the AIM of corporate governance? 82.69.84.26 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition and structure of article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130617121344/http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Governance/Articles/Williamson%20-%20Corporate%20Governance.pdf to http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Governance/Articles/Williamson%20-%20Corporate%20Governance.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070104223745/http://www.contingencyanalysis.com:80/home/papers/suffrage.pdf to http://www.contingencyanalysis.com/home/papers/suffrage.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120509090524/http://www.centre-cournot.org/index.php/2009/11/16/does-company-ownership-matter/ to http://www.centre-cournot.org/index.php/2009/11/16/does-company-ownership-matter/#more-60
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Guha has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Guha has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Brishti Guha, 2005. "Honesty and Intermediation: Corporate Cheating, Auditor Involvement and the Implications for Development," Working Papers 18-2005, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Guha's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617121344/http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Governance/Articles/Williamson%20-%20Corporate%20Governance.pdf to http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Oxford/Archives/Oxford%202006/Courses/Governance/Articles/Williamson%20-%20Corporate%20Governance.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123092039/http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2920&lang=1 to http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2920&lang=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724055953/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/b3857002.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/b3857002.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.vwl.tu-darmstadt.de/vwl/forsch/veroeff/papers/ddpie_179.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all,
Just a point about the list of countries by corporate governance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance#List_of_countries_by_corporate_governance).
What is it about? If someone knows more about this ranking and especially of the meaning of the scoring, I would be more than happy to see some text about it! 
DaOurZ (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Governance per country?