their approach. ” and we know that strategy formulation is the first step to good governance. 6 also, as shown in an adb study7, plcs have begun to voluntarily adopt best practices. there is greater appreciation that a balanced scorecard can generate firm - level paraphrasing an idea in adam smith ’ s the theory of moral sentiments ( 1759 ). “ robert s. kaplan and david p. norton, the strategy focused organization : how a balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. ” 2001 harvard business school publishing corporation, p. 8. http : / / www. oecd. org / daf / ca / corporategovernanceprinciples / 43654500. pdf. the tangible benefits of good governance. last accessed 11 november 2015. oecd. ibid. ibid. improving board governance : mckinsey global survey results. august 2013. available at http : / / www. mckinsey. com / insights / strategy / improving _ board _ governance _ mckinsey _ global _ survey _ r esults last accessed 12 november 2015. asian development bank, asean corporate governance scorecard, country reports and assessments, 2013 – 2014. bis central bankers ’ speeches governance improvements8 and attract foreign investments. ultimately, these enhance the region ’ s visibility, integrity and “ branding ” as an asset class. the impact of good corporate governance is not just on the micro. it is also on the macro. there is evidence that improvements in corporate governance of firms positively affect aggregate economic activities at the country, and in our case, regional levels. studies show this is especially so when firms improve transparency. when firms are better governed, interests of the firm and of stakeholders are more closely aligned. this gives firms stronger incentives to achieve high productivity and efficiency, thereby raising “ economy - wide ” productivity growth. 9 success inspires more success and good governance results in the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. in terms of corporate governance, asean has certainly come a long way since the 1997 financial crisis. oecd reports that many key financial and corporate institutional reforms here have translated to “ stronger regulation, better resourced regulators, new institutions and an increasingly involved shareholder base. ” a key facet of this positive development is corporate governance reform. 10 moreover, as the acmf effort has reached its fourth year, we have a better understanding of corporate governance standards across the region. as regulators, we now have

revised its 2018 growth forecast downwards, from 1. 9 % to 1. 8 %. but it still says growth is robust. is that your assessment too, mr cœure? yes, that ’ s our assessment. we talked about it yesterday in our meeting in riga, which the governor of the banque de france was attending. we have all made the same assessment – the economy went through a short soft patch in the first quarter of 2018, because growth had been very strong at the end of 2017. exports and global trade, in particular, were extremely buoyant in 2017. but now that is settling down and stabilising. clearly, global factors are causing some uncertainty – there is the risk of a trade war, for example. but the us economy is still very strong and is being supported by a budgetary stimulus, and the euro area ’ s internal dynamics are also very robust. so we are not unduly worried. 1 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches on the risk of a trade war, and the us president ’ s decision to impose tariffs – what impact could they have? this isn ’ t part of our economic projections, because we still don ’ t know exactly how all this will develop. for now, the impact is fairly limited because the tariffs mainly affect steel and aluminium. clearly, if this were to degenerate into a full - blown trade war it could have a far more concerning impact. and then there is the long - term impact – the way the global economy works needs to be reviewed, and europe may find itself a little alone on the world stage. we are more concerned about the historical consequences over the long term than we are about the shortterm impacts. but we ’ ve heard two different interpretations. the first is that this ultimately affects quite small amounts of the transatlantic trade between europe and the united states. the second is that there ’ s been a loss of trust, in a way, and that this free trade area, which has allowed us to grow trade for years, is going to be disrupted or shut down, or at any rate may be damaged by the decisions of the united states. what do you think? when it comes to trade, this loss of trust is a fact, unfortunately. it ’ s not about the united states itself, but the current us administration. what i can conclude from this as a european official is that europe will have to rely on its own strengths : europe must get organised, build up