A Report On OECD RECOMMENDATIONS ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN INDIA Submitted To: Prof.

Kalgi shah

Submitted By: Hardik Gandhi() Kunal Maheriya Maulik Patel Pinal Makwana Vijesh Urvesh parmar (GLS1024)

I. Definition
Corporate governance is "the system by which companies are directed and controlled" (Cadbury a Committee, companys 1992). It involves its a set of its relationships between management, board,

shareholders and other stakeholders; it deals with prevention or mitigation of the conflict of interests of stakeholders. Ways of mitigating or way preventing these conflicts of interests important include theme the processes, of corporate customs, policies, laws, and institutions which have impact on the a company is controlled. An governance is the nature and extent of accountability of people in the business, and mechanisms that try to decrease the principal agent problem. It ensures:

Adequate disclosures and effective decision making to achieve corporate objectives; Transparency in business transactions; Statutory and legal compliances; Protection of shareholder interests; Commitment to values and ethical conduct of business. also includes the relationships among the

Corporate governance

many stakeholders involved and the goals for which the corporation is governed. In contemporary business corporations, the main external stakeholder groups are shareholders, debt holders, trade creditors, suppliers, customers and communities affected by the corporation's activities. Internal stakeholders are the board of directors, executives, and other employees. It guarantees that an enterprise is directed and controlled in a responsible, professional, and transparent manner with the purpose of safeguarding its long-term success. It is intended to increase the confidence of shareholders and capital-market investors.

The aim of "Good Corporate Governance" is to ensure commitment of the board in managing the company in a transparent manner for maximizing long-term value of the company for its shareholders and all other partners. It integrates all the participants involved in a process, which is economic, and at the same time social. It is integral to the very existence of a company and strengthens investor's confidence by ensuring company's commitment to higher growth and profits. Broadly, it seeks to achieve the following objectives:

A properly structured board capable of taking independent and objective decisions is in place at the helm of affairs; The board is balance as regards the representation of adequate number of non-executive and independent directors who will take care of their interests and well-being of all the stakeholders; The board adopts transparent procedures and practices and arrives at decisions on the strength of adequate information; The board has an effective machinery to subserve the concerns of stakeholders; The board keeps the shareholders informed of relevant

developments impacting the company;

The board effectively and regularly monitors the functioning of the management team; The board remains in effective control of the affairs of the company at all times.

The overall endeavour of the board should be to take the organisation forward so as to maximize long term value and shareholders' wealth.

II. Introduction
The subject of corporate governance leapt to global business limelight from relative obscurity after a string of collapses of high profile companies. Enron, the Houston, Texas based energy giant, and WorldCom, the telecom behemoth, shocked the business world with both the scale and age of their unethical and illegal operations. Worse, they seemed to indicate only the tip of a dangerous iceberg. While corporate practices in the US companies came under attack, it appeared that the problem was far more widespread. Large and trusted companies from Parmalat in Italy to the multinational newspaper group Hollinger Inc., revealed significant and deep-rooted problems in their corporate governance. Even the prestigious New York Stock Exchange had to remove its director, Dick Grasso, amidst public outcry over excessive compensation. It was clear that something was amiss in the area of corporate governance all over the world. Corporate governance has, of course, been an important field of query within the finance discipline for decades. Researchers in finance have actively investigated the topic for at least a quarter century and the father of modern economics, Adam Smith; himself had recognized the problem over two centuries ago. There have been debates about whether the Anglo-Saxon market-model of corporate governance is better than the bank based models of Germany and Japan. However, the differences in the quality of corporate governance in these developed countries fade in

comparison to the chasm that exists between corporate governance standards and practices in these countries as a group and those in the developing world. Corporate governance has been a central issue in developing countries long before the recent spate of corporate scandals in advanced economies made headlines. Indeed corporate governance and economic development are intrinsically linked. Effective corporate governance systems promote the development of strong financial systems irrespective of whether they are largely bank-based or market-based which, in turn, have an unmistakably positive effect on economic growth and poverty reduction. There are several channels through which the causality works. Effective corporate governance enhances access to external financing by firms, leading to greater investment, as well as higher growth and employment. The proportion of private credit to GDP in countries in the highest quartile of creditor right enactment and enforcement is more than double that in the countries in the lowest quartile. As for equity financing, the ratio of stock market capitalization to GDP in the countries in the highest quartile of shareholder right enactment and enforcement is about four times as large as that for countries in the lowest quartile. Poor corporate governance also hinders the creation and development of new firms. Good corporate governance also lowers of the cost of capital by reducing risk and creates higher firm valuation once again boosting real investments. There is a variation of a factor of 8 in the control premium (transaction price of shares in block transfers signifying control transfer less the ordinary share price) between countries with the highest level of equity rights protection and those with the lowest. Effective corporate governance mechanisms ensure better resource allocation and management raising the return to capital. The return on assets (ROA) is about twice as high in the countries with the highest level

of equity rights protection as in countries with the lowest protection. Good corporate governance can significantly reduce the risk of nationwide financial crises. There is a strong inverse relationship between the quality of corporate governance and currency depreciation. Indeed poor transparency and corporate governance norms are believed to be the key reasons behind the Asian Crisis of 1997. Such financial crises have massive economic and social costs and can set a country several years back in its path to development. Finally, good corporate governance can remove mistrust between different stakeholders, reduce legal costs and improve social and labour relationships and external economies like environmental protection. Making sure that the managers actually act on behalf of the owners of the company the stockholders and pass on the profits to them are the key issues in corporate governance. Limited liability and dispersed ownership essential features that the joint-stock company form of organization thrives on inevitably lead to a distance and inefficient monitoring of management by the actual owners of the business. Managers enjoy actual control of business and may not serve in the best interests of the shareholders. These potential problems of corporate governance are universal. In addition, the Indian financial sector is marked with a relatively unsophisticated equity market vulnerable to manipulation and with rudimentary analyst activity; a dominance of family firms; a history of managing agency system; and a generally high level of corruption. All these features make corporate governance a particularly important issue in India.

III. Central issues in Corporate Governance

The basic power structure of the joint-stock company form of business, in principle, is as follows. The numerous shareholders who contribute to the capital of the company are the actual owners of business. They elect a Board of Directors to monitor the running of the company on their behalf. The Board, in turn, appoints a team of managers who actually handle the day-to-day functioning of the company and report periodically to the Board. Thus mangers are the agents of shareholders and function with the objective of maximizing shareholders wealth. Even if this power pattern held in reality, it would still be a challenge for the Board to effectively monitor management. The central issue is the nature of the contract between shareholder representatives and managers telling the latter what to do with the funds contributed by the former. The main challenge comes from the fact that such contracts are necessarily incomplete. It is not possible for the Board to fully instruct management on the desired course of action under every possible business situation. The list of possible situations is infinitely long. Consequently, no contract can be written between representatives of shareholders and the management that specifies the right course of action in every situation, so that the management can be held for violation of such a contract in the event it does something else under the circumstances. Because of this incomplete contracts situation, some residual powers over the funds of the company must be vested with either the financiers or the management. Clearly the former does not have the expertise or the inclination to run the business in the situations unspecified in the contract, so these residual powers must go to management. The efficient limits to these powers constitute much of the subject of corporate governance.

The reality is even more complicated and biased in favor of management. In real life, managers wield an enormous amount of power in joint-stock companies and the common shareholder has very little say in the way his or her money is used in the company. In companies with highly dispersed ownership, the manager (the CEO in the American setting, the Managing Director in British-style organizations) functions with negligible accountability. Most shareholders do not care to attend the General Meetings to elect or change the Board of Directors and often grant their proxies to the management. Even those that attend the meeting find it difficult to have a say in the selection of directors as only the management gets to propose a slate of directors for voting. On his part the CEO frequently packs the board with his friends and allies who rarely differ with him. Often the CEO himself is the Chairman of the Board of Directors as well. Consequently the supervisory role of the Board is often severely compromised and the management, who really has the keys to the business, can potentially use corporate resources to further their own self-interests rather than the interests of the shareholders. The inefficacy of the Board of Directors in monitoring the activities of management is particularly marked in the Anglo-Saxon corporate structure where real monitoring is expected to come from financial markets. The underlying premise is that shareholders dissatisfied with a particular management would simply dispose of their shares in the company. As this would drive down the share price, the company would become a takeover target. If and when the acquisition actually happens, the acquiring company would get rid of the existing management. It is thus the fear of a takeover rather than shareholder action that is supposed to keep the management honest and on its toes. This mechanism, however, presupposes the existence of a deep and liquid stock market with considerable informational efficiency as well as a legal and financial system conducive to M&A activity. More often than not, these features do not exist in developing countries like India. An

alternative corporate governance model is that provided by the bankbased economies like Germany where the main bank (Hausbank in Germany) lending to the company exerts considerable influence and carries out continuous project-level supervision of the management and the supervisory board has representatives of multiple stakeholders ofthefirm.

IV. Corporate background

Governance

in

India

The history of the development of Indian corporate laws has been marked by interesting contrasts. At independence, India inherited one of the worlds poorest economies but one which had a factory sector accounting for a tenth of the national product; four functioning stock markets (predating the Tokyo Stock Exchange) with clearly defined rules governing listing, trading and settlements; a well-developed equity culture if only among the urban rich; and a banking system replete with well-developed lending norms and recovery procedures. In terms of corporate laws and financial system, therefore, India emerged far better endowed than most other colonies. The 1956 Companies Act as well as other laws governing the functioning of joint-stock companies and protecting the investors rights built on this foundation. The beginning of corporate developments in India were marked by the managing agency system that contributed to the birth of dispersed equity ownership but also gave rise to the practice of management enjoying control rights disproportionately greater than their stock ownership. The turn towards socialism in the decades after independence marked by the 1951 Industries (Development and Regulation) Act as well as the 1956

Industrial Policy Resolution put in place a regime and culture of licensing, protection and widespread red-tape that bred corruption and stilted the growth of the corporate sector. The situation grew from bad to worse in the following decades and corruption, nepotism and inefficiency became the hallmarks of the Indian corporate sector. Exorbitant tax rates encouraged creative accounting practices and complicated emolument structures to beat the system. In the absence of a developed stock market, the three all-India development finance institutions (DFIs) the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, the Industrial Development Bank of India and the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India together with the state financial corporations became the main providers of long-term credit to companies. Along with the government owned mutual fund, the Unit Trust of India, they also held large blocks of sha res in the companies they lent to and invariably had representations in their boards. In this respect, the corporate governance system resembled the bank-based German model where these institutions could have played a big role in keeping their clients on the right track. Unfortunately, they were themselves evaluated on the quantity rather than quality of their lending and thus had little incentive for either proper credit appraisal or effective follow-up and monitoring. Their nominee directors routinely served as rubber-stamps of the management of the day. With their support, promoters of businesses in India could actually enjoy managerial control with very little equity investment of their own. Borrowers therefore routinely recouped their investment in a short period and then had little incentive to either repay the loans or run the business. Frequently they bled the company with impunity, siphoning off funds with the DFI nominee directors mute spectators in their boards. This sordid but increasingly familiar process usually continued till the companys net worth was completely eroded. This stage would come after the company has defaulted on its loan obligations for a while, but

this would be the stage where Indias bankruptcy reorganization system driven by the 1985 Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) would consider it sick and refer it to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). As soon as a company is registered with the BIFR it wins immediate protection from the creditors claims for at least four years. Between 1987 and 1992 BIFR took well over two years on an average to reach a decision, after which period the delay has roughly doubled. Very few companies have emerged successfully from the BIFR and even for those that needed to be liquidated, the legal process takes over 10 years on average, by which time the assets of the company are practically worthless. Protection of creditors rights has therefore existed only on paper in India. Given this situation, it is hardly surprising that banks, flush with depositors funds routinely decide to lend only to blue chip companies and park their funds in government securities. Financial disclosure norms in India have traditionally been superior to most Asian countries though fell short of those in the USA and other advanced countries. Noncompliance with disclosure norms and even the failure of auditors reports toconform to the law attract nominal fines with hardly any punitive action. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in India has not been known to take action against erring auditors. While the Companies Act provides clear instructions for maintaining and updating share registers, in reality minority shareholders have often suffered from irregularities in share transfers and registrations deliberate or unintentional. Sometimes non-voting preferential shares have been used by promoters to channel funds and deprive minority shareholders of their dues. Minority shareholders have sometimes been defrauded by the management undertaking clandestine side deals with the acquirers in the relatively scarce event of corporate takeovers and mergers.

Boards of directors have been largely ineffective in India in monitoring the actions of management. They are routinely packed with friends and allies of the promoters and managers, in flagrant violation of the spirit of corporate law. The nominee directors from the DFIs, who could and should have played a particularly important role, have usually been incompetent or unwilling to step up to the act. Consequently, the boards of directors have largely functioned as rubber stamps of the management. For most of the post-Independence era the Indian equity markets were not liquid or sophisticated enough to exert effective control over the companies. Listing requirements of exchanges enforced some transparency, but non-compliance was neither rare nor acted upon. All in all therefore, minority shareholders and creditors in India remained effectively unprotected in spite of a plethora of laws in the books.

V. The OECD Principles of corporate governance(2004)

Contemporary discussions of corporate governance tend to refer to principles raised in three documents released since 1990: The Cadbury Report (UK, 1992), the Principles of Corporate Governance (OECD, 1998 and 2004), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (US, 2002). The Cadbury and

OECD reports present general principals around which businesses are expected to operate to assure proper governance. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, informally referred to as Sarbox or Sox, is an attempt by the federal government in the United States to legislate several of the principles recommended in the Cadbury and OECD reports. Rights and equitable treatment of shareholders: Organizations should respect the rights of shareholders and help shareholders to exercise those rights. They can help shareholders exercise their rights by openly and effectively communicating information and by encouraging shareholders to participate in general meetings.

Interests of other stakeholders: Organizations should recognize that they have legal, contractual, social, and market driven obligations to non-shareholder stakeholders, including employees, investors, creditors, suppliers, local communities, customers, and policy makers.

Role and responsibilities of the board: The board needs sufficient relevant skills and understanding to review and challenge management performance. It also needs adequate size and appropriate levels of independence and commitment.

Integrity

and

ethical

behaviour: Integrity

should

be

fundamental requirement in choosing corporate officers and board members. Organizations should develop a code of conduct for their directors and executives that promotes ethical and responsible decision making.

 Disclosure and transparency: Organizations should clarify and make publicly known the roles and responsibilities of board and management to provide stakeholders with a level of accountability. They should also implement procedures to independently verify and safeguard the integrity of the company's financial reporting. Disclosure of material matters concerning the organization should be timely and balanced to ensure that all investors have access to clear, factual information.

An effective corporate governance framework should be developed with a view to its impact on overall economic performance, market integrity and the incentives it creates for market participants as well as for the promotion of transparent and efficient markets. The legal and regulatory requirements that affect corporate governance practices in a jurisdiction should be consistent with the rule of law, transparent and enforceable. They should clearly articulate the division of responsibilities among different supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities.

The corporate governance framework should protect and facilitate the exercise of basic shareholders rights, which should include the right to: (i) secure methods of ownership registration; (ii) convey or transfer shares; (iii) obtain relevant and material information on the corporation on a timely and regular basis; (iv) participate and vote in general shareholder meetings; (v) elect and remove members of the board; and (vi) share in the profits of the corporation. Shareholders should have the right to participate in, and to be sufficiently informed on, decisions concerning fundamental corporate changes,

such as, amendments to the statutes or articles of incorporation; authorisation of additional shares; etc.

Capital

structures

and

arrangements

that

enable

certain

shareholders to obtain a degree of control disproportionate to their equity ownership should be disclosed. The rules and procedures governing the acquisition of corporate control in the capital markets, and extraordinary transactions, such as mergers and sales of substantial portions of corporate assets, should be clearly articulated and disclosed so that investors understand their rights and recourse. Transactions should occur at transparent prices and under fair conditions that protect the rights of all shareholders according to their class.

All shareholders of the same series of a class, including minority and foreign shareholders, should be treated equally. Within any series of a class, all shares should carry the same rights. All investors should be able to obtain information about the rights attached to all series and classes of shares before they purchase. Besides, all shareholders should have the opportunity to obtain effective redress for violation of their rights.

Insider trading and abusive self-dealing should be prohibited.

The corporate governance framework should recognise the rights of stakeholders established by law or through mutual agreements and encourage active co-operation between corporations and stakeholders in creating wealth, jobs and the sustainability of

financially sound enterprises. Further, it should be complemented by an effective, efficient insolvency framework and by effective enforcement of creditor rights.

Performance-enhancing mechanisms should be permitted to develop.

for employee participation

The corporate governance framework should ensure that timely and accurate disclosure is made on all material matters regarding the corporation, including the financial situation, operating results, objectives, performance, ownership, remuneration policy and governance of the company. Information should be prepared and disclosed in accordance with high quality standards of accounting and financial and non-financial disclosure.

An annual audit should be conducted by an independent, competent and qualified auditor in order to provide an external and objective assurance to the board and shareholders, such that the financial statements fairly represent the financial position and performance of the company in all material respects. External auditors should be accountable to the shareholders and owe a duty to the company to exercise due professional care in the conduct of the audit.

The corporate governance framework should ensure the strategic guidance of the company, the effective monitoring of management by the board, and the board's accountability to the company and its shareholders. That is, the Board members should act on a fully

informed basis, in good faith, with due diligence and care, and in the best interest of the company and the shareholders. It should review and guide corporate strategy, major plans of action, risk policy, annual budgets, business plans, performance objectives, etc. as well as monitor the effectiveness of company's governance practices and make changes, wherever needed.

VI. OECD recommendations on corporate governance in India

I. Ensuring an Effective Legal and Regulatory Framework for State-Owned Enterprises The legal and regulatory framework for state-owned enterprises should ensure a level-playing field in markets where state-owned enterprises and private sector companies compete in order to avoid market distortions. The framework should build on, and be fully compatible with, the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. A. There should be a clear separation between the states ownership functionand other state functions that may influence the conditions for stateowned enterprises, particularly with regard to market regulation. B. Governments should strive to simplify and streamline the operational practices and the legal form under which SOEs operate. Their legal form

should allow creditors to press their claims and to initiate insolvency procedures. C. Any obligations and responsibilities that an SOE is required to undertake in terms of public services beyond the generally accepted norm should be clearly mandated by laws or regulations. Such obligations and responsibilities should also be disclosed to the general public and related costs should be covered in a transparent manner. D. SOEs should not be exempt from the application of general laws and regulations. Stakeholders, including competitors, should have access to efficient redress and an even-handed ruling when they consider that their rights have been violated. E. The legal and regulatory framework should allow sufficient flexibility for adjustments in the capital structure of SOEs when this is necessary for achieving company objectives. F. SOEs should face competitive conditions regarding access to finance. Their relations with state-owned banks, state-owned financial institutions and other state-owned companies should be based on purely commercial grounds.

II. The State Acting as an Owner The state should act as an informed and active owner and establish a clear and consistent ownership policy, ensuring that the governance of state-owned enterprises is carried out in a transparent and accountable manner, with the necessary degree of professionalism and effectiveness. A. The government should develop and issue an ownership policy that defines the overall objectives of state ownership, the states role in the corporategovernance of SOEs, and how it will implement its ownership policy.

B.

The

government

should

not

be

involved

in

the

day-to-day

management of SOEs and allow them full operational autonomy to achieve their defined objectives. C. The state should let SOE boards exercise their responsibilities and respect their independence. D. The exercise of ownership rights should be clearly identified within the state administration. This may be facilitated by setting up a co-ordinating entity or, more appropriately, by the centralisation of the ownership function. E. The co-ordinating or ownership entity should be held accountable to representative bodies such as the Parliament and have clearly defined relationships with relevant public bodies, including the state supreme audit institutions. F. The state as an active owner should exercise its ownership rights to the legal structure of each company. Its prime

according

responsibilities include: 1. Being represented at the general shareholders meetings and voting the state shares. 2. Establishing well structured and transparent board nomination

processes in fully or majority owned SOEs, and actively participating in the nomination of all SOEs boards. 3. Setting up reporting systems allowing regular monitoring and assessment of SOE performance. 4. When permitted by the legal system and the states level of ownership, maintaining continuous dialogue with external auditors and specific state control organs.

5. Ensuring that remuneration schemes for SOE board members foster the long term interest of the company and qualified professionals. III. Equitable Treatment of Shareholders The state and state-owned enterprises should recognise the rights of all shareholders and in accordance with the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance ensure their equitable treatment and equal access to corporate information. A. The co-ordinating or ownership entity and SOEs should ensure that all shareholders are treated equitably. B. SOEs should observe a high degree of transparency towards allshareholders. C. SOEs should develop an active policy of communication and consultation with all shareholders. D. The participation of minority shareholders in shareholder meetings should be facilitated in order to allow them to take part in fundamental corporate decisions such as board election. IV. Relations with Stakeholders The state ownership policy should fully recognise the state-owned enterprises responsibilities towards stakeholders and request that they report on their relations with stakeholders. A. Governments, the co-ordinating or ownership entity and SOEs themselves should recognise and respect stakeholders rights established by law or through mutual agreements, and refer to the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance in this regard. B. Listed or large SOEs, as well as SOEs pursuing important public policy objectives, should report on stakeholder relations. can attract and motivate

C. The board of SOEs should be required to develop, implement and communicate compliance programmes for internal codes of ethics. These codes of ethics should be based on country norms, in conformity with international subsidiaries. V. Transparency and Disclosure State-owned enterprises should observe high standards of transparency in accordance with the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. A. The co-ordinating or ownership entity should develop consistent and aggregate reporting on state-owned enterprises and publish annually an aggregate report on SOEs. B. SOEs should develop efficient internal audit procedures and establish an internal audit function that is monitored by and reports directly to the board and to the audit committee or the equivalent company organ. C. SOEs, especially large ones, should be subject to an annual independent external audit based on international standards. The existence of specific state control procedures does not substitute for an independent external audit. D. SOEs should be subject to the same high quality accounting and auditing standards as listed companies. Large or listed SOEs should disclose financial and non-financial information according to high quality internationally recognised standards. E. SOEs should disclose material information on all matters described in the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance and in addition focus on areas of significant concern for the state as an owner and the general public. Examples of such information include: commitments and apply to the company and its

1. A clear statement to the public of the company objectives and their fulfilment. 2. The ownership and voting structure of the company. 3. Any material risk factors and measures taken to manage such risks. 4. Any financial assistance, including guarantees, received from the state and commitments made on behalf of the SOE. 5. Any material transactions with related entities. VI. The Responsibilities of the Boards of State-Owned Enterprises The boards of state-owned enterprises should have the necessary authority, competencies and objectivity to carry out their function of strategic guidance and monitoring of management .They should act with integrity and be held accountable for their actions. A. The boards of SOEs should be assigned a clear mandate and ultimate responsibility for the companys performance. The board should be fully accountable to the owners, act in the best interest of the company and treat all shareholders equitably. B. SOE boards should carry out their functions of monitoring of management and strategic guidance, subject to the objectives set by the government and the ownership entity. They should have the power to appoint and remove the CEO. C. The boards of SOEs should be composed so that they can exercise objective and independent judgement. Good practice calls for the Chair to be separate from the CEO. D. If employee representation on the board is mandated, mechanisms should be developed to guarantee that this representation is exercised effectively and contributes to the enhancement of the board skills, information and independence.

E. When necessary, SOE boards should set up specialised committees to support the full board in performing its functions, particularly in respect to audit, risk management and remuneration. F. SOE boards should carry out an annual evaluation to appraise their performance.

VII. Conclusions
With the recent spate of corporate scandals and the subsequent interest in corporate governance, a plethora of corporate governance norms and standards have sprouted around the globe. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in the USA, the Cadbury Committee recommendations for European companies and the OECD principles of corporate governance are perhaps the best known among these. But developing countries have not fallen behind either. Well over a hundred different codes and norms have been identified in recent surveys and their number is steadily increasing. India has been no exception to the rule. Several committees and groups have looked into this issue that undoubtedly deserves all the attention it can get. In the last few years the thinking on the topic in India has gradually crystallized into the development of norms for listed companies. The problem for private companies, that form a vast majority of Indian corporate entities, remains largely unaddressed. The agency problem is likely to be less marked there as ownership and control are generally not separated. Minority shareholder exploitation, however, can very well be an important issue in many cases.

Development of norms and guidelines are an important first step in a serious effort to improve corporate governance. The bigger challenge in India, however, lies in the proper implementation of those rules at the ground level. More and more it appears that outside agencies like analysts and stock markets (particularly foreign markets for companies making GDR issues) have the most influence on the actions of managers in the leading companies of the country. But their influence is restricted to the few top (albeit largest) companies. More needs to be done to ensure adequate corporate governance in the average Indian company. Even the most prudent norms can be hoodwinked in a system plagued with widespread corruption. Nevertheless, with industry organizations and chambers of commerce themselves pushing for an improved corporate governance system, the future of corporate governance in India promises to be distinctly better than the past.