學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Corporate Governance Ratings: Got the Grade... What was the Test?
內容大綱
In 2007, there were three prominent corporate governance ratings firms-The Corporate Library (TCL), Governance Metrics International (GMI), and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). These firms assessed the effectiveness and deficiency of the governance systems of thousands of publicly traded companies. Although members of the investing public agreed that sound policies were important to protect the interest of shareholders from potentially self-interested managers, there were many questions around the usefulness of published governance ratings themselves. Questions ranged from whether a system of governance could be adequately summarized in a single, numerical score to what a high or low rating was supposed to indicate. Furthermore, allegations that ISS engaged in a conflict of interest by selling consulting services to companies on how to improve their ratings led some to question the objectivity of the ratings process.