Development of Photography in the Media

growth of picture taking in the MediaKim HwangIn the incunabula or swaddling stage of a medium, au becausetic kinds of conventions are set that later get refined or ch onlyenged. search at photography and/ or the pic house and discuss how these media emerged and then plant stable forms.In the beginning, photography was a tough work at. Getting a suitable picture required long exposures to the camera and processing time. The utilisation of different materials shortened down the time frame substantially and make it more than convenient for mickle to take pictures. It soon became a process many people valued to use to capture moments of time. Soon, photographers found that they could insure the pictures and form illusions. A picture by an unknown photographer called The subtlety of Milton featured a solid human being with a simple person standing beside him giving the illusion of the man being a ghost. Since usually pictures captured the real (making smashers felt as tho ugh they had been at the location of the picture and had seen what occurred with their own eyes) it make it be as though ghosts are real. Cinema progressed in a similar way. It started out by simply capturing everyday events such as a ball up consume a meal with its parents. It progressed to creating illusions by starting and stopping the recordings and adding nucleuss. In the scene Voyage to the Moon the wizards took a trip to the moon and ran into unfriendly aliens. The wizards would stunner the aliens with their wands and once hit, they would disappear into a puff of smoke. Even though that would never be able to happen in real life, the movie made viewing audience think it was actually possible because they were so fully invested in the movie. In these movies the camera was stuck in one location having the pseudos move alternatively of the camera. Later on the camera started moving so the attestators fag see more of the scenery and feel more incorporated in the atmosph ere. It also started zooming in and focusing on certain target areas or people as a subtle foreshadowing. In Andre Bazins What is Cinema?, he talks about how the director would focus on the thespian and his expression, then to food, and then on the actor moving towards the food and let the viewer figure out the storyline. There was also the example of the Kuleshov effect. There would be pictures of a blank staged actor and when paired with a coffin, the viewers would get the implication that the actor was sad. When paired with food, the viewers thought the actor was hungry, and when paired with a picture of a woman, the viewers thought the actor was portraying lust. With these techniques, the movie Triumph des Willens fork overed the death of a foul up without using gore. There was a scene of the baby in the tram, a man with a knife, and a woman wailing with broken glaze and blood on her face. It explained to the viewer the horribly unfair death of an simple baby without full y writing everything out for them.What does photography take from painting, and what does cinema take from photography? How do older and newer media relate, and in what ways does severally new medium relate to and differ from its predecessors?Paintings, photography, and cinema are all connected to one another. Photography learned from its predecessor, paintings. Paintings always had a gull central focus. Since it was such a laborious process to paint a full painting, artists would pick an important object to focus their attention on. For example, da Vinci DeVincis painting The Last Supper focuses on Jesus as the halfway of the painting. All angles of the building in the background and the positioning of the other 12 disciples point as Jesus being the most important person. Photography also taught cinema that the audience has an imagination. Not everything needs to be hone and realistic for the viewers to see what the director wants them to see. In the concur Film A Very Short I ntroduction by Michael woodwind instrument he talks about a movie depicting a fake cardboard rock structure with a photographed sea. But, viewers unsounded understand that the ship is out in the water and they are seeing it through a cave and still feel a discussion section of the scenery. Photography also taught cinema the movement of still pictures. Multiple shots of a horse running showed that at one point all iv hooves are off the ground, something cinema could never show. But alone, the photographs could never show a horse actually moving. But, flipping through the photos quickly considerably shows the calm gait. Cinema easily apply the still shots of photos to emphasize points in the movie and to build up tension. For example, in Gone with the Wind, while Scarlett is running away, she hits an range with fire spreading through a train that was transporting explosives. The horse is shake up by the fire and does not want to move causing the viewers to be nervous, unsure if they will escape before everything blows up. The camera infinitely cuts to the box of explosives and one could distinctly see the fire moving perilously closer. As the tension builds, Scarlett finally gets away and the watchers can finally blow over again. We get similar feelings from just three simple pictures of still pictures of a lion statue in the movie Battleship Potemkin. Sergie Eisenstein used the three shots of the lion in between the footage of the opera house being leveled. The three pictures showed the lion in different positions making it look as if one lion was standing up, representing the people rising out of anger evoking emotional and reason response. The use of emotion to get a point crosswise strongly is also taught by photography. Punctum in photos is something that, as Roland Bathes says in camera Lucida, pricksand bruises the viewers by having something in the photo that does not seem properly and therefore it sticks with the viewer. In cinema, they use something similar such as the baby and the violence in Battleship Potemkin that would make the violence seem more intense, making the act of killing the baby stick with viewers.What is the photography effect? Can we discuss a similar cinematic effect, and if so, how would you describe it? first on, photography was only used to capture the regular. But soon, the photographer Felix Nadar wanted to make something artistic out of the simple photos. But he had an issue, how was he going to make art when photography was automatic and you press a button and capture the already existing perfection? He easily solved this problem by using his signature style of electric switch up the positioning of the people he was photographing also changing the lighting. Shadows and angles quickly showed up and added a new dimension to each of the pictures. The photograph of Sarah Bernhardt shows clearly what can be done with the correct lighting and positioning. The light hits her from the left han d side adding in several shadows at the slightest curve. It adds sharper angles on her face emphasizing her already attractive features. As a result, the picture seems around more realistic. It feels as if she is sitting in the room, sitting right in front of you as the light comes in from the side. With humans as the object of the photo, we, as viewers, feel more connected to the picture. Cinema does similar things creating a gaze, a world, and an object, thereby producing an illusion as said in visual Pleasure by Laura Mulvey. For example, the videos of factory workers leaving the building and made the viewer feel as though they were standing in the middle of the thoroughfare with swarms of people going around them. It then moves to more interesting and perplex techniques such as the positioning of the camera and the light during desolate and duster movies. In the movie, Double Indemnity the camera moves to different locations in the room, which makes viewers feel as if they are in the room with the couple. Also, since the movie is black and white, the producers needed to make sure the lighting was perfect enough for the characterisation to capture facial expressions. The facial expressions in film were a double part the movie-audience connection. In Gone with the Wind viewers watch as Scarlett schemes how to get more attention from her male companion by her facial expressions while trying on the bonnet. Viewers knew exactly what was going on in her mind without words or sound. Photography and cinema used the same techniques to include the audience by making the unreal seem real.

Analysis of OECD Principles of Corporate Governance

Analysis of OECD Principles of in in corporeald constitutionForewordThe OECD Principles of bodily g every mallnment were endorsed by OECD Ministers in 1999 and capture since be set an planetary benchmark for insurance fritter away shapers, investors, deals and separate(a) s deemholders world wide-cut. They pass water advanced the bodily government docket and forgetd special(prenominal) counselor for legislative and regulative initiatives in both OECD and non OECD countries. The fiscal constancy meeting place has designated the Principles as one of the 12 attain metres for sound pecuniary transcriptions. The Principles alike provide the alkali for an extensive programme of co reality presentation mingled with OECD and non-OECD countries and bear the in corporal formation utilization of knowledge domain coast/IMF Reports on the communion of Standards and Codes (ROSC). The Principles stimulate now been thoroughly re visual senseed to yield bill of recent becomements and experiences in OECD fragment and non- process countries. polity de voters ar now to a greater extent than awargon of the piece comfortably in somaticd presidential term realises to financial commercialize st major power, enthronization and stinting growth. Companies better chthonicstand how expert integrated establishment contributes to their competitiveness. Investors especially corporal investing institutions and pension funds acting in a fiducial energy realise they down a berth to play in ensuring intimately integrated validation practices, thereby patronagening the double of their investments. In todays economies, bear on in collective organisation goes beyond that of sh arholders in the exercise of man-to-man companies. As companies play a pivotal lineament in our economies and we commit more and more on hugger-mugger atomic bite 18na institutions to manage personal savings and warm retirement incomes, ethic al corporeal politics is authorised to enormous and maturement segments of the population.The re belief of the Principles was start outn by the OECD focal point chemical group on corporal government body process nether a mandate from OECD Ministers in 2002. The review was funding by a comprehensive survey of how particle countries addressed the antithetical in unified government challenges they faced. It besides drew on experiences in economies out-of-door the OECD argona where the OECD, in co-operation with the World Bank and early(a) sponsors, organises regional somatic institution Roundt adequate to(p)s to support regional reform efforts. The review puzzle out benefited from contributions from nigh(prenominal) parties. winder inter field institutions enrold and extensive consultations were held with the toffee-nosed sector, labour, civil society and representatives from non-OECD countries. The functioning in any case benefited greatly from the insi ghts of inter contently recognised experts who participated in two tall take informal gatherings I convened. Finally, m whatsoever constructive suggestions were received when a brief of the Principles was make available for usual ob process on the internet. The Principles ar a living instrument offering non-binding standards and good practices as healthful as guidance on slaying, which back end be adapted to the specific bunch of individual countries and regions. The OECD offers a forum for ongoing dialogue and commute of experiences among member and non-member countries. To stay abreast of constantly changing parcel, the OECD forget nigh describe obtainments in corporal ecesis, bring uping trends and tasteing remedies to new challenges. These Revised Principles give get ahead reinforce OECDs contribution and commitment to collective efforts to strengthen the fabric of embodied governance around the world in the years ahead. This bat depart not eradicate c riminal ratified action, but much(prenominal) activity depart be make more difficult as regains and ordinances be select in accordance with the Principles. Importantly, our efforts bequeath as tumefy as help kick downstairs a culture of values for passkey and ethical behaviour on which salutary functioning market places depend. Trust and integrity play an essential occasion in sparing life and for the sake of line of reasoning and future prosperity we lease to make sure that they atomic number 18 right-hand(a)ly rewarded.OECD Principles of merged brassThe OECD Principles of incorporate Governance were originally developed in response to a rallying cry by the OECD Council Meeting at ministerial level on 27-28 April 1998, to develop, in conjunction with interior(a) governments, slightly new(prenominal)(a) relevant inter guinea pig organisations and the private sector, a set of corporeal governance standards and guidelines. Since the Principles were agreed in 1999, they lay down create the basis for corporate governance initiatives in both OECD and non-OECD countries alike.Moreover, they spend a penny been adopt as one of the Twelve gravestone Standards for Sound Financial Systems by the Financial constantness Forum. Accordingly, they form the basis of the corporate governance luck of the World Bank/IMF Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC). The OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial Level in 2002 agreed to survey developments in OECD countries and to task the Principles in light of developments in corporate governance. This task was entrusted to the OECD commission gathering on Corporate Governance, which comprises representatives from OECD countries. In addition, the World Bank, the Bank for world-wide Settlements (BIS) and the supranational fiscal Fund (IMF) were stay freshrs to the Group. For the assessment, the Steering Group as well as invited the Financial Stability Forum, the Basel Committe e, and the planetary Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) as ad hoc observers.In its review of the Principles, the Steering Group has undertaken comprehensive consultations and has prep atomic number 18d with the serve puff upance of members the bailiwick of Developments in OECD Countries. The consultations wealthy person entangle experts from a large derive of countries which beget participated in the Regional Corporate Governance Roundtables that the OECD organises in Russia, Asia, South East Europe, Latin the States and Eurasia with the support of the Global Corporate Governance Forum and opposites, and in co-operation with the World Bank and separate non-OECD countries as easily. Moreover, the Steering Group has consulted a wide range of engrossed parties such as the stock sector, investors, professional groups at national and international levels, trade unions, civil society organisations and international standard scenery bodies. A draft version of th e Principles was put on the OECD website for prevalent comment and caseed in a large number of responses. These be possessed of been made globe on the OECD web site.On the basis of the discussions in the Steering Group, the Survey and the comments received during the wide ranging consultations, it was concluded that the 1999 Principles should be revised to take into account new developments and concerns. It was agreed that the revision should be absorbd with a view to maintaining a non-binding principles-based near, which recognises the deal to adapt implementation to changeing heavy frugal and cultural circumstances. The revised Principles extended in this document thus skeletal frame upon a wide range of experience not only in the OECD plain but similarly in non-OECD countries.PreambleThe Principles are think to assist OECD and non-OECD governments in their efforts to evaluate and make better the heavy, institutional and restrictive modeling for corporate govern ance in their countries, and to provide guidance and suggestions for stock exchanges, investors, flocks, and other parties that birth a role in the process of developing good corporate governance. The Principles condense on publicly traded companies, both financial and non-financial. However, to the cessation they are deemed applicable, they might also be a useful cock to meliorate corporate governance in non-traded companies, for example, privately held and stateowned enterprises. The Principles represent a parking area basis that OECD member countries distribute essential for the development of good governance practices. They are intended to be concise, understandable and entry representationible to the international community. They are not intended to substitute for government, semi-government or private sector initiatives to develop more detailed best practice in corporate governance.Increasingly, the OECD and its member governments prevail recognized the synergy surr ounded by macro sparing and morphological policies in achieving fundamental form _or_ system of government goals. Corporate governance is one key chemical cistron in improving stinting efficiency and growth as well as enhancing investor confidence. Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a familys centering, its get along with, its stockholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure finished which the verifiables of the partnership are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are specifyd. correct corporate governance should provide proper incentives for the progress and direction to quest after objectives that are in the interests of the familiarity and its apportionholders and should make haste useful monitoring. The presence of an trenchant corporate governance system, inwardly an individual caller and hybridizingways an providence as a whole, helps to provide a d egree of confidence that is inevitable for the proper functioning of a market economy. As a result, the live of surveying capital is lower and firms are make headwayd to use resources more goodly, thereby underpinning growth. Corporate governance is only part of the larger economic mount in which firms operate that includes, for example, macroeconomic policies and the degree of competition in crossroad and doer markets. The corporate governance framework also depends on the good, regulatory, and institutional purlieu. In addition, fixingss such as descent ethics and corporate knowingness of the environmental and societal interests of the communities in which a company operates bed also turn over an allude on its reputation and its long-term success.While a numerosity of factors doctor the governance and decisionmaking processes of firms, and are primal to their long-term success, the Principles focus on governance problems that result from the separation of self-po ssession and control. However, this is not plainly an hold out of the relationship between stockholders and management, although that is indeed the central element. In some jurisdictions, governance issues also arise from the power of genuine controlling coverholders over nonage shareholders. In other countries, employees hire eventful legal counterbalances irrespective of their ownership rights. The Principles indeed shake up to be complementary to a broader approach to the operation of checks and balances. Some of the other issues relevant to a companys decision-making processes, such as environmental, anti-corruption or ethical concerns, are taken into account but are enured more transparently in a number of other OECD instruments (including the Guidelines for transnational Enterprises and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Transactions) and the instruments of other international organisations.Corporate governance is affec ted by the relationships among participants in the governance system. Controlling shareholders, which whitethorn be individuals, family holdings, bloc alliances, or other corporations acting through a holding company or cross shareholdings, sess significantly influence corporate behaviour. As owners of honor, institutional investors are more and more demanding a voice in corporate governance in some markets. Individual shareholders usually do not assay to function governance rights but may be highly come to about obtaining fair give-and-take from controlling shareholders and management. Creditors play an meaning(a) role in a number of governance systems and can serve as outer monitors over corporate performance. Employees and other stakeholders play an important role in contributing to the long-term success and performance of the corporation, while governments hit the boilersuit institutional and legal framework for corporate governance. The role of distributively of th ese participants and their interactions vary wide among OECD countries and among non- OECD countries as well. These relationships are subject area, in part, to impartiality and regulation and, in part, to intended adaptation and, close importantly, to market forces.The degree to which corporations observe staple fibre principles of good corporate governance is an increasingly important factor for investment decisions. Of particular relevance is the relation between corporate governance practices and the increasingly international character of investment. International flows of capital enable companies to opening backing from a much larger pool of investors. If countries are to soak up the broad(a) benefits of the global capital market, and if they are to attract long-term uncomplaining capital, corporate governance arrangements must be credible, well understood across b companys and dumb put in to internationally accepted principles. Even if corporations do not depone c hiefly on foreign sources of capital, adherence to good corporate governance practices volition help improve the confidence of domestic investors, reduce the exist of capital, underpin the good functioning of financial markets, and ultimately induce more stable sources of financing.There is no virtuoso model of good corporate governance. However, work carried out in both OECD and non-OECD countries and within the Organisation has determine some green elements that underlie good corporate governance. The Principles build on these common elements and are formulated to embrace the diverse models that exist. For example, they do not guidance any particular placard structure and the term tabular array as used in this document is meant to embrace the unalike national models of control mount up structures found in OECD and non-OECD countries. In the typical two layer system, found in some countries, placard as used in the Principles refers to the supervisory display panel wh ile key administrators refers to the management board. In systems where the one(a) board is overseen by an internecine examineors luggage compartment, the principles applicable to the board are also, mutatis mutandis, applicable. The toll corporation and company are used interchangeably in the text.The Principles are non-binding and do not aim at detailed prescriptions for national legislation. Rather, they seek to identify objectives and suggest various means for achieving them. Their purpose is to serve as a reference point. They can be used by form _or_ system of government makers as they examine and develop the legal and regulatory frameworks for corporate governance that polish their own economic, social, legal and cultural circumstances, and by market participants as they develop their own practices.The Principles are evolutionary in nature and should be reviewed in light of significant changes in circumstances. To remain competitive in a changing world, corporations mu st innovate and adapt their corporate governance practices so that they can meet new demands and grasp new opportunities. Similarly, governments have an important responsibility for shaping an force playive regulatory framework that provides for commensurate tractableness to allow markets to function potently and to respond to expectations of shareholders and other stakeholders. It is up to governments and market participants to decide how to apply these Principles in developing their own frameworks for corporate governance, winning into account the costs and benefits of regulation.The following document is divided into two parts. The Principles presented in the first part of the document cover the following theaters I) Ensuring the basis for an effective corporate governance framework II) The rights of shareholders and key ownership functions III) The just treatment of shareholders IV) The role of stakeholders V) Disclosure and transparency and VI) The responsibilities of th e board. Each of the sections is headed by a single Principle that appears in bold italics and is followed by a number of supporting sub-principles. In the second part of the document, the Principles are supplemented by annotations that contain commentary on the Principles and are intended to help readers understand their rationale. The annotations may also contain descriptions of dominant trends and offer alternative implementation methods and examples that may be useful in making the Principles in operation(p).Shareholders should be furnished with adapted and incidentally breeding concerning the date, location and agenda of global meetings, as well as full and by the bye information regarding the issues to be decided at the meeting.Shareholders should have the opportunity to ask questions to the board, including questions relating to the annual external audit, to place items on the agenda of general meetings, and to propose resolutions, subject to reasonable limitations. ef ficient shareholder troth in key corporate governance decisions, such as the nominating speech and eliteion of board members, should be facilitated. Shareholders should be able to make their views cognise on the remuneration policy for board members and key executives. The truth component of compensation schemes for board members and employees should be subject to shareholder commendation.Ensuring the nates for an Effective Corporate Governance FrameworkThe corporate governance framework should crusade liquid and efficient markets, be concordant with the rule of truth and shit articulate the division of responsibilities among different supervisory, regulatory and enforcement governance.To ensure an effective corporate governance framework, it is necessary that an prehend and effective legal, regulatory and institutional insane asylum is found upon which all market participants can rely in establishing their private contractual relations. This corporate governance f ramework typically comprises elements of legislation, regulation, selfregulatory arrangements, voluntary commitments and business practices that are the result of a countrys specific circumstances, history and tradition. The in demand(predicate) fuse between legislation, regulation, self-regulation, voluntary standards, etc. in this area will therefore vary from country to country. As new experiences accrue and business circumstances change, the content and structure of this framework might hire to be adjusted. Countries seek to implement the Principles should monitor their corporate governance framework, including regulatory and itemization positments and business practices, with the objective of maintaining and strengthening its contribution to market integrity and economic performance. As part of this, it is important to take into account the interactions and complementarity between different elements of the corporate governance framework and its overall ability to promote ethical, creditworthy and transparent corporate governance practices. such(prenominal) abridgment should be viewed as an important tool in the process of developing an effective corporate governance framework. To this end, effective and continuous consultation with the public is an essential element that is widely regarded as good practice. Moreover, in developing a corporate governance framework in for each one jurisdiction, national legislators and regulators should duly consider the command for, and the results from, effective international dialogue and cooperation. If these conditions are met, the governance system is more likely to avoid over-regulation, support the work on of entrepreneurship and limit the assays of alter conflicts of interest in both the private sector and in public institutions.The 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 parti cipants and the onward motion of transparent and efficient markets.The corporate form of organisation of economic activity is a powerful force for growth. The regulatory and legal environment within which corporations operate is therefore of key importance to overall economic outcomes. Policy makers have a responsibility to put in place a framework that is flexible enough to meet the needs of corporations direct in widely different circumstances, facilitating their development of new opportunities to create value and to determine the most efficient deployment of resources. To achieve this goal, policy makers should remain focused on ultimate economic outcomes and when considering policy options, they will need to undertake an analysis of the impact on key variables that affect the functioning of markets, such as incentive structures, the efficiency of self-regulatory systems and dispenseing with systemic conflicts of interest. Transparent and efficient markets serve to disciplin e market participants and to promote accountability.The legal and regulatory requirements that affect corporate governance practices in a jurisdiction should be consistent with the rule of law, transparent and enforceable.If new laws and regulations are needed, such as to deal with clear cases of market imperfections, they should be designed in a way that makes them affirmable to implement and enforce in an efficient and even hand personal manner covering all parties. Consultation by government and other regulatory authorities with corporations, their representative organisations and other stakeholders, is an effective way of doing this. Mechanisms should also be established for parties to protect their rights. In disposition to avoid over-regulation, unenforceable laws, and uncaused consequences that may impede or distort business dynamics, policy measures should be designed with a view to their overall costs and benefits. Such assessments should take into account the need for effective enforcement, including the ability of authorities to deter for sale behaviour and to impose effective sanctions for violations. Corporate governance objectives are also formulated in voluntary codes and standards that do not have the consideration of law or regulation. While such codes play an important role in improving corporate governance arrangements, they might quit shareholders and other stakeholders with uncertainty concerning their status and implementation. When codes and principles are used as a national standard or as an explicit substitute for legal or regulatory provisions, market credibility requires that their status in name of coverage, implementation, respect and sanctions is clearly specify.The division of responsibilities among different authorities in a jurisdiction should be clearly articulated and ensure that the public interest is served.Corporate governance requirements and practices are typically influenced by an array of legal domains, such as company law, securities regulation, accounting and auditing standards, insolvency law, contract law, labour law and measure law. Under these circumstances, there is a risk that the variety of legal influences may cause unintentional overlaps and even conflicts, which may frustrate the ability to watch over key corporate governance objectives. It is important that policy-makers are conscious(predicate) of this risk and take measures to limit it. Effective enforcement also requires that the allocation of responsibilities for supervision, implementation and enforcement among different authorities is clearly defined so that the competencies of complementary bodies and agencies are prise and used most effectively. Overlapping and perhaps contradictory regulations between national jurisdictions is also an issue that should be monitored so that no regulatory vacuum cleaner is allowed to develop (i.e. issues slipping through in which no permit has explicit responsibility) and to minimise the cost of compliance with multiple systems by corporations. When regulatory responsibilities or oversight are delegated to non-public bodies, it is desirable to explicitly assess why, and under what circumstances, such delegation is desirable. It is also essential that the governance structure of any such delegated institution be transparent and encompass the public interest.Supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities should have the authority, integrity and resources to fulfil their duties in a professional and objective manner. Moreover, their rulings should be timely, transparent and fully explained.Regulatory responsibilities should be vested with bodies that can pursue their functions without conflicts of interest and that are subject to judicial review. As the number of public companies, corporate events and the volume of disclosures increase, the resources of supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities may come under strain. As a result, in order to follow developments, they will have a significant demand for fully qualified provide to provide effective oversight and investigative capacity which will need to be appropriately funded. The ability to attract staff on competitive damage will enhance the quality and independence of supervision and enforcement.The Rights of Shareholders and Key ownership FunctionsThe corporate governance framework should protect and facilitate the exercise of shareholders rights. comeliness investors have certain property rights. For example, an lawfulness share in a publicly traded company can be bought, sold, or agitatered. An equity share also entitles the investor to participate in the profits of the corporation, with liability particular to the amount of money of the investment. In addition, ownership of an equity share provides a right to information about the corporation and a right to influence the corporation, mainly by booking in general shareholder meetings and by voting. As a pr actical matter, however, the corporation cannot be managed by shareholder referendum. The shareholding body is made up of individuals and institutions whose interests, goals, investment horizons and capabilities vary. Moreover, the corporations management must be able to take business decisions rapidly. In light of these realities and the complexity of managing the corporations affairs in quick moving and ever changing markets, shareholders are not evaluate to hold out responsibility for managing corporate activities. The responsibility for corporate strategy and operations is typically placed in the hands of the board and a management team that is selected, motivated and, when necessary, replaced by the board. Shareholders rights to influence the corporation centre on certain fundamental issues, such as the election of board members, or other means of influencing the composition of the board, amendments to the companys organic documents, approval of funny transactions, and oth er underlying issues as specified in company law and internal company statutes. This Section can be seen as a financial statement of the most basic rights of shareholders, which are recognised by law in more or less all OECD countries. Additional rights such as the approval or election of auditors, direct nominating speech of board members, the ability to pledge shares, the approval of distributions of profits, etc., can be found in various jurisdictions.Basic shareholder rights should include the right to 1) secure methods of ownership registration 2) convey or agitate shares 3) obtain relevant and material information on the corporation on a timely and regular basis 4) participate and voter turnout in general shareholder meetings 5) elect and remove members of the board and 6) share in the profits of the corporation.Shareholders should have the right to participate in, and to be ablely advised on, decisions concerning fundamental corporate changes such as 1) amendments to the statutes, or articles of incorporation or similar governing documents of the company 2) the authorisation of additional shares and 3) extraordinary transactions, including the remove of all or substantially all assets, that in effect result in the sale of the company.The ability of companies to form partnerships and related companies and to transfer operational assets, cash flow rights and other rights and obligations to them is important for business tractability and for delegation accountability in complex organisations. It also allows a company to disrobe itself of operational assets and to become only a holding company. However, without appropriate checks and balances such possibilities may also be abused.Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate effectively and vote in general shareholder meetings and should be sure of the rules, including voting procedures, that govern general shareholder meetingsShareholders should be furnished with sufficient and timel y information concerning the date, location and agenda of general meetings, as well as full and timely information regarding the issues to be decided at the meeting.Shareholders should have the opportunity to ask questions to the board, including questions relating to the annual external audit, to place items on the agenda of general meetings, and to propose esolutions, subject to reasonable limitations.In order to encourage shareholder participation in general meetings, some companies have meliorate the ability of shareholders to place items on the agenda by simplifying the process of register amendments and resolutions.Improvements have also been made in order to make it easier for shareholders to settle questions in advance of the general meeting and to obtain replies from management and board members. Shareholders should also be able to ask questions relating to the external audit report. Companies are justified in assuring that abuses of such opportunities do not occur. It i s reasonable, for example, to require that in order for shareholder resolutions to be placed on the agenda, they need to be supported by shareholders holding a specified market value or percentage of shares or voting rights. This door should be determined taking into account the degree of ownership concentration, in order to ensure that minority shareholders are not effectively prevented from position any items on the agenda. Shareholder resolutions that are approved and fall within the competency of the shareholders meeting should be addressed by the board.Effective shareholder participation in key corporate governance decisions, such as the nomination and election of board members, should be facilitated. Shareholders should be able to make their views cognize on the remuneration policy for board members and key executives. The equity component of compensation schemes for board members and employees should be subject to shareholder approval.To elect the members of the board is a basic shareholder right. For the election process to be effective, shareholders should be able to participate in the nomination of board members and vote on individual nominees or on different lists of them. To this end, shareholders have access in a number of countries to the companys proxy materials which are sent to shareholders, although sometimes subject to conditions to prevent abuse. With respect to nomination of candidates, boards in many companies have established nomination committees to ensure proper compliance with established nomination procedures and to facilitate and coordinate the search for a balanced and qualified board. It is increasingly regarded as good practice in many countries for independent board members to have a key role on this committee. To further improve the weft process, the Principles also call for full disclosure of the experience and orbit of candidates for the board and the nomination process, which will allow an informed assessment of the ab ilities and suitableness of each candidate. The Principles call for the disclosure of remuneration policy by the board. In particular, it is important for shareholders to know the specific link between remuneration and company performance when they assess the capability of the board and the qualities they should seek in nominees for the board. Although board and executive contracts are not an appropriate subject for approval by the general meeting of shareholders, there should be a means by which they can express their views. Several countries have introdAnalysis of OECD Principles of Corporate GovernanceAnalysis of OECD Principles of Corporate GovernanceForewordThe OECD Principles of Corporate Governance were endorsed by OECD Ministers in 1999 and have since become an international benchmark for policy makers, investors, corporations and other stakeholders worldwide. They have advanced the corporate governance agenda and provided specific guidance for legislative and regulatory in itiatives in both OECD and non OECD countries. The Financial Stability Forum has designated the Principles as one of the 12 key standards for sound financial systems. The Principles also provide the basis for an extensive programme of cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries and underpin the corporate governance component of World Bank/IMF Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC). The Principles have now been thoroughly reviewed to take account of recent developments and experiences in OECD member and non-member countries. Policy makers are now more aware of the contribution good corporate governance makes to financial market stability, investment and economic growth. Companies better understand how good corporate governance contributes to their competitiveness. Investors especially collective investment institutions and pension funds acting in a fiduciary capacity realise they have a role to play in ensuring good corporate governance practices, thereby under pinning the value of their investments. In todays economies, interest in corporate governance goes beyond that of shareholders in the performance of individual companies. As companies play a pivotal role in our economies and we rely increasingly on private sector institutions to manage personal savings and secure retirement incomes, good corporate governance is important to broad and growing segments of the population.The review of the Principles was undertaken by the OECD Steering Group on Corporate Governance under a mandate from OECD Ministers in 2002. The review was supported by a comprehensive survey of how member countries addressed the different corporate governance challenges they faced. It also drew on experiences in economies outside the OECD area where the OECD, in co-operation with the World Bank and other sponsors, organises Regional Corporate Governance Roundtables to support regional reform efforts. The review process benefited from contributions from many parties. Ke y international institutions participated and extensive consultations were held with the private sector, labour, civil society and representatives from non-OECD countries. The process also benefited greatly from the insights of internationally recognised experts who participated in two high level informal gatherings I convened. Finally, many constructive suggestions were received when a draft of the Principles was made available for public comment on the internet. The Principles are a living instrument offering non-binding standards and good practices as well as guidance on implementation, which can be adapted to the specific circumstances of individual countries and regions. The OECD offers a forum for ongoing dialogue and exchange of experiences among member and non-member countries. To stay abreast of constantly changing circumstances, the OECD will closely follow developments in corporate governance, identifying trends and seeking remedies to new challenges. These Revised Princi ples will further reinforce OECDs contribution and commitment to collective efforts to strengthen the fabric of corporate governance around the world in the years ahead. This work will not eradicate criminal activity, but such activity will be made more difficult as rules and regulations are adopted in accordance with the Principles. Importantly, our efforts will also help develop a culture of values for professional and ethical behaviour on which well functioning markets depend. Trust and integrity play an essential role in economic life and for the sake of business and future prosperity we have to make sure that they are properly rewarded.OECD Principles of Corporate GovernanceThe OECD Principles of Corporate Governance were originally developed in response to a call by the OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial level on 27-28 April 1998, to develop, in conjunction with national governments, other relevant international organisations and the private sector, a set of corporate governa nce standards and guidelines. Since the Principles were agreed in 1999, they have formed the basis for corporate governance initiatives in both OECD and non-OECD countries alike.Moreover, they have been adopted as one of the Twelve Key Standards for Sound Financial Systems by the Financial Stability Forum. Accordingly, they form the basis of the corporate governance component of the World Bank/IMF Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC). The OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial Level in 2002 agreed to survey developments in OECD countries and to assess the Principles in light of developments in corporate governance. This task was entrusted to the OECD Steering Group on Corporate Governance, which comprises representatives from OECD countries. In addition, the World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were observers to the Group. For the assessment, the Steering Group also invited the Financial Stability Forum, t he Basel Committee, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) as ad hoc observers.In its review of the Principles, the Steering Group has undertaken comprehensive consultations and has prepared with the assistance of members the Survey of Developments in OECD Countries. The consultations have included experts from a large number of countries which have participated in the Regional Corporate Governance Roundtables that the OECD organises in Russia, Asia, South East Europe, Latin America and Eurasia with the support of the Global Corporate Governance Forum and others, and in co-operation with the World Bank and other non-OECD countries as well. Moreover, the Steering Group has consulted a wide range of interested parties such as the business sector, investors, professional groups at national and international levels, trade unions, civil society organisations and international standard setting bodies. A draft version of the Principles was put on the OECD webs ite for public comment and resulted in a large number of responses. These have been made public on the OECD web site.On the basis of the discussions in the Steering Group, the Survey and the comments received during the wide ranging consultations, it was concluded that the 1999 Principles should be revised to take into account new developments and concerns. It was agreed that the revision should be pursued with a view to maintaining a non-binding principles-based approach, which recognises the need to adapt implementation to varying legal economic and cultural circumstances. The revised Principles contained in this document thus build upon a wide range of experience not only in the OECD area but also in non-OECD countries.PreambleThe Principles are intended to assist OECD and non-OECD governments in their efforts to evaluate and improve the legal, institutional and regulatory framework for corporate governance in their countries, and to provide guidance and suggestions for stock exc hanges, investors, corporations, and other parties that have a role in the process of developing good corporate governance. The Principles focus on publicly traded companies, both financial and non-financial. However, to the extent they are deemed applicable, they might also be a useful tool to improve corporate governance in non-traded companies, for example, privately held and stateowned enterprises. The Principles represent a common basis that OECD member countries consider essential for the development of good governance practices. They are intended to be concise, understandable and accessible to the international community. They are not intended to substitute for government, semi-government or private sector initiatives to develop more detailed best practice in corporate governance.Increasingly, the OECD and its member governments have recognized the synergy between macroeconomic and structural policies in achieving fundamental policy goals. Corporate governance is one key elem ent in improving economic efficiency and growth as well as enhancing investor confidence. Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a companys management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined. Good corporate governance should provide proper incentives for the board and management to pursue objectives that are in the interests of the company and its shareholders and should facilitate effective monitoring. The presence of an effective corporate governance system, within an individual company and across an economy as a whole, helps to provide a degree of confidence that is necessary for the proper functioning of a market economy. As a result, the cost of capital is lower and firms are encouraged to use resources more efficiently, thereby underpinning growth. Corporate governance is only part of the larger economic context in which firms operate that includes, for example, macroeconomic policies and the degree of competition in product and factor markets. The corporate governance framework also depends on the legal, regulatory, and institutional environment. In addition, factors such as business ethics and corporate awareness of the environmental and societal interests of the communities in which a company operates can also have an impact on its reputation and its long-term success.While a multiplicity of factors affect the governance and decisionmaking processes of firms, and are important to their long-term success, the Principles focus on governance problems that result from the separation of ownership and control. However, this is not simply an issue of the relationship between shareholders and management, although that is indeed the central element. In some jurisdictions, governance issues also arise from the power of certain controlling sha reholders over minority shareholders. In other countries, employees have important legal rights irrespective of their ownership rights. The Principles therefore have to be complementary to a broader approach to the operation of checks and balances. Some of the other issues relevant to a companys decision-making processes, such as environmental, anti-corruption or ethical concerns, are taken into account but are treated more explicitly in a number of other OECD instruments (including the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Transactions) and the instruments of other international organisations.Corporate governance is affected by the relationships among participants in the governance system. Controlling shareholders, which may be individuals, family holdings, bloc alliances, or other corporations acting through a holding company or cross shareholdings, can significantly influence corporate behavio ur. As owners of equity, institutional investors are increasingly demanding a voice in corporate governance in some markets. Individual shareholders usually do not seek to exercise governance rights but may be highly concerned about obtaining fair treatment from controlling shareholders and management. Creditors play an important role in a number of governance systems and can serve as external monitors over corporate performance. Employees and other stakeholders play an important role in contributing to the long-term success and performance of the corporation, while governments establish the overall institutional and legal framework for corporate governance. The role of each of these participants and their interactions vary widely among OECD countries and among non- OECD countries as well. These relationships are subject, in part, to law and regulation and, in part, to voluntary adaptation and, most importantly, to market forces.The degree to which corporations observe basic princip les of good corporate governance is an increasingly important factor for investment decisions. Of particular relevance is the relation between corporate governance practices and the increasingly international character of investment. International flows of capital enable companies to access financing from a much larger pool of investors. If countries are to reap the full benefits of the global capital market, and if they are to attract long-term patient capital, corporate governance arrangements must be credible, well understood across borders and adhere to internationally accepted principles. Even if corporations do not rely primarily on foreign sources of capital, adherence to good corporate governance practices will help improve the confidence of domestic investors, reduce the cost of capital, underpin the good functioning of financial markets, and ultimately induce more stable sources of financing.There is no single model of good corporate governance. However, work carried out i n both OECD and non-OECD countries and within the Organisation has identified some common elements that underlie good corporate governance. The Principles build on these common elements and are formulated to embrace the different models that exist. For example, they do not advocate any particular board structure and the term board as used in this document is meant to embrace the different national models of board structures found in OECD and non-OECD countries. In the typical two tier system, found in some countries, board as used in the Principles refers to the supervisory board while key executives refers to the management board. In systems where the unitary board is overseen by an internal auditors body, the principles applicable to the board are also, mutatis mutandis, applicable. The terms corporation and company are used interchangeably in the text.The Principles are non-binding and do not aim at detailed prescriptions for national legislation. Rather, they seek to identify ob jectives and suggest various means for achieving them. Their purpose is to serve as a reference point. They can be used by policy makers as they examine and develop the legal and regulatory frameworks for corporate governance that reflect their own economic, social, legal and cultural circumstances, and by market participants as they develop their own practices.The Principles are evolutionary in nature and should be reviewed in light of significant changes in circumstances. To remain competitive in a changing world, corporations must innovate and adapt their corporate governance practices so that they can meet new demands and grasp new opportunities. Similarly, governments have an important responsibility for shaping an effective regulatory framework that provides for sufficient flexibility to allow markets to function effectively and to respond to expectations of shareholders and other stakeholders. It is up to governments and market participants to decide how to apply these Princi ples in developing their own frameworks for corporate governance, taking into account the costs and benefits of regulation.The following document is divided into two parts. The Principles presented in the first part of the document cover the following areas I) Ensuring the basis for an effective corporate governance framework II) The rights of shareholders and key ownership functions III) The equitable treatment of shareholders IV) The role of stakeholders V) Disclosure and transparency and VI) The responsibilities of the board. Each of the sections is headed by a single Principle that appears in bold italics and is followed by a number of supporting sub-principles. In the second part of the document, the Principles are supplemented by annotations that contain commentary on the Principles and are intended to help readers understand their rationale. The annotations may also contain descriptions of dominant trends and offer alternative implementation methods and examples that may be u seful in making the Principles operational.Shareholders should be furnished with sufficient and timely information concerning the date, location and agenda of general meetings, as well as full and timely information regarding the issues to be decided at the meeting.Shareholders should have the opportunity to ask questions to the board, including questions relating to the annual external audit, to place items on the agenda of general meetings, and to propose resolutions, subject to reasonable limitations.Effective shareholder participation in key corporate governance decisions, such as the nomination and election of board members, should be facilitated. Shareholders should be able to make their views known on the remuneration policy for board members and key executives. The equity component of compensation schemes for board members and employees should be subject to shareholder approval.Ensuring the Basis for an Effective Corporate Governance FrameworkThe corporate governance framewo rk should promote transparent and efficient markets, be consistent with the rule of law and clearly articulate the division of responsibilities among different supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities.To ensure an effective corporate governance framework, it is necessary that an appropriate and effective legal, regulatory and institutional foundation is established upon which all market participants can rely in establishing their private contractual relations. This corporate governance framework typically comprises elements of legislation, regulation, selfregulatory arrangements, voluntary commitments and business practices that are the result of a countrys specific circumstances, history and tradition. The desirable mix between legislation, regulation, self-regulation, voluntary standards, etc. in this area will therefore vary from country to country. As new experiences accrue and business circumstances change, the content and structure of this framework might need to be adjusted. Countries seeking to implement the Principles should monitor their corporate governance framework, including regulatory and listing requirements and business practices, with the objective of maintaining and strengthening its contribution to market integrity and economic performance. As part of this, it is important to take into account the interactions and complementarity between different elements of the corporate governance framework and its overall ability to promote ethical, responsible and transparent corporate governance practices. Such analysis should be viewed as an important tool in the process of developing an effective corporate governance framework. To this end, effective and continuous consultation with the public is an essential element that is widely regarded as good practice. Moreover, in developing a corporate governance framework in each jurisdiction, national legislators and regulators should duly consider the need for, and the results from, effective i nternational dialogue and cooperation. If these conditions are met, the governance system is more likely to avoid over-regulation, support the exercise of entrepreneurship and limit the risks of damaging conflicts of interest in both the private sector and in public institutions.The 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 and the promotion of transparent and efficient markets.The corporate form of organisation of economic activity is a powerful force for growth. The regulatory and legal environment within which corporations operate is therefore of key importance to overall economic outcomes. Policy makers have a responsibility to put in place a framework that is flexible enough to meet the needs of corporations operating in widely different circumstances, facilitating their development of new opportunities to create value and to determine the m ost efficient deployment of resources. To achieve this goal, policy makers should remain focussed on ultimate economic outcomes and when considering policy options, they will need to undertake an analysis of the impact on key variables that affect the functioning of markets, such as incentive structures, the efficiency of self-regulatory systems and dealing with systemic conflicts of interest. Transparent and efficient markets serve to discipline market participants and to promote accountability.The legal and regulatory requirements that affect corporate governance practices in a jurisdiction should be consistent with the rule of law, transparent and enforceable.If new laws and regulations are needed, such as to deal with clear cases of market imperfections, they should be designed in a way that makes them possible to implement and enforce in an efficient and even handed manner covering all parties. Consultation by government and other regulatory authorities with corporations, their representative organisations and other stakeholders, is an effective way of doing this. Mechanisms should also be established for parties to protect their rights. In order to avoid over-regulation, unenforceable laws, and unintended consequences that may impede or distort business dynamics, policy measures should be designed with a view to their overall costs and benefits. Such assessments should take into account the need for effective enforcement, including the ability of authorities to deter dishonest behaviour and to impose effective sanctions for violations. Corporate governance objectives are also formulated in voluntary codes and standards that do not have the status of law or regulation. While such codes play an important role in improving corporate governance arrangements, they might leave shareholders and other stakeholders with uncertainty concerning their status and implementation. When codes and principles are used as a national standard or as an explicit substitute fo r legal or regulatory provisions, market credibility requires that their status in terms of coverage, implementation, compliance and sanctions is clearly specified.The division of responsibilities among different authorities in a jurisdiction should be clearly articulated and ensure that the public interest is served.Corporate governance requirements and practices are typically influenced by an array of legal domains, such as company law, securities regulation, accounting and auditing standards, insolvency law, contract law, labour law and tax law. Under these circumstances, there is a risk that the variety of legal influences may cause unintentional overlaps and even conflicts, which may frustrate the ability to pursue key corporate governance objectives. It is important that policy-makers are aware of this risk and take measures to limit it. Effective enforcement also requires that the allocation of responsibilities for supervision, implementation and enforcement among different a uthorities is clearly defined so that the competencies of complementary bodies and agencies are respected and used most effectively. Overlapping and perhaps contradictory regulations between national jurisdictions is also an issue that should be monitored so that no regulatory vacuum is allowed to develop (i.e. issues slipping through in which no authority has explicit responsibility) and to minimise the cost of compliance with multiple systems by corporations. When regulatory responsibilities or oversight are delegated to non-public bodies, it is desirable to explicitly assess why, and under what circumstances, such delegation is desirable. It is also essential that the governance structure of any such delegated institution be transparent and encompass the public interest.Supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities should have the authority, integrity and resources to fulfil their duties in a professional and objective manner. Moreover, their rulings should be timely, trans parent and fully explained.Regulatory responsibilities should be vested with bodies that can pursue their functions without conflicts of interest and that are subject to judicial review. As the number of public companies, corporate events and the volume of disclosures increase, the resources of supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities may come under strain. As a result, in order to follow developments, they will have a significant demand for fully qualified staff to provide effective oversight and investigative capacity which will need to be appropriately funded. The ability to attract staff on competitive terms will enhance the quality and independence of supervision and enforcement.The Rights of Shareholders and Key Ownership FunctionsThe corporate governance framework should protect and facilitate the exercise of shareholders rights.Equity investors have certain property rights. For example, an equity share in a publicly traded company can be bought, sold, or transferr ed. An equity share also entitles the investor to participate in the profits of the corporation, with liability limited to the amount of the investment. In addition, ownership of an equity share provides a right to information about the corporation and a right to influence the corporation, primarily by participation in general shareholder meetings and by voting. As a practical matter, however, the corporation cannot be managed by shareholder referendum. The shareholding body is made up of individuals and institutions whose interests, goals, investment horizons and capabilities vary. Moreover, the corporations management must be able to take business decisions rapidly. In light of these realities and the complexity of managing the corporations affairs in fast moving and ever changing markets, shareholders are not expected to assume responsibility for managing corporate activities. The responsibility for corporate strategy and operations is typically placed in the hands of the board a nd a management team that is selected, motivated and, when necessary, replaced by the board. Shareholders rights to influence the corporation centre on certain fundamental issues, such as the election of board members, or other means of influencing the composition of the board, amendments to the companys organic documents, approval of extraordinary transactions, and other basic issues as specified in company law and internal company statutes. This Section can be seen as a statement of the most basic rights of shareholders, which are recognised by law in virtually all OECD countries. Additional rights such as the approval or election of auditors, direct nomination of board members, the ability to pledge shares, the approval of distributions of profits, etc., can be found in various jurisdictions.Basic shareholder rights should include the right to 1) secure methods of ownership registration 2) convey or transfer shares 3) obtain relevant and material information on the corporation on a timely and regular basis 4) participate and vote in general shareholder meetings 5) elect and remove members of the board and 6) 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 1) amendments to the statutes, or articles of incorporation or similar governing documents of the company 2) the authorisation of additional shares and 3) extraordinary transactions, including the transfer of all or substantially all assets, that in effect result in the sale of the company.The ability of companies to form partnerships and related companies and to transfer operational assets, cash flow rights and other rights and obligations to them is important for business flexibility and for delegating accountability in complex organisations. It also allows a company to divest itself of operational assets and to become only a holding company. However, without approp riate checks and balances such possibilities may also be abused.Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate effectively and vote in general shareholder meetings and should be informed of the rules, including voting procedures, that govern general shareholder meetingsShareholders should be furnished with sufficient and timely information concerning the date, location and agenda of general meetings, as well as full and timely information regarding the issues to be decided at the meeting.Shareholders should have the opportunity to ask questions to the board, including questions relating to the annual external audit, to place items on the agenda of general meetings, and to propose esolutions, subject to reasonable limitations.In order to encourage shareholder participation in general meetings, some companies have improved the ability of shareholders to place items on the agenda by simplifying the process of filing amendments and resolutions.Improvements have also been made i n order to make it easier for shareholders to submit questions in advance of the general meeting and to obtain replies from management and board members. Shareholders should also be able to ask questions relating to the external audit report. Companies are justified in assuring that abuses of such opportunities do not occur. It is reasonable, for example, to require that in order for shareholder resolutions to be placed on the agenda, they need to be supported by shareholders holding a specified market value or percentage of shares or voting rights. This threshold should be determined taking into account the degree of ownership concentration, in order to ensure that minority shareholders are not effectively prevented from putting any items on the agenda. Shareholder resolutions that are approved and fall within the competence of the shareholders meeting should be addressed by the board.Effective shareholder participation in key corporate governance decisions, such as the nomination and election of board members, should be facilitated. Shareholders should be able to make their views known on the remuneration policy for board members and key executives. The equity component of compensation schemes for board members and employees should be subject to shareholder approval.To elect the members of the board is a basic shareholder right. For the election process to be effective, shareholders should be able to participate in the nomination of board members and vote on individual nominees or on different lists of them. To this end, shareholders have access in a number of countries to the companys proxy materials which are sent to shareholders, although sometimes subject to conditions to prevent abuse. With respect to nomination of candidates, boards in many companies have established nomination committees to ensure proper compliance with established nomination procedures and to facilitate and coordinate the search for a balanced and qualified board. It is increasingly regarded as good practice in many countries for independent board members to have a key role on this committee. To further improve the selection process, the Principles also call for full disclosure of the experience and background of candidates for the board and the nomination process, which will allow an informed assessment of the abilities and suitability of each candidate. The Principles call for the disclosure of remuneration policy by the board. In particular, it is important for shareholders to know the specific link between remuneration and company performance when they assess the capability of the board and the qualities they should seek in nominees for the board. Although board and executive contracts are not an appropriate subject for approval by the general meeting of shareholders, there should be a means by which they can express their views. Several countries have introd

Family Communication Plan for Parents of Deaf Children

Family intercourse Plan for P bents of Deaf Children at that place capture been m totally studies conducted concerning children who argon born(p) into desensitize families who can hear. These studies attain how p atomic number 18nts manage this change in living and how they can make the crush decisions that can positively imp symbolise their children and family. However, a limited number of studies have actually been conducted for children who are born into deafen families who can hear. Moore Lane (2010) state that 90% of deaf parents have consultation children, unfortunately these children have the same sum of money of attention compared to those who are deaf in hearing families.PurposeThe purpose of this follow-up is to establish a plan for children born into deaf families that can best attend to them and their parents, identify other studies and phrases that have look fored this, and to identify key gaps that are missing from the research. This record will explor e family dialogue with emphasis on expressiveness, family satisfaction, and motivation. It will as head as identify how these concepts relate to the roles of interpreting and protecting.ResearchThe research was conducted using the Cornett subroutine library database online, which includes the CINHAL and MEDLINE databases, along with others. We limited our search to scholarly journals merely and searched in spite of appearance a five year window so all data would be up to date and accurate. I searched for deaf adults children with deaf parents, and care for and hearing loss. I chose the selected articles based on familiarity of ideas, and consistency of information, along with the minor disagreements that by the piece article had.Themes communion There are many different theories that hear to explain and solve the issue of talk of children and their deaf parents. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2012) established a communication model by using relational observations. These analy zations nominated a surmise that addressed the level of colloquial orientation. Families with a high degree of conversational orientation tended to be able to freely extend about any topic. This kind of communication led to high satisfaction at heart all family ingredients. This theory states that every(prenominal) family is unique, so it is up to each separate family member to contribute to how they best like to communicate so their satisfaction is higher(prenominal) within the family, or purlieu. Olson (2011) used created the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems and established a model that stated that communication, cohesion, flexibility, and family relationships are key to creating a healthy family balance.Expressiveness With some(prenominal) theories, it is important for family members to express themselves with their own opinions and ideas to continue positive communication. Schrodt (2015) conducted a valuate that head teachered young adult children about their family communication. Schrodt (2015) states that the perceptions of family expressiveness have a sizable, direct experience with perceptions of family cohesiveness and flexibility. Schrodt also voiced the when family members communicate effectively, it lowers stress within the family structure, and it also helps to lower the stress levels of members outside the family unit as well (Schrodt 2015). Cohesiveness is organize when family members commit to the idea that they are going to converse with each other about both the negative and the positive things that are happening to them as well as the other people within the family. It is also important that the flexibility within the family happens. This can only hap when each family member learns how to properly deal with the information that is being discussed.Family atonement The satisfaction family members have towards one another directly relates to the type of communication they have with each other. Burns Person (2011) conducted an online survey where two family members answered questions colligate to leash categories relationship talk, joking around, or summarizing their day. The study concluded that the three categories were predictors of the familys satisfaction towards one another. A backbone of unity was formed when family member discussed one of these three topics, and this led to a higher family satisfaction. Caughlin (2013) states that a familys satisfaction rate can be measured only by the family members standards they have set for themselves and their family as a unit. This emphasizes that all families are different and although satisfaction can be generalized through the previously mentioned studies, these situations should be recorded and investigated to a greater extent thoroughly, as every family communicates other than.Motives Children communicate with their parents for many different reasons. Barbato, Graham Perse (2013) identified two key variables when children communicate w ith their parents cellular inclusion and control. Children will learn how to properly communicate with their parents because the main thing they genuinely want is to be include in their familys conversations. Children should learn how to communicate with their parents so they can explain their ideas, ask questions and sapidity a sense of belonging. Also, children communicate to gain certainty with what is going on around them to feel much in control of their environment. Barbato, Graham Perse (2013) concluded that children are influenced by how their parents communicated. In the study, many children embraced the same communication habits as their parents.Limitations and GapsAll research studies have limitation that need to be considered. In the Burns and Pearson (2013) article they state that future research should begin looking at families individually as units and then making comparisons with other family units to have a more accurate interpretation of families and not individ uals. Complimenting these results with observations may also provide more validation. Also in the Schrodt (2015) article, they state that the sample size that they used was excessively limited both in ethnic diversity and in number. This could have been easily corrected by expanding the number of individuals that conk outicipated and the different ethnic family that were included as well. Finally, Barbato, Graham, Perse (2013) states in their article that certain fundamental gap was renowned after their study was performed with the age group of 12-16 year old females. There were only five female girls aging from 12-16 geezerhood old, compared to 20 children from every other age group tested, making this the weakest point in their study. ruleMethod Choice In order to conduct my own inducive study, I would use a qualitative method throughout because I would be concerned about the effect family communication is impacted as a whole, not just only how the parents deafness impacts th e family. Also, I would look for a similarity amongst the parents deafness and the family communication. I would study this by analyzing real participants it affects and in the actual environment with the communication occurs.To guarantee credibility, I would use three methods to form my data. The three methods I would use would be personal query, focus groups, and ethnographic research. The ethnographic research would enable authentic reactions within a real life environment and provide a unique opportunity to view this interaction between a child and parent. Personal interviews could help better understand a persons motives and feelings, and focus groups could help new ideas form.Sample selection For selecting a sample, I would use the Texas Association for the Deaf and receive a list of families that are living with hearing children and deaf parents. I would butt against these families and explain my study and ask if they wanted to be a part of it. I would then choose a nonran dom sample of the participants that affect three criteria. First, they essential be between 10 and 18 years old in order to answer all questions asked in the study. Secondly, they must live within a 20 mile radius of the Dallas assemble Worth area so I can properly and personally contact them all. Finally, both parents of the children chosen must be deaf. The minimum amount of families I would want to observe would be five. Overall, I would like to interview between 20 and 30 childrenProcedure In the ethnographic research, I would only be an observer. I would witness applicants both in a public setting and at their personal home, knowing that the participants might act differently because of my presence. For personal interviews, I would have a pre-determined list of questions and would depart opportunity to ask new questions depending on the direction of the interview. The interview is estimated to last between 45 minutes to an hour, depending on the extent of the participant. One question that I would ask would be, Do you use regularly use verbalise or sign language when you communicate with your parents? In the focus group, I would use a facilitator who could both speak and use sign language. I would also take record the answers the participants stated and any other comments that could be useful concerning their communication within their family. After the data is collected, I would buy food conclusions from it once it is interpreted and analyzed.Discussion and ConclusionThe goal of this literature review was to establish a plan for children born into deaf families that can best help them and their parents, identify other studies and articles that have researched this, and to identify key gaps that are missing from the purposed research. Its intent was also to discuss family communication with emphasis on expressiveness, family satisfaction, and motivation. Overall, children with deaf parents can and do communicate with them every day. The goal, howe ver, is to support and help them and their parents better communicate with each other in order to create a healthy and happy family dynamic. This will help within the nursing community by improving communication with deaf patients and will greatly help in healthcare service areas throughout the world. Though this is seen differently with each family because every family is unique, the goal is the same, and with more work and improvement in this field, we can make a difference and see lives changed.ReferencesBarbato, C., Graham, E., Perse, E. (2013). Communicating with the family An test of the relationship of the family communication environment and interpersonal communication motives. The diary of Family Communication, 3(3), 123-148.Burns, M., Pearson, J. (2011). An investigation of communication atmosphere, everyday dialogue, and family satisfaction. Communication Studies, 62(2), 171-185. doi 10.1080/10510974.2010.523507Caughlin, J. (2013). Family communication standards what defining clear family communication and how standards associated with family satisfaction? Human Communication Research, 29(1), 5-40.Koerner, A., Fitzpatrick, M. (2012). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12(1), 70-91.Moore, M., Lane, H. (2013). For hearing people only. Rochester Deaf Life Press.Olson, D. H. (2010). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of family therapy, 22(2), 144-167.Schrodt, P. (2015). Family strength and satisfaction as functions of family communication environments. Communication Quarterly, 57(2), 171-186. doi 10.1080/01463370902881650

Relationship Between Police and Muslim Individuals

Relationship Between Police and Muslim IndividualsShamma Alsuwaidi infoset organism employ2014-15 offensive Survey of England and WalesVariable ca-ca of dependent inconsistentcopannoyVariable name of main independent inconsistentMuslimWord count of this upchuck2,672 wordsI commit included my SPSS show upput as an addition to this projectI am happy for an anonymised version of this project to be usedfor teaching purposes at the University of Kent My research questionIn this project, I examine the relationship surrounded by legal philosophy natural law officers and individuals from different religious groups. I will examine whether Muslims encounter much disturbing and discriminatory endures with the patrol, comp ard to those who find up on different trusts (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and those who do not follow all pietism). Accordingly, the dependent variable I will be apply is really gravel with the practice of law, enchantment my independe nt variable will be Muslim religion.Potential mechanisms linking jurisprudence malpractice to MuslimsI selected these variables because in a post-9/11 civilisation, Muslims atomic shape 18 increasingly graceful more segregated from societies as a result of the increased media guardianship to them. People began to fear Muslims and attempts to segregate them from society were made by many. Muslims argon now perceived as an outsider group, a category of aggressive, radical individuals, who pose a risk to British lifestyles (Rowe, 2013). Although Islam is the most leafy vegetable religion amongst minorities, high rates of prejudice of Arabs and Muslims is evident in countries of the EU such(prenominal) as France and the UK. For instance, over 50% of people in Germany, France, and the UK identify and attendant Muslims as radicals, aiming to promote their extreme religious beliefs (Jikeli, 2011).As a result, attitudes towards Muslims dramatically changed worldwide. Prejudice and ha te spread, leading Arabs/Muslims to now brass critical ceremony in every aspect of their lives. They stomach no longer travel, drive, and approve being out in public referable to the contrariety they face in their everyday lives. In addition, instead of receiving support and protection from legal philosophy enforcements, they argon instead further victimised by them. Racial profiling, partial treatment, unjustified investigations, harassment, and wrongful captures ar now very common experiences between Muslims in European countries (Cainkar, 2002). In addition, it is not uncommon for an Arab to be helter-skelter selected for security checks at airports, and even be prohibited from flying due to such prejudice views. However, discrimination against those coloured and those who acquire divergent features than common Europeans do occur as well where gipsies (47%) and Afri terminates (41%) experience higher levels of discrimination as well (Jikeli, 2011).I expect that Muslims ar more belike to find themselves in situations where they become roiled by the law, or uneasy with how the jurisprudence deal with occurrences compargond to those who follow former(a) religions. This is because, at a quantify of increased awargonness and fear of terrorism, and with socially and politically constructed images of Muslims, society would at last treat them in a hostile direction. As a result, phalluss of the law of nature enforcement are more probable to share the same views with society or would be inclined into targeting and eliminating any potential harm or flagellum of terrorism that could be caused to society. Therefore, the natural law would be more liable(predicate) to be suspicious towards an Arab or Muslim.Dependent variableIn my analysis, I used selective information collected from the 2014/15 abuse Survey of England and Wales, which surveys adults (16+) live in private residence in the UK. My dependent variable is really sloshed by patrol , which comes from the question use up you ever been really riled slightly the look a police officer be reserved towards you or soulfulness you know. OR about the steering the police handled a matter in which you were confused? This might assume been a police officer or some other subdivision of police staff.1. Yes- towards resolveent2. Yes- towards someone else3. Yes- towards both opposeent and someone else4. NoI am missing statistics on the frequency of police aggravation, since 24,806 out of 33,350 individuals did not respond to this question. Below is the frequency postpone of those who did respondNumber of responsesFrequency (% of reasoned cases)No6,34174.2%Yes2,20325.8% full(a)8,544 vitamin C% display panel 1 Frequency table of police execrationSince the question gives responsives chances to respond in different yet similar ways, I modified the way in which responses are interpreted. For example* Yes towards respondent towards someone else towards both responden t and someone elseI integrated the responses in auberge to simplify the data. or else of having various categories of the yes responses, they would all be integrated into an individual yes group. Therefore, my dependent variable is respondents claiming themselves, another individual, or even both being irritated by any staff within the law enforcement agency. 25.8% of the valid respondents stated that they have been in an experience where they, and/or someone they know has been blind drunk by the police, as shown in Table 1.Main independent variableThe main independent variable I am manipulating is the Islam religion. This is derived from the Crime Survey of England and Wales (2014/15), which is built upon individuals self- reported religion, at the time they took part in the questionnaire. The question is shown as the followingWhat is your religion, even if you are not currently practicing? CODE ane ONLYIF YES, PROBE FOR RELIGION1. Christian (including Church of England, Catho lic, Protestant, and all other Christian denominations)2. Buddhist3. Hindu4. Jewish5. Muslim6. Sikh7. new(prenominal) (SPECIFY)8. No religionHere, I am missing 76 responses out of the total of 33,350 people who took part in the survey. These individuals either refused to answer or claimed they did not know the answer. A frequency table of the remaining respondents idler be seen in Table 2Number of responsesFrequency (% of valid cases)No3230997.1%Yes9652.9%Total33274100%Table 2 Frequency table of Muslim respondentsAs the question initially asks for their reported religions, I have created two distinct response categories. For instance, those with no self-reported religion, and those associated with other religions (Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhists), are categorised as no. Whereas, Muslims respondents are placed in the yes category. This is because I was interested in making a general comparison of Muslim and non-Muslim perception of the police, in give to carry out my analysis.Control variablesIn this section of my analysis, I added two further suppress variables, whether respondents live in urban or countryfied areas and their reported sexual activity. Here, all 33,350 respondents answered the questions. This is achieved in order to explore other factors that could influence people to experience fervour from the actions or behaviour of the police.Although there was no precise question presented to determine whether a place of residence is in a rural or urban area, respondents had to describe the features of their neighbourhoods and provide their address (postcode) on the survey. As a result, rural areas come to be defined as areas where the population is less than 10,000 communities where 7,567 (22.7%) of the respondents inhabit. However, exploring gender was based on the following questionCODE THE SEX OF to each one ADULT IN THE HOUSEHOLDIF NECESSARY Is (name) manful or feminine? manlikeFemaleHere, the interviewer collects data on every member of a household, assuming their gender, unless they are uncertain. This data indicates that 45.1% (15,030) of the 33,350 respondents are males.Analysis Part IIn my first stage of analysis, I examine the number of irritation from the police, by association of the Islam religion. The link between being a Muslim and the likelihood of being annoyed by the police is analysed by using a Crosstabs, as shown in the table down the stairsTable 3 Link between police annoyance and Muslim religionHave not been annoyed with policeHave been annoyed with policeTotalNon-Muslim74.0%26.0%100%Muslim84.0%16.0%100%Total74.2%25.8%100%Total number of respondents for this analysis 8521Although 24,829 people did not answer this question, Table 3 shows data based on the 8,521 individuals who did. 16.0% of Muslim respondents claimed that they encountered a situation where an officer annoyed them, or someone they knew, in comparison to 26.0% of non-Muslim respondents. In other words, Muslims are 10% les s likely to claim to be annoyed with an officer of the law, than those of other religions resulting in a different prototype than I predicted at the start of my analysis.Analysis Part II Is this grade systematic?Data suggests that members of the Muslim community are less likely to be annoyed by the way police handle situations than others. However, this could have resulted from the randomness of the sample, or randomness of how police members handle occurrences and behave towards people. So, I ran a lapse with being annoyed with the police as the dependent variable, and being Muslim as an independent variable to examine the patterns certainty. A table below discloses whether the pattern in systematicCoefficient (B)95% presumption interval continual0.2600.251 to 0.270Muslim-0.100-0.157 to -0.043Table 4 Regression table of influence of police annoyanceIn Table 4, we can see that the estimated heart correlates with the consider difference in the likelihood of being annoyed with t he police, in the antecedent part Muslims are -0.100 (-10%) less likely than those of other religions, to state that they have been really annoyed with the police at one time. In addition, the lapsing table produces a confidence interval around this data -0.157 to -0.043 (-15.7% to -4.3%). Since the write in code (-0.100) lies between the confidence stove, this data implies that we can be quite overconfident that Muslims experience lower levels of police annoyance, in a systematic mannerIf we could create 100 worlds, and re-run the patterns, the true value would lie within the range (-0.157 to -0.043) 95 out of 100 times. Which, therefore, suggests that being Muslim decreases an individuals likelihood of being annoyed by the police, 10% less than those of other religions.In addition, as both figures in the confidence intervals are negative and the range is set this allows us to be quite confident that the pattern is systematic. However, we cannot be 100% certain.Analysis Part III Is this pattern causal? There are other possible factors that could explain the correlation between Muslims and dissatisfaction in how police handle situations. These con raiseers vary from the mechanism I examined earlier around police interactions around Muslims. For instanceAn individuals area of residence could impact the way the police interact with them. It is more likely for those living in deprived areas to experience injustice from the police, and therefore, hold negative images of police officers. They are also more likely than those in urban areas to have issues with police officers, as their neighbourhoods are likely to have high rates of criminal activities. In addition, police staff may be prejudice against people living in rural areas, labelling them as criminals, and therefore, treating them in a different manner.It could also be due to gender. As female criminality is not as common as those of men, police are known to focus on male suspects. Especially as there is a high rate of infantile male offenders in this century, male suspects are more likely to be annoyed by the police.In order to test both hypotheses, a further regression was carried out, which includes neighbourhood area (urban) and gender (male) as control variables (as defined above).Coefficient (B)95% confidence interval(Constant)0.1410.081 to 0.202No religion0.1470.089 to 0.206Christian 0.0770.019 to 0.134Hindu0.012-0.088 to 0.111Other religion0.1090.021 to 0.197Lives in urban area-0.017-0.039 to 0.005Male0.0730.054 to 0.091Table 5 Regression model of influences of being annoyed by the policeWe can see the impact of my control variables, as shown in Table 5Living in an urban area living in urban the areas, is associated with a decrease in being annoyed by the police by 0.017 (1.7%). Although this effect seems minimal, it could increase dramatically depending on how rural/urban an area is labelled as. However, here, we cannot be confident that the pattern is systematic, due t o the confidence interval containing positive and negative figures (-0.039 to 0.005).Gender males in the community are more likely than females to be annoyed with the police, or how they handled a situation 7.3% (0.073). Here, we can be very certain that the pattern is systematic because the confidence interval range is very narrow.In order to concentrate on my main area of interest, I pay situation attention to the difference in how the police deal with those of varying religions. We can analyse a contrast among both versions, in a chart shown belowCoefficient (B)95% confidence intervalOriginal model (no controls)-0.100-0.157 to -0.043 arcsecond model (with controls)-0.099-0.157 to -0.042Table 6 Comparison of effects of police annoyance on MuslimsThis suggests that the gap in how police interact with those of different religions, is intimately identical in both models whereas, in the original model, Muslims are 10% (-0.100) less likely to have been annoyed by the police, and 9.9 % less likely when controls are added. We can still be quite confident that Muslims are less likely to have been annoyed by the police, as the confidence intervals in both remain almost unchanged, and remain narrow. This indicates some validation of actor however, we cannot be 100% confident.While keeping reverse causality in mind, to further investigate whether there is a causal effect, we can be quite certain that it does not apply in this context. In other words, we would not infer that experiencing a dissatisfying experience with a member of the police causes an individual to become Muslim.Limitations conclusionIn this research, I researched whether Muslims are more likely to have been annoyed by a member of the police. I assumed that they would be more exposed to the negative experiences and qualities of the police force, especially after 9/11. A period where Muslims would be squeeze to endure discrimination by society and the justice system (random searches, presumptions o f terrorism, etc.). However, I came to find that my presumption was incorrect.I utilised the 2014-15 Crime Survey for England Wales study. This typically involves a questionnaire that examines the degree of crime and victimisation in areas of England and Wales. From this survey, I notice thatMuslims are less likely to be in a situation, where they became irritated by the police, in comparison to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and those who do not follow any religion. Also, I found that we can be quite convinced that the pattern is systematic.When allowing for the possibility of alternative factors impacting Muslims experiences with the police, income and gender, the results of their experiences remains roughly identical. There is little or no possibility of reverse causality being possible in this context, as interactions with the police would not necessarily cause someone to follow a certain religion.However, a few limitations can be found in this study, altering the way findings are gathered and construed. For instance, there could be other factors that clarify the link between being of Muslim religion and being irritated with the police. In this case, Muslims may be less likely to report their victimisation, especially reporting against a police officer. In addition, the Crime Survey for England Wales may be less available to Muslims than those of other religions, creating a bias or unrepresentative sample.Another limitation is in the way the question is asked towards you or someone you know. This question includes others interactions with the police (or someone you know), therefore, although a respondent did not personally feel irritated by the police at a given point, the would report some form of police annoyance. Therefore, data collected could be inaccurate, as their responses could affect the way the statements are interpreted. As a result, data would suggest that those of other religions are more likely to have been annoyed by the pol ice.Although certainty of a causal effect is not definite, my inspection of the data indicates that a causal effect of religion (being Muslim) on how the police interact with individuals does exist, in some manner.BibliographyCainkar, L. (2002). No Longer Invisible Arab and Muslim Exclusion after September 11. gist East Report, Online 32(224), pp. 22-23. Available from http//epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006context=socs_fac Accessed 15 Mar. 2017.Jikeli, G. (2011). DISCRIMINATION OF EUROPEAN MUSLIMS SELF-PERCEPTIONS, EXPERIENCES AND DISCOURSES OF VICTIMHOOD. world-class edn. ebook Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-3. Available from https//www.researchgate.net/profile/Gunther_Jikeli2/publication/289972827_Discrimination_of_European_Muslims_Self-Perceptions_Experiences_and_Discourses_of_Victimhood/links/56b2596708aed7ba3fedcded.pdf Accessed 15 Mar. 2017.Rowe, M. (2013). Policing beyond Macpherson. 1st edn. Routledge, 2013, pp. 109-111.