Background of Assignment:
Board of directors of Rio tino:
Assignment 3 questions:
Government Business Enterprises:
The key oversight systems for management are for many civic agencies. Boards have a multi-faceted portfolio: policy advice, jobs, external connexions, and objective review. There are considerable questions regarding their potential in the literature. "Managerial supremacy" remains. This paper reviews current public-sector board research and discusses crucial factors why boards should not be transparent. This paves the way for a new agenda for science. Where are micro-level boards more effective? How will successful checks and balance companies be organized? And why is the board model so popular: is it learning or transferring blame? The literature on structurally disaggregated independent government agencies (e.g. Flinders and Smith 1999) addresses significant questions of accountability against political directors and people. The literature notes that such organizations reduce government figures beyond the organization's capacity to keep them and their leadership to account for their operations. Is it possible that in the quest for 'economic advantages' (e.g., the supposed advantage of granting administrative independence to agencies) no account of 'political costs' is granted, so one suspects that these arm-length agencies are improper to do so? Some of the authors argue that while agencies cannot be managed in a conventional context (e.g. ex-ante or ex-post on results), the management of agencies (by financial agencies, or through controlling agencies by institutional lines such as the appointment of CEO) is less apparent and "alternative."
In this assignment, we are going to describe the corporate governance of different organizations like Rio tino and some others. In December 1995 Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited set up a framework for dual-listed enterprises (DLC). The two businesses are now managed as one economic entity, while the two firms are still independent legal individuals with individual share listings and share registers. The following records and our Annual Report (in the Shareholder Information section) provide more specifics about the DLC structure:
The London Stock Exchange (LSE) is the primary market for the shares of Rio Tinto plc. The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) covers Rio Tinto Capped. Rio Tinto plc also has an ADR facility that is funded and the underlying shares are listed on the New York (NYSE) and are reported by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Rio Tinto is based in London and has a Melbourne-based regional office. The standards of the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Guidelines of the Listing and the Reclassification and Disclosure Guidelines, which have been issued by the British Financial Conduct Regulator, the ASX Corporate Governance Council Standards and Recommendation and NYSE Corporate Governance Bodies, both Rio Tinto Plc and Rio Tinto Limited have followed a common approach to governance of businesses.
The board of directors is common to Rio Tinto and Rio Tinto Limited. The Board's key task is to lead in a prudent and productive oversight that allows for risk evaluation and management. The Group’s management and long-term sustainability are also jointly accountable to our administrators. They are responsible to shareholders for the success of the company by autonomous management control. The board acknowledges its greater liability to the needs of staff, consumers, vendors, and others as well as societies and the community in the fulfillment of this task. The Board also acknowledges that good expectations of business conduct are desirable to retain a reputation.
Our board of directors consists of a wide variety of specialized and regional backgrounds. The Chairman leads the Group’s policy on diversity and inclusion on behalf of the Board. The Board promotes this strategy’s theory of diversity and inclusion and execution. In finding Non-EXECUTIVE Directors with different complementary competencies, insight, and expertise that represent the regional extent of activities in the company, the Board strives to continuously develop its membership. The Board discusses its business management procedure on a daily basis, and how the Selection and Recruitment Process of Directors brings the optimal balance of competencies and diversity into account. The Committee on Appointments, chaired by the President, evaluates succession strategies to ensure the board's and the executive committee's mix of expertise, abilities, backgrounds, and diversity. This analysis takes into consideration the Group's challenges and prospects and requires the evaluation of the new Board's combination of expertise, abilities, experience, and diversity. This assessment helps to define the profile of possible applicants expected and wanted.
The Committee on Appointments also tracks and maintains that recruiting is formal and comprehensive. This involves developing shortlists that involve applicants with various backgrounds and carrying out proper background and reference checks. The Committee engages external advisors in searching and executive reviews. The Committee makes suggestions to the Board following a full review of shortlisted applicants. Any director nominated by the Board of Directors shall be elected by shareholders before the next Annual General Meeting. Both directors shall apply to the Annual General Meetings next year for re-election. Non-Executive Directors shall normally serve on board for a term of at least six years and shall not serve for longer than nine years but can request reappointment after nine years if, in compliance with the criteria laid down below, the Appointments Committee finds that they remain independent.
Rio Tinto has a Group-wide strategy on incorporation and diversity, even as recruited, that the board strongly endorses. The same standards of recruitment extend to executive or non-executive Board vacancies. In order to recognize and protect, according to the requirements of the best applicant on the market, the board shall lay down predefined and objective requirements for candidate selection at the beginning of all recruiting activities and shall respect diversity in its broadest sense when evaluating nominations. Our 2019 annual report provides more information on our policies on equality and diversity and details on the number of female staff and board of directors at the end of the year.
Accountability is a function of becoming a senior officer. Needs them to be accountable and believe that these officials are responsible for the causal processes that connect them with their actions and the way they perceive and handle various responsibilities; notwithstanding the value of public-sector transparency, there is little investigation of those conclusions or how the boss feels liable. My study uses extensive interviews with 47 leaders to analyze their transparency background. And the appeal for greater transparency by their Senior Owners in the story about the issues surrounding big government initiatives in the UK. A new oversight system has been developed for the SRO in recent amendments to the Osmotherly Regulations, which offer guidelines for officials reporting to parliamentary commissions.
You are also required to testify on the implementation of the project personally to Parliament. The interviews offer an opportunity to explore how elected leaders feel responsible, how they handle a range of relationships, and how they experience the new process. The analyses reveal that they prioritize account behavior by an assessment of account holders' results. To explain their transparency management climate, I suggest a typology. I argue that responsibility to Parliament is seen as a reputational challenge to SROs but does not alter their feelings of being responsible for their ventures. However, the personal power that provides them to control their interactions with their most influential account holders may have a positive effect.
We investigate the use of Ebrahim's accountability framework to cover a wide sample of service provisioning NFPs in Australia inspired by the value and uniqueness of the accountability of stakeholders in non-profit (NPOs). Although the notion of stakeholder capability is used to justify NFP obligations, a competitive rationale arises for the stakeholder prowess (which embraces the principles of stakeholder control, authority, and urgency). We look at the effect, validity, and urgency of stakeholder control on the use by the NFPs of transparency frameworks to account for two primary stakeholder groups, government, and beneficiaries using the 'Salience System' stakeholder by Mitchell et al. The findings indicate that while government authority and currentness affect the use of systems of upward accountability, receiver control has an effect on the use of the downward accountability system. NFPs work in the more dynamic accountability climate of various partners in relation to organizations in the public-profit and public sectors, whose roles frequently overlap with one another. NFPs are highly based on public confidence and various stakeholders, including funders, policymakers, beneficiaries, staff, volunteers, and partners (Hyndman and McConville 2018a). In comparison to revenues that are primarily dependent on financial results, NFPs are deficient in "an analog for financial profit/loss" as they discharge shareholders (as their primary stakeholder group).
In addition, consumer responsibility to benefit companies (in delivering high-quality goods/services) also serves the shareholders' interest since it converts into revenue generation. "The NFPs do not immediately connect rises in achievement and financial results in the company." Related to NFPs, several parties are also active with civic organizations. In the public sector, though, beneficiaries of services are usually those that provide money for the services (e.g., public transit, public hospitals, public schools, etc.). Therefore, unlike NFPs, there is no dispute between user responsibility and service recipient responsibility.
How can organizations and specifically organizational boards be made more accountable (Schillemans and Bovens 2019)?
Accountability is a feature of a senior officer. Calls for them to make more accountable judgments on the causal factors relating it to the actions and how these officials have various roles and handle them. Given the value of public sector transparency, selective analysis of these assumptions or of the manager's views of transparency is carried out. My analysis uses in-depth interviews with 47 senior officials to analyze their transparency experience. Including a call to improve the transparency of its senior officials (SROs), which dealt with the issues surrounding major public projects in the UK. A new SRO transparency system has recently been created through modifications of the Osmotherly Laws, which give advice to civil servants presenting proof to parliamentary committees.
From accountability (Schillemans and Bovens 2019) and stakeholder (Freeman 2008; Mitchell et al 1997) perspectives, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the extant governance models?
Notably, as a competitiveness justification for NFPs transparency activities, the idea of "stakeholder salience" has been proposed. Like control, however, there has been no empiric analysis in connexion between the provenance of stakeholders and the obligations of NFPs. This methodological discrepancy is discussed in our research. We use the stakeholder salience framework. In this context, the stakeholder control (as utilitarian, courteous, and normative) may be conceptually more generally conceptualized, but also the stakeholder performance concept, in which stakeholders are given priority. The paradigm has gained widespread recognition by researchers: "capacity," "legitimacy" and "urgency" by stakeholders.
The new knowledge assimilation by inexperienced learners is heavily informed by their previous information about a subject — what the new data can be related to existing long-term memory awareness. The explanation is that students who do not have the prior experience need to use more of the minimal work-related capabilities to adapt new vocabulary and definitions, whereas previously knowledge learners will move in relating new learning to current knowledge. These theories form the cognitive load hypothesis that has been confirmed in an institutional research project that has shown that the test output of chemistry students and students who did not study chemistry beforehand is substantially different.
Shareholder appreciation is the value generated to a company's shareholders due to the willingness of management to increase revenue, profits, and free cash flow, resulting in an increase in the shareholder dividends and capital gains. A company's shareholder worth relies on the board of directors and management’s financial choices, including the opportunity to spend strategically and produce good returns on acquisitions. If this value is generated, in particular over the long run, the share price rises and the corporation will pay shareholders greater cash dividends. Fusions, in fact, aim to increase the shareholder valuation significantly.
A governmental corporation (GBE) is a hybrid corporation. It has private and public corporate characteristics. They behave like commercial corporations in seeking to make a profit to deal with other businesses.
Responsibility is the position of a senior officer. Require them to be accountable and to accept that the officials are responsible for the causal processes which bind them with their acts and their interpretation and management of different responsibilities; despite the importance of accountability in the public sector, the findings are scantly examined or the boss feels responsible. Their openness history is explored by detailed interviews with 47 officials. The shareholder value is the value created by the management's ability to raise sales, benefit, and free cash flow to shareholders' dividends and capital gains. The equity capital of a company depends on the board of directors and the financial actions of its management, including the ability to wisely invest and earn strong returns on acquisitions. If this value is generated, particularly over the longer term, the share price increases and the Company pays more cash to its shareholders. In reality, fusions are targeted at dramatically raising shareholder appreciation.
Blomqvist, P., & Winblad, U. (2020). Contracting out welfare services: how are private contractors held accountable?. Public Management Review, 1-22.
Howarth, D., & Spendzharova, A. (2020). 12 Delivering value for money?. Financial Accountability in the European Union: Institutions, Policy and Practice, 1.
de Boer, T. Why do Public Agencies Seek Accountability? The Role of Audiences.
Nguyen, P. A., Kecskés, A., & Mansi, S. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility create shareholder value? The importance of long-term investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 112, 105217.
Surroca, J. A., Aguilera, R. V., Desender, K., & Tribó, J. A. (2020). Is managerial entrenchment always bad and corporate social responsibility always good? A cross‐national examination of their combined influence on shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 41(5), 891-920.
Litheko, A., & Potgieter, M. (2020). Development And Management Of Ecotourism Small Business Enterprises: North West Province, South Africa. Development, 6(1).
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
Min Wordcount should be 2000 Min deadline should be 3 days Min Order Cost will be USD 10 User Type is All Users Coupon can use Multiple