 Bismillah Khman Reem and Islamic in Pakistan. Welcome back to corporate governance and we are moving towards the direction of understanding and comprehending and looking at the various dimensionalities of the conversions of corporate governance over history and politics. Now what we have seen that in the past there were three major models, the American model, the European model and then the Far Eastern model led by Japan. Now what we see is that with the passage of time and especially with the advent of the 21st century, we see that these three disparate models basically started converging together, overlapping together and seeing the commonalities between each other due to the factor of globalization and also the dispersion of the virtual context of governance and of the corporate world. So what we see is that McDonald basically looks at three relevant values and those three values are efficiency, equity and participation. Now what we see is that all of the stakeholders involved with corporate governance or with the performance of the organization should be focusing on these three core values and that is how to make the organization more efficient which would in other words enhance productivity and performance and output and profits. Secondly that how is it that the organization can make equitable decisions so that it could benefit all the stakeholders concerned and thirdly that they should be a participative approach. Now when we look at the precise balance between values then basically it is a choice of what kind of corporate governance system is basically adopted. So this is McDonald basically propagated his own model of convergence of corporate governance. Now we also look at Mark Rose model and his research basically was looking at the path dependence thesis and secondly at the different political forces in America who resisted the effort at concentration of ownership or ownership through financial institutions. So basically Mark Rose also was looking at this particular perspective from a historical context that how there was this resistance and how they were the speed breakers which basically were looking at the different efforts of concentration of ownership or also the fact that the financial institutions who were the venture capitalists they would be the ones who would be controlling the organizations and they would be at the forefront of the stakeholders and therefore would be basically dominating corporate governance and looking at their own interest which basically hinged upon one element of profitability and therefore to create that balance it was very important that they should be corporate governance convergence and also value assimilation implementation and also a assimilation of the comprehension of values within a particular organization. Then we also look at the European social democracy model and that basically favored stakeholder interests particularly labor and this again can be seen as a reaction to the historical rise of fascism and communism. So what we see is that basically because Europe was adjacent to the Soviet bloc where there was communism and then again within Europe there was fascism also taking a lot of emergence and because the divide between the proletariat and the bureaucracy and the bourgeois and the aristocracy had basically dissipated and was evaporating therefore the concern of the labor force their rights their environment and again their importance within the stakeholder framework of any corporate organization became very important and that was the basic focus of the European social democracy model. Now what we see ladies and gentlemen is that Flickstein and Freeland adopted a similar historical view that the form of governance is a result of wider political and institutional developments the timing of entry into industrialization and institutionalization of that process. So what we see again is that at the end of the 20th century there was this institutionalization which was taking place new frameworks new matrices new networks new structures were being developed through re-engineering and restructuring and they were becoming more equitable and more efficient and again looking at the different contextualization of corporate governance and seeing that how the interests of the different players and the different stakeholders and the different shareholders were being met in the best possible way. So that is how we see this development taking place. The role of states in regulating property rights and the rules of competition between firms the social organization of national elites also started gaining dominance and we see that these various factors started playing within the context of convergence of corporate governance. The regulatory policy in the United States had the unintended consequence of pushing US companies in the direction of unrelated diversification. In Germany and Japan it continued on a pre-war trajectory of discouraging merges in favor of cartels. So ladies and gentlemen what we see is that again the contextualization within the United States basically was focusing on different diversification different expansion policies and again it was the pushing of the shareholders for maximization of profits while in Japan it was a little bit different and they rather than encouraging merges basically favored cartels like we see how huge organizations emerged like Toyota like Nissan like Mitsubishi Bank like we see that the Honda brand emerged so all of these big brands and these big organizations were basically cartels they emerged and we see that they started gaining not only national prominence but also global prominence and the Americans basically favored mergers so we see in America multiple mergers taking place and due to that there was a totally different context of corporate governance which could be seen in these different regions. In other words modern regulatory policy in the US produced corporations who relied on markets to acquire ideas and talent while in Germany and Japan it produced corporations whose primary emphasis was on production so we see that production efficiency basically emerging in Europe and also in Japan while in America we see that it was all about market acquisition and again we see that they did not focus on efficiency of production and in the long run what we see is that the European and the Japanese model basically gained supremacy over the American model but the very interesting factor which basically emerged was that the best practices of the American model the best practices of the European model and the best practices of the Japanese model converged into the present global corporate governance frameworks which we see nowadays so historically with all of the disparity there was a lot of commonality and through this commonality we see that the new corporate governance model has emerged which is acceptable across the regions and across the nations and is being implemented across organizations in the best possible way to create a harmonious and a balanced global market and also to facilitate national markets in the best possible way but in all of this if we look a little bit historically then again COVID definitely has its own implications and its own complications which has changed the paradigm of doing business like we have seen that the whole chip market the global chip market has been adversely affected and that small sector which were adversely affected had a multiple effect on different corporations around the world because now everything depends upon the chipset so we see that new paradigms new frameworks and new models and new structures have emerged but with a more balanced approach and also seeing the fact that trying to create a pragmatic implementable and globally acceptable corporate governance model thank you so much