 Welcome back to corporate governance and we are moving on with the role of stakeholders and in the past few sessions we have been talking about the role of press, print media, social media and the electronic media. Now, when we talk about corporate governance and the press then definitely just like we were talking about the board, the management, the board of directors, the private and the government, the private sector and the government regulators are extremely important in this particular context. Public opinion plays a significant role in self-regulation by private organizations to improve corporate governance. So, again what we see is that any organizations or institutions future hinges upon the feedback of the public. So, whatever product or services the organization is basically offering and then also the support that it provides which is usually called customer satisfaction and customer support units that they have that tends to mold the public opinion because based upon how the product serves their needs and secondly what is the after sale or what are the different mechanisms available if the customer does not like the product is something very very important and what we see is that the press tends to regulate all of this because it is an external whistle blower and again ensures that things do not go totally out of hand. In the 1980s during the financial scandals of BCCI and Maxwell group self-regulation policies were basically followed by the different institutions to save themselves from being wound up or being going into bankruptcy. So, what we see is that the press has a very fundamental role which tends to strengthen and augment and reinforce the private sector and also the government regulators and that is very very important as we have seen historically also. The publicity route defined by Cadbury committee had the advantage that the self-regulatory organization had the power to impose it. So, again what we see is that if there is a self-regulatory organization then all of this is regulated by that organization and again it basically means that it is again unethical and immoral to over project whatever you have gone and through wrong projections or through over projections we have seen that fines and court enforce penalties again would have its own limited effectiveness. So, what would happen would be that when people were not or when institutions were not being honest and truthful in their dissemination of information then fines and court enforced penalties would be imposed and they would be quite effective to ensure that the organization follows the rules of law and the stipulated rules regulations and policies of that particular organization which becomes extremely important. In 1992, 19 recommendations by the Cadbury committee were first effort at reform by means of disclosure and public pressure. So, we see that in 1992, 19 recommendations were emanated by the Cadbury committee which basically promoted disclosure and public pressure. So, that is very important and that we have a new dimension and a new paradigm shift within corporate governance and governance and management as a whole of the corporate sector. Greenbury and Hampel reports also disclose the requirements for the disclosure. So, again the Hampel report and the Greenbury report were very specific that how such disclosure should be done, how the organization should interface with the press and when the press is providing certain information, how should the organization respond to such things both positive and negative. So, overall what we see it has been very helpful. The extent of success by disclosure and publicity approach is widespread. So, we see that nowadays in this era of social media, we see that organizations have millions and millions of subscribers or followers which tend to greatly cater to the success of the organization and also the fact that the public becomes a regulator and the public becomes a judge. So, it is the informal moral you can say judgment which is given by the public which now is gaining a lot of widespread appreciation. An example is that the Hong Kong China the stock exchange uses the media as a sanction. So, again in Hong Kong and the stock exchange formally engages with the media and ensures that through the media they are able to curb mall practices and corruption and also any illegalities which are taking place. In Hong Kong the stock exchange takes out advertisement space to notify the public about a firm security violation. So, again very modern and very open. So, if any firm in the stock exchange is not practicing corporate governance and is doing some illegal activity, then they are put into the newspaper and made a greatest dissemination for everyone. Another point from a more you can say a narrow context would be shaming as a personal penalty for the executives involved. So, again what happens is that the public gets together and then they tend to shame or they tend to have a condescending attitude against those people who have been accused or proven to have been criminals of corporate governance. So, that shaming context is very important and again shaming can introduce a financial penalty if others know update their beliefs about the reliability of the executives and company. So, this whole shaming thing puts the morality at a higher pedestal than even the law and because if someone is deviating or someone is compromising then through the media those individuals or that individual can be penalized and also made to bear the brunt of loss of credibility and loss of reputation. Thank you so much.