 Good to be back with corporate governance and we were looking at the Cadby report last time and today we are going to move forward with what tends to supplement the Cadby report and we see that the Paul Ruthman and the Green Body Committee reports tend to further reinforce fine tune and augment the Cadby report. Now what happened is that when the Cadby report came out, there were certain observations which were made by the different stakeholders which resulted in certain controversies emerging and based upon those controversies and the various trends which were seen in the corporate sector, these two committees basically were constituted and they took the corporate governance regulations and the corporate governance stipulations many steps ahead. Now what we see in the Ruthman committee is that it was to deal with the controversial points of the Cadby report. It restricted the reporting requirement to internal financial controls only against the effectiveness of the company system of internal control. So what we see ladies and gentlemen is that when we are talking about the effectiveness of the company's internal control system then it is very very important that it is limited to the domains of internal control and it does not talk about all different dimensions of control. So to streamline the Cadby report the Ruthman report basically gave this recommendation that it should be limited to internal controls and secondly the company's effectiveness based upon these internal controls became the stipulation which emerged from this particular committee. Now when we talk about the final report which was submitted the committee had some progressive elements notably the extension of the director's responsibilities to all relevant control objectives including business risk assessment and maximizing the risk of fraud. So what we see is that even though it focused upon the internal controls but yet it also expanded the director's responsibilities to ensure that all relevant control objectives which would be covering risk assessment and also minimization of risk of fraud were also encapsulated within the job description and within the responsibilities of the different director. So this was a major way forward and it was notably something which was very significant and also attributed to the reinforcement of the Cadby report. Now what we see is that when we are talking about the Greenberry committee then this committee also was formed to basically again analyze and look at some undulations and some infrequencies within the corporate setup and the most important one was that in the 1990s we see that because many public utilities were privatized therefore we see that the pay structure of the CEOs and of the directors multiplied many fold and in some instances became astronomical and were actually a matter of great concern because most of the profits were being consumed in the salaries of the CEOs and the directors while on the other hand what we see is that the lower staff and the number of human resource was also limited and constricted and restricted so therefore there was a big gap between the senior management and the board and the lower staff and their emoluments their benefits their remunerations and also the fact that how they would be benefiting from the organization and this gap had exponentially grown and another thing that we see is that the price of products and services was also increased so that the public sector companies would get more and higher profits and would be able to generate more profits throughout the whole process and that again was undermining one of the primary stakeholders which were the clients so what we see is to benefit one small stakeholder which is the top management the other two major stakeholders were compromised and therefore this Greensbury committee basically came into existence to look into all of this to analyze all of this and to rationalize this relationship of remunerations benefits emoluments of all the different main stakeholders and also to see that there should be a level pricing field for the consumer also and it should not get out of hand so that way this Greensbury committee is very very important and what we see is is that all these actions invited huge public and shareholder criticism about large listed companies the issue of directors remuneration was also debated in the administration and corporate circles in England so this became a major debate and based upon this debate this Greensbury committee basically came into existence which was under Sir Richard Greensbury in 1995 he was the chairman of Marks & Spencer one of the largest retail store companies in the whole of UK and the terms of reference of the committee was to identify good practices in determining directors remuneration and prepare a code of such practice for use by public limited companies in the UK but even though it was for the public sector but yet the private sector also benefited because these were very concrete recommendations these were rationalized and very practicum focused recommendations and also the gap between the top management the middle management and the lower management and again in relationship to the client base and what the client base was basically paying to the company all of this was rationalized and therefore led to corporate governance and good governance now the committee focused the deliberations on the remuneration policy the service conditions the compensation of directors and disclosure of directors compensation and code of best practices in this particular respect so we see that all of this was streamlined by this particular committee and many rationalized stipulations and regulations emerged which ensured good corporate governance in all of these organizations primarily public sector but also covering the private sector now what we see is is that the committee also recommended that all listed companies registered in the UK basically would be also covered through this code to the fullest extent practicable company should include a statement about the compliance in the annual reports to shareholders and any areas of non-compliance should be explained and justified so again what we see is is that the whole committee was able to come up with a stipulation of recommendations which rationalize the whole context and most importantly identified areas of non-compliance which would have repercussions for the top management and also for those companies under those internal audit regiments so this is extremely important and we see that in the context of compliance we see the committee further recommended the london stock exchange would introduce the following continuing obligations for listed companies so these two very important areas basically emerged in which we see that this annual remuneration committee would be generating reports to the shareholders in their annual report and also would have a complete section explaining and justifying any areas of non-compliance so this was a major breakthrough for the benefit of all of the stakeholders and we see that from this one we see that there were no secrets and there was nothing which was being kept from all of the shareholders and the different stakeholders the second point that we see is that it would also cover the different provisions of the code and what was seen is that any changes of working related to the technical reasons or to legal reasons would also be encapsulated within the particular code and that these legal and technical aspects would be covered by the corporate governance code of conduct so what we see is is that both of these reports were very instrumental in taking the corporate code of conduct forward and also rationalizing the Cadby report and secondly the inadequacies and the in equilibrium and the imbalance between the board of directors the top management the middle management and the lower management and all of the stakeholders was basically streamlined and rationalized so this is the importance of these two different reports which added value in the context of corporate governance throughout the world because they became international benchmarks and again stipulations to be followed by countries around the world thank you so much