 A question arises that how much effective and efficient a company's corporate governance system should be? The answer to this question is that it depends upon the evaluation criteria that has already been set at the firm for that particular purpose. Remember that there is not a single corporate governance system that may be applied to every company, in every industry, in every country across the globe. However, there is a core set of best corporate governance practices that are recognized and applied by large organizations in developed and emerging countries across the globe. These best corporate governance practices are recognized as standard practices against which the CG system of any corporate firm may be checked and evaluated, while analyzing a company's financial, investment, operating, and other policies, and its riskiness, the review of quality of its CG system is much critical to any analyst. And this evaluation needs assessment of the company's board of directors, its managers, and its shareholders. We all know that the long-term performance of any company depends upon the quality of decisions taken by its managers. It also depends upon the strong commitment by the managers in applying sound management practices in their decision making. And we know that the ultimate result of their decisions is to enhance wealth of the shareholders. We know that better management practices promote and increases the return on the capital invested by the shareholders of a corporate firm. But on the other hand, the result of poor decisions, poor management practices may be the ruined or destroyed wealth of the shareholders. Board members, individually and collectively, are responsible to work as per the wish of the shareholders. These board members transform the shareholders' wishes into corporate strategies. And these strategies are used to enhance shareholders' wealth. And dead is possible in the presence of a stronger corporate governance system in any organization. Now let me come to the standard guidelines against which the CG system of any firm may be evaluated. The first in the line is the board of directors' common features or characteristics. An analyst should three factors in this list. The first is the independence that how much number of independent directors in the board is in relation to the total number of directors. Then comes the experience. This is in terms of general business experience and a specialized experience with reference to the company operations and with reference to the industry in which the company is working. The third one is the resourcefulness. This resourcefulness refers to a mechanism that supports board of directors in their decision regarding some expertise from the outside of the company without the intervention of the management. Then there is the board composition and independence. The board composition refers to the ratio between executive directors, independent directors and non-executive directors. And board composition may be comprising of board diversity in terms of gender diversity in terms of variation in education, experience and other business skills. Ideally the independent members should not be less than three fourth of the total members of the board. There should be ideally separation between board chairmen and the company's chief executive officer. Next comes to the qualification of directors. This qualification refers to the relevant experience, relevant to the company's operations, relevant to the director's area of interest and his job in the company, relevant to the industry in which the company is operating. Next is the ethical and professionalism. This refers to the ethical code of conduct applicable in the company and followed by the board of directors and it also refers to the professionalism. How much follower a board member is to a professional code of conduct of the professional body to which he belongs. Then comes to the dedication to the owner's interest. A prime job of the board of directors is to dedicate their job, dedicate their time towards the best interest of the shareholders. Then comes the strategic level experience, whether the board members individually and collectively possess any strategic level experience in their pocket or not. Then comes the election of directors. Board of directors may be elected annually or staggered, ideally staggered but if not possible then the board of directors should be elected annually so that their performance may be evaluated or they may be punished or they may be rewarded by the shareholders of their firm. Next comes the annual board self-assessment. This refers to a mechanism in any corporate firm under which board members are made able to review, analyze their own performance individually, collectively, the effect on the firm's financial health as a result of their policies and they may recommend improvement in this regard. Separate sessions of independent directors, this means that in the governance system at any organization the analyst should see whether there is any policy that favors the independent directors to meet independently of the executive and non-executive directors and without shareholders just in order to discuss the matters, policies in a frank environment. The analyst should see whether there exists any audit committee and audit our sideboard in the firm or not. A point to note is that the audit committee shall not contain any executive and non-executive director. Better is to have all independent directors in the committee and much better is to have the company's CFO. As a policy there should be a nominating committee. The basic purpose of a nominating committee is to nominate suitable persons in a board meeting in the place of any director or directors that are absent at the time of meeting. Board's independent legal and expert council, the corporate governance policy should encourage independent board members at least to get any legal advice or any professional advice from outside the company without the intervention of the firm's management. Another important feature of an effective corporate governance policy is that the statement of governance policy should be there in the firm and an analyst should see whether that governance policy is followed in true letter and spirit by board of directors, by managers, officers, employees of the company and other stakeholders who are directly involved in certain decisions of the firm. The analyst should see whether there is an effective and appropriate system that ensures disclosure of company's policies regarding HR, regarding accounting, regarding investment and other policies to the public, to the other stakeholders in a very transparent mode. Related party transactions, related parties are very much important player that plays its role in firms operating decisions in its day to day decisions. The analyst should see whether there is any approval for business with related parties by the board of directors, if the policy is approved or not and how many transactions are there by the company with its related parties. The analyst should be able to determine the effect of transactions with related parties upon the firm's financial health and at least but not the last. The corporate governance system should encourage the board of directors to respond to the shareholders' queries, their words and their proxies on certain decisions taken by the corporate management like decisions on board of directors' appointment, their remuneration, any mergers and acquisitions or any other decisions.