Corporate governance review of

the mid-market listed companies

in India
2010-11

About the study

We are delighted to release our Corporate Governance Review

2010-11. The review has been designed to analyse corporate
governance practices at mid-market listed companies in India.
The report is second in the series of collaboration between
Grant Thornton India and FICCI that began in 2008-09. The
survey strives to map the movement of industry opinions and
interpretation of the established corporate governance
mechanism in the Indian scenario.
The review methodology was based on an online and
interview-based survey, targeting the top 101-500 companies,
as per the Economic Times 500 list, to gauge the nature and
extent of corporate governance practices.
The respondents were asked to comment on specific aspects
relating to corporate governance practices in their companies
and their responses were collated and analysed by Grant
Thornton India and FICCI. In addition, views of strong
advocates of corporate governance in India were obtained on
specific issues emanating from the survey and extracts from the
same have been provided in specific sections of the report.
To facilitate an effective analysis of the survey results, the
respondents were classified into five tiers, based on their latest
available annual revenues, as set out in the table below.
Revenues

Less than Rs 100 crore

Rs 101 crore to Rs 250 crore

11

Rs 251 crore to Rs 500 crore

Rs 501 crore to Rs 1000 crore

25

Above Rs 1000 crore

54

A secondary classification, based on the age profile of the

respondents businesses has also been tabulated below:
Years of existence

Less than 5 years

15

5 to 10 years

12

Above 10 years

73

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Contents
05

Foreword

06

Executive summary

08

Clause 49

14

Board of directors

19

Independent directors

22

Audit committee

25

Auditors

28

Internal controls and risk management

32

Acknowledgement

33

About FICCI

34

About Grant Thornton

Foreword

The recent global financial meltdown presented a

number of challenges for most economies at both
macro and micro level. As a result, today, we are
witnessing a paradigm shift in the market and
investor outlook. Investors now look at every
financial statement with great care and voice their
concerns for a stronger and more independent
corporate governance framework.

Historically, like any other set of regulations,

applicability and degree of enforcement of
corporate governance standards were widely
and frequently debated.
Our findings showed that while companies
were generally compliant with provisions related
with independent directors, publication of
results and audit committee etc, there were
certain provisions such as internal controls
certification and risk management that were
adhered to only in form and not in substance.

The instability in the market urged major global

players to take quick but cautious steps both at an
entity and governmental policy level. Companies
needed to respond by enhancing assurance on their
This report aims to further educate and raise
activities by adopting more transparent corporate
awareness about the level of compliance with
governance practices to rebuild investor
the corporate governance norms. We present
confidence.
the prevailing corporate governance landscape
in Indias mid-market companies. The review
The drivers for such initiatives were twoincludes a perspective of mutual funds,
dimensional. Firstly, investors demanded more
insurance companies and private equity funds.
overt disclosure of business developments and
This analysis can also serve as a benchmark for
strategies that management planned to execute,
organisations to compare and contrast their
and, secondly; management teams were on a
own performance with those of others an
constant lookout for liquidity in the market facing
important procedure for companies seeking to
the credit crunch. A robust corporate governance
structure could be catalyst in achieving the desired improve their governance practices.
credibility by ensuring transparency across the
business through independent and unbiased review This exercise was jointly carried out by Grant
mechanisms facilitated by prescribed norms across Thornton India and FICCI. We are confident
that this report will provide an insight into the
various economies, sectors and industries.
current trends on the subject and a baseline to
form an opinion about corporate governance
Along with the corporate initiatives and the
related issues in India.
requirements mandated by investors, government
policies have brought about an equally strong focus
on corporate governance.
The Corporate Governance Voluntary Guidelines
2009, released by the Union Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, specify recommendations about the
election of independent directors, segregation of
duties of CEO and chairperson and related
disclosures. The most important part of these
suggested measures lies in their universal coverage
where companies, even without public money, will
have to disclose their corporate governance
practices or account for non-adoption.

Dr Rajiv Kumar
Secretary General
FICCI

Vishesh Chandiok
National Managing Partner
Grant Thornton, India

Page 5

Executive summary

During our effort to measure the success of Clause

49 in bringing value to the process of corporate
governance with listed Indian mid-sized
companies, it was observed that all the respondents
who gave a positive response to the existing
mechanism acknowledged that they have benefited
from Clause 49 in more than one way. However,
the degree and type of these benefits varied
significantly. 84% of the companies felt that
compliance to Clause 49 and the quality of
disclosures have improved the investors
perception about them.
Another key positive trend that emerged was that
24% respondents complied even with the nonmandatory provisions of Clause 49. This is a
significant indicator of developments to come as
compliance to non-mandatory provisions not only
helps in better corporate governance but makes
adoption of these standards easier as and when
they get regulatory back up. One such example is
the provision of whistle-blower policy that is
proposed to be made mandatory by the new
Companies Bill.
Investor community echoed an equally strong
voice in favour of a robust corporate governance
system with an overwhelming majority of 90%
agreeing to the importance of corporate
governance while making an investment decision.
As a matter of fact, 78% of the investors said that
corporate governance related issues were as
important as financial ratios while considering a
potential investment. However, 89% of the
investors felt that quality of information provided
by companies was of reasonably good quality and
was relied upon by them in making decisions about
their investments.
One of the biggest challenges that looms large on
the whole issue of the requirement of robust
corporate governance framework is the
measurement of the benefits driven from these
practices.

This is why, on the issue of creating compliance

levels on the basis of size of the company, the
industry seemed to be divided where 64%
respondents were against it, 27% said it should
be done. A number of respondents posited that
it can be a cumbersome exercise, in the wake of
practical difficulties in implementing such
provisions.
The Indian industry is known for the family
owned and managed businesses that are tightly
held and very closely monitored. Therefore, on
the question of separation of ownership from
the management, majority of the companies
with more than 50% promoters holdings
expressed their dissent to the practice of
separating CEO and Chairmans role and felt
that the segregation would not yield any
significant results. However, on the other hand,
companies with lesser promoter holdings felt
that it shall be important to separate the two
most important offices of an organisation.
Paucity of the required level of knowledge and
skills remains one of the biggest challenges for
organisations for appointing independent
directors. However, the companies responding
to the survey seem to be doing little to create
the sought after skill-set. 85% of the respondent
companies do not have a process for inducting
newly appointed directors to their operations. It
is because of this demand-supply gap that an
individual is allowed to serve on the Board of
more than one company.
However, most of the respondents believe that
technology can help prevent the logistics
problem and ensure presence of all the directors
who are on the move all the time due to
commitments at various boards that they might
be a part of. In this regard, 90% of the
respondents felt that Board meetings through
tele or video conferencing should be allowed by
the government.

On the issue of enhancing the independence

of Boards conduct to improve the corporate
governance practices, only 35% respondents
agreed to the suggestion that there should be a
lead independent director while 40% opposed
any such move. With regard to the maximum
tenure for independent directors, 67%
companies felt that it should not be defined
and that a director should continue to serve on
the Board as long as his/ her independence is
assured.
However, the new Companies Bill provides
for maximum tenure of six years for an
independent director and then requires a
three-year cooling off period before the
same person can be reappointed as a director.
Another interesting and conflicting fact
brought out by the survey revealed that 55%
of the companies use the method of
nomination by existing directors to appoint
independent directors. The phenomenon
becomes debatable as soon as existing Board
members are involved in the selection process.
On the other hand, the nomination procedure
could be re-characterised as a referral system
and keep the process of selection of new
members independent of the referral process.
While majority of the respondents (87%) had
more than 50% of their audit committee
members who were independent, only 21%
had a policy of rotating the audit committee
members. Another pillar of corporate
governance is the independence of the auditor.
Survey results indicate that 71% of the
companies had appointed their current
statutory auditors at least five years back.

As a matter of fact, 50% of the companies are

associated with current auditors for more than
15 years. Such long term relationship with
auditors could lead to the familiarity threat
unless safeguards such as audit partner
rotation are put in place.
On the subject of auditor rotation, 36%
respondents posited that partner rotation was
the solution to address the familiarity threat,
29% felt audit firm rotation could be the
solution while an equal number of
respondents expressed that neither of these
options were appropriate.
However, the idea of appointing joint auditors
to achieve complete transparency and
reliability on the financial reporting did not
attract many advocates as 50% of the
respondents opposed the idea of compulsory
joint auditor citing difficulties in the
integration of two auditors and higher costs as
a primary hindrance to the notion.
Risk mitigation turned out to be one of the
benefits derived out of good corporate
governance practices; 71% respondents agree
that outsourcing the internal audit function is a
good risk mitigation technique.
Summarising the benefits derived from Clause
49 and the key corporate governance trends in
Indian mid-size markets, it is worthwhile to
mention that companies feel a sense of
security in terms of compliance to the
mandatory framework in place. However,
much needs to be done to drive corporate
governance as an agenda among closely-held
work environments companies see no clear
benefits flowing from these practices.

I. Clause 49

I. Clause 49

1. Do you feel that companies in India have benefited

by complying with Clause 49 of the Listing
Agreement?

2009

In order to protect the interests of

investors, behaviour of listed
companies requires constant and
effective vigilance by the regulator.
When capital markets systematically
open up to both domestic and
foreign financial flows, corporate
governance requires constructive
supervision.
The standards of good governance
call for global benchmarking and
professional surveillance. Clause 49
is the overarching legal provision in
relation to corporate governance. It
has provided a framework with
respect to rules and composition of a
Board and its committees, disclosure
of information like the level of
activism shown by Directors in the
affairs of the company, regulation of
the auditors, internal controls and
risk management.
Our 2010 survey reveals that all of
the respondents believe that they
have benefited from complying with
Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement.
This is in stark contrast with our
previous study in 2009 where only
68% of the respondents thought that
compliance with Clause 49
benefitted the organisation.

Yes

2010

resilience and adapted swiftly to the

global changes via policy efforts that
ensured sufficient liquidity with a focus
on curbing the inflationary forces.
These calculated and cautious efforts
led to an upswing in the investor
confidence towards the established
practices.

Yes

100%

68%

Mr. Deepak Bagla, Partner, 3i

Infrastructure Investments while
emphasising on the significance of
corporate governance indicated that it
forms one of the three pillars that
facilitates the decision making process for
a new investment at 3i.

Amidst the debates on further

liberalisation and the easing out of
trade regulations, conservatism turned
out to be the saviour. The Indian
banking system faced the economic
downturn more efficiently than its
western counterparts. We believe the
conclusions derived from the two
years' responses are a good reflection
of the change in sentiments pertaining
to corporate governance.
As bottom lines return to black and
liquidity improves, the corporate
governance issues are expected to be
considered more prominently in
substance as they are seen as key
drivers of long term sustainability.

The contrast becomes more

interesting in the wake of economic
transformation that the Indian
economy has undergone during the
same period. The economy
withstood the meltdown with
FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

"Internal controls are important for

all sizes of business. However,
certain other requirements could
be diluted for smaller companies
to bring more acceptances to the
Corporate Governance
provisions."
Vijaya Sampath
General Counsel, Bharti Airtel Group

Page 9

2. If you have benefited from Clause 49, what is the nature of benefits derived?

Better valuations externally

61%

Better valuations externally

71%

Enhanced awareness of roles

56%

Enhanced awareness of roles

Increased investor perception

56%

Increased investor perception

84%

Improved procedures & controls

56%

Improved procedures & controls

84%

Better risk management

53%

2010

Corporate governance framework aims, among other

things, to provide credibility to an entity's decisions and
initiatives. In other words, corporate governance works as
a risk mitigating mechanism by monitoring and certifying
management's deeds and helps shield the exposure of
various stakeholders who have a direct or indirect interest
in the company.
However, in comparison with preceding year, our 2010
survey brings forth a noticeable change in perception on
the nature of benefits companies derive from Clause 49.
56% of our survey respondents acknowledged that a
robust corporate governance system results in improved
procedures and controls. Though, it was explicitly
expressed that immunity from inherent risks of an
industry is desirable but hard to achieve. Therefore, most
of the management teams strive to build inner resistance
by placing internal controls and formulating a monitoring
system to avoid any deviations.
On the question of whether Clause 49 helps in creating
awareness about the roles and responsibilities of
management, 56% of respondents said that it certainly
does.

74%

Better risk management

74%

2009

Moreover, 56% of the companies surveyed in 2010,

against 84% in 2009, see compliance to the current
corporate governance standards as a driver of investor
perception about the company. However, as compared
to 2009, relatively lower population (61%) see these
standards as a key factor influencing the valuations.
This conflicting observation again brings out the
ongoing debate of nature and quantification of benefits
flowing from a robust corporate governance
mechanism. Though many see it as a factor influencing
investor's confidence in the company, very few think
that it has any tangible impact on its valuations.
Corporate governance still remains a challenging but
invariably important investment for any organisation.
The computation of returns on such investments is very
complex and subjective without any direct relation with
the top line or bottom line of a company.

Unless management sees value, governance

cannot be practiced.
M Damodaran
Former Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 10

3. Do you think SEBI should create different Clause 49 compliance levels on the basis of market
capitalisation of the company? (In other words, more stringent norms for companies having larger
market capitalisation)

9%

7%

27%
Yes: 27%

32%

Yes: 61%
61%

No: 64%
64%

Can't say: 9%

2010

64% of the respondents are not in agreement with the

suggestion that SEBI should create different Clause 49
compliance levels on the basis of market capitalisation of the
company while 27% of our respondents are in favour of the
same. 9% of the respondents chose not to comment.

No: 32%
Can't say: 7%

2009

At the moment, Clause 49 establishes, describes and monitors

corporate governance of all the listed companies. Even though
the universal approach of the Clause has been frequently
criticised, the survey results tell us that Indian entrepreneur is
reasonably satisfied by the current system in place.

There has been a significant movement from previous survey

where 61% respondents expressed the same opinion about
revision in the implementation of Clause 49 as per market
capitalisation of companies. This movement is reflective of
investor sentiment that remained in jitters and opined that a
restructured corporate governance structure could provide with
avenues to ensure mechanisms to identify areas of
improvements and build better efficiencies in the system.
However, as the investment environment has improved, these
sentiments seem to be gaining composure and confidence in
established framework.
Frequent disagreements have appeared against the one size fits
all approach of our regulators in terms of enforcing Clause 49
regulations to all the listed companies irrespective of their size
and industry. Some of the responses received through our
direct interaction with various interest groups revealed that
corporate governance should be aligned with the nature of
business and industry in which a company is operating.
However, this seems to be impractical to implement due to
diversity and ever expanding scope of the businesses. That is
why there are not many supporters of this idea amongst
regulatory circles.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

"Market capitalisation could not be the only

criterion. There could be other parameters for
differentiation like public holding as a percentage."
Chitra Ramakrishna
Joint Managing Director, National Stock Exchange (NSE)

Page 11

4. Do you comply with the non-mandatory provisions of Clause 49?

24%
All: 24%
76%

76% of the survey respondents posited that

their organisations follow some of the nonmandatory provisions of Clause 49 while 24%
of the respondents have adopted the nonmandatory suggestions on whistle-blowing
and independent directors as part of their
corporate governance framework.
Beyond the mandatory guidelines, Clause 49 also
prescribes additional steps that could further help
organisations drive their corporate governance
more efficiently. Two primary areas covered under
these prescriptive norms include the whistle-blower
policy and suggestions on tenure of independent
directors. The objective of these recommendations
is to fill the gaps in the current system and complete
the spectrum of risks that corporate governance is
expected to cover. Non-mandatory provisions also
play a role in acclimatising the industry so that
eventually these can be made mandatory.

Some: 76%

Currently there are two areas that are

prescriptive in nature to strengthen the
corporate governance structure of an
organisation. These include:
Whistle-blower policy: The matter involves the
confidential and uninterrupted communication of
any unethical/ illegal activities in an environment
to the audit committee.
Restriction of the term of independent
directors: Clause 49 suggests that in case of an
independent director, the tenure on the Board
should not exceed more than nine years,
comprising three tenures of three years each. If
an independent director continues to serve on the
Board of a company for a longer term than the
prescribed limit, he/ she should no longer be
treated as independent.

Non-compliance to the non-mandatory

requirements reinforces the view of the Indian
corporates on what is the 'material' benefit derived
from Clause 49. However, it needs to be highlighted
here that these provisions are mandatory in nature
in some of the more matured Western markets.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 12

Good governance doesnt

guarantee success, but the lack of it
is very often the cause of failure.
The long term sustainability of a
business rests on the pillars of
transparency and fairness, and those
with long-term vision for their
organisations acknowledge that
corporate governance is more about
inclusive and thus sustainable
growth than enforcement.
Lav Goyal
Partner and Practice Leader Business Risk Services
Grant Thornton India

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

II. Board of directors

II. Board of directors

Percentage of independent directors

5. What according to you constitutes an ideal Board structure? How many Independent
Directors should be present on the Board?

61% and above

5%
14%

32%

51-60%

2010

30%

2009
63%

50%

56%

Percentage of respondents

Independence at the Board,

committees and executive
positions helps in providing
unbiased and insightful leadership.
Companies should really strive not
only to meet the Clause 49
recommendations, but also to
implement measures to eliminate
or mitigate other risks that could
adversely impact the value of
shareholders stake into the
company.

It has also been expressed that

since executive directors are
critical to the functioning of the
company, its important to have
them on the Board. As per
present norms, for every
executive director on the
Board, an independent
director needs to be appointed.
This school of thought further
advocates that this would increase
the Board size unnecessarily.

This calls for an adequate

knowledge pool that could protect
and enhance the value creation in
an entity. This fundamental
requirement lies at the base of
argument pertaining to ideal size
of a Board. However, there is no
universal agreement on the issue.

However, the argument loses

ground on the basis that an
independent review system is
indispensable for any organisation.
However, given the demandsupply gap, it is advisable that at
least one-third of the Board should
be independent irrespective of the
chairman being executive or nonexecutive.

Certain quarters of the industry

feel that to have 50% of the Board
as independent Board is too
stringent requirement (if the
chairman is not independent).

Independence of directors weighs

heavily among the investing
community. Indian companies fare
reasonably well on the issue of

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

independence as 67% respondents

feel that the directors of the
companies they had invested in were
'independent' enough. Remaining
33% had reservations on the issue
and thought that directors were not
adequately 'independent' in the
companies that they were involved
with.
63% of responding companies
believe that approximately 50%
members on an ideal Board
structure should be
independent. Almost 32%
thought that a formation of 5160% independent directors is
ideal to ensure a robust
corporate governance structure.
This same trend was observed
during the last survey results
where 56% of the respondents
thought that 50% independent
directors would be an ideal
formation.

Page 15

6. Do you think separation of CEO and chairmans office would lead to better corporate
governance and operational performance?

11%

Can't say

15%

78%

No

The argument again finds its origin

in the capital structure of the
organisations. Clearly, there is
lesser acceptance of professional
management in the promoter
driven companies. However, on
analysing the complete sample
population, we see that a majority

25-50%

11%
62%

0%

With the companies where

promoters own greater than 50%,
78% were of the opinion that the
segregation of the two most
important offices would not yield
any significant benefits. In the case
of 25-50% promoter holdings,
62% thought that it would be
important to segregate these two
offices.

>50%

23%

Yes

Our analysis of the responses

from promoter-driven and nonpromoter driven companies
substantiated some historical
trends of closely-held management
teams being more conservative to
the segregation of offices of CEO
and the chairperson.

Promoter
Groups
holding

20%

(58%) has identified that the issue

of separation of these offices is
required to cement the monitoring
mechanism of an organisation.
Many advocates of improved
corporate governance assert
that the offices of CEO and
chairperson should not be held
by the same individual, which
in turn could ensure better
transparency. In addition, this
segregation of roles would
result in a more professional
management of the business.

40%

60%

80%

100%

"Separation of CEO and Chairman's

office is not sufficient if the inherent
culture of the organisation is to work as
a family and not as a professional setup. If it is family, even if there is
segregation, both positions will work
together."
Mr. Udayan Bose
Chairman, KC Corporate Financial Advisors Pvt Ltd

Balance of power provides

companies with the ability to
manage themselves more
effectively.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 16

Is there a process in place to ensure that

newly appointed directors undergo a
structured induction programme on joining the
Board?

7.1 Are they appraised regularly on emerging

issues and industry trends?

5%
10%

10%
Yes: 10%

Yes: 90%

No: 85%
85%

A whopping 85% of the

respondents admitted to
inadequate procedures to help
newly appointed directors
become acclimatised with the
organisational environment.
Generally, it is assumed that a
person appointed on the Board
will have sufficient knowledge/
experience in the complexities of
the relevant business and
industry. However, in certain
scenarios, especially in case of
independent directors, an
induction into the operations and
culture of a company may help
an individual start contributing to
the Board right from the outset.
It is imperative for an
organisation to ensure that all the
members of the governing body
are familiar with the
functionalities and other aspects
attributable to the business.

Can't say: 5%

This will help an organisation in

maintaining harmony in its
operations and further building
efficiencies to benefit the
business.
Directors of companies carry a
considerable responsibility and
liability and hence it is important
that every director, new or
longstanding, has a clear picture
of his or her responsibilities.
A director needs to aware of a
company's ongoing
commitments and liabilities.
Once an agreement is reached to
join the Board the new director
needs to be inducted into the
Boards processes and
procedures so that, from the
outset, he/ she can make a sound
contribution.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

90%

No: 10%

The process becomes more

important in case of nonexecutive directors.
The contrasting school of
thought puts time constraints as
a hampering agent to the
knowledge transfer. However,
this is countered by the argument
of limiting the number of
directorships that a person can
hold at one point of time.
The survey respondents agree
with the fact that the Board in
their organisations are regularly
appraised on emerging issues and
prevailing industry trends.

Page 17

8. How frequently does the

Board of directors meet in a
year?

8.1 How much in advance do

you circulate the agenda
papers for the Board
meeting?

8.2 Do you think that attending

Board meetings through
tele or video conferencing
should be allowed?

5% 5%
10%

15%

45%
45%
85%

4 - 5 times: 45%
6 to 8: 45%

90%

Less than 7 days: 15%

No: 5%
More than 7 but less than 14: 85%

More than 8: 10%

Clause 49 directs all Boards

to meet at least four times in
a year to review the
performance of their
organisations, with minutes
of the meetings made
available to all the
shareholders.
As a standard practice, most
of the Board meetings are
held on a quarterly basis
when companies are in the
process of releasing their
quarterly financial results.
However, the Clause does
not set the upper cap on the
number of Board meetings.

Yes: 90%

year at a gap of not more

than four months; we can
see a slow but clear
movement towards the
increased frequency of
Board meetings A greater
number and frequency of
Board meetings could also
be due to adverse market
sentiments during last year.
As global exchanges are
showing no clear direction
for the near future,
management teams across
the globe are more vigilant
than ever before.

As compared to last year,

where most of the
respondents complied with
the minimum regulatory
requirement of at least four
meetings in one financial

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Despite expressing
reluctance towards adoption
of new guidelines and other
amendments, the
management teams across
the globe have been very
open to adapting new
technologies that facilitate
faster communication and
more efficient decision
making.

Can't say: 5%

The number of days in

advance that a company
sends the agenda for Board
meeting ranged from one to
two weeks where 96% of the
respondents circulated the
agenda between 7-14 days as
per the regulatory
requirements.

Using technology,
organisations can ensure
seamless connectivity
amongst people across the
globe efficiently. It is equally
important that the
companies are allowed to
have Board meetings
through electronic means
rather than only by physical
presence, as is being
proposed under the new
Companies Bill.

Page 18

III. Independent directors

III. Independent directors

9. Do you think one should have a lead

independent director who acts as a
spokesperson for the independent directors
and drives a consensus among independent
directors on various issues?

9.1 Based on your experience, are you satisfied

with the outline of the current roles and
responsibilities of members of the board of
directors of your company?

5%
25%

5%

35%

40%

Independent directors have

been one of the most
contentious subjects related
with corporate governance.
Whereas there seems to be a
wide consent about their
importance in an
organisation, there is a thick
cloud of issues surrounding
the subject. An array of
debates encompass the
procedures and policies
pertaining to the
appointment of
independent directors,
their degree of
'independence' from the
rest of the management,
and integration of their
knowledge with the
company and vice versa.
Only 35% of the
respondents feel that a
spokesperson from the
independent directors should

Yes: 35%

Yes: 90%

No: 40%

No: 5%

Can't say: 25%

communicate and express the

opinions of independent
directors as a whole. A large
number of respondents
(25%) decided not to
comment. A few of the
largest companies in India
have a practice whereby a
meeting of independent
directors is held before the
Board meeting so that they
can discuss the agenda items.
However, the degree of
independence and roles
often blurs with the passage
of time. This happens due to
over-familiarisation with the
organisation that an
independent director is
associated with. It also forms
the convergence point of
argument for the tenure of
the independent directors.
Clause 49 suggests that an
independent director should
not be regarded as

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

90%

'independent' after serving

three consecutive terms of
three years each.
However, application of the
same cannot be stringently
implemented as different
business environments
demand different approach.
The same argument finds a
haven in the analysis of the
responses where 67%
companies feel that the
maximum tenure of the
independent directors
should not be defined.

Can't say: 5%

90% of the respondents

were satisfied with the
defined roles and
responsibilities of their
respective independent
directors and thought that
they were sufficient to
achieve the desired
results.

Page 20

10. How do you select your independent

directors?

10.1 Do you think that the criterion for the

independence of the directors should be
materiality with respect to director's financial
position rather than the company's financial
position?

5%
15%

Nomination by existing
directors: 55%
40%

55%

35%
Yes: 35%

Other sources: 40%

No: 50%
50%

Can't say: 15%

Advertisement and
Self Nomination: 5%

One of the arguments revolving

around the issue of the
'independence' of the
independent directors involves
the process of their appointment.
Our survey revealed that, most
commonly, independent
directors were nominated by
existing directors. This process
itself is questionable as it is very
likely that the directors, with a
considerable direct interest in the
company, will select a person
who is better aligned to their
motives and is not independent
as per the requirement in Clause
49.
However, most of the companies
argue that there is a considerable
dearth of qualified independent
directors.

To overcome this limitation,

some of the larger companies
have not limited themselves only
to Indian citizens. Another
argument that is worth
considering in the case of
appointment of an independent
director is the materiality of the
pecuniary relationship between
the company and independent
directors.

This hesitation is also

reflected in the received
responses where 50% rejected
the argument considering it
unfeasible. However, a
minority of 35% considered
it worth a try and 15% chose
not to respond.

The central issue is to keep the

independence of directors intact
by ensuring that the integrity of
independent directors is not
compromised due to financial
considerations.
The argument of considering the
candidate's financial position has
not gained ground as the
assumption is that these
individuals might not be
comfortable in disclosing details
about their personal wealth.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

"Unless we see financial activism, we

cannot see individual activism.
M. Damodaran
Former Chairman, SEBI

Page 21

IV. Audit committee

IV. Audit committee

11.1 Does the company have a policy for rotation

of audit committee members?

11. What proportion of the audit committee

comprises independent non-executive
directors?

Yes

18%
14%

21%

76% - 100%
73%

51% - 75%
20% - 50%

No

79%

0%

20%

An audit committee lies at the

centre of the financial prudence
and risk management framework
of an organisation. An audit
committee is responsible to
ensure that the correct financial
reporting standards are followed
to account for all the financial
transactions.

that, with the exception of the

not-for-profit sector, it is neither
the title nor name alone, rather
the individuals ability to
introduce robust, informed
challenge or as one chief
executive put it: constructive
tension that truly adds value
to the Board.

Considering the sensitivity of the

responsibilities endowed upon
the audit committee, it is very
important for its members to be
independent to facilitate fair and
complete disclosure of all the
material events to shareholders.

In our survey, the responding

companies seem to be addressing
the issue of independence of the
audit committee fairly well.
Almost 81% of the participants
had an audit committee with
independent non-executive
directors forming more than half
of the committee.

The increasing importance of the

role of the non-executive
director in implementing good
governance in practice is all too
evident in recent corporate
failures and frauds. There is a
growing realisation among
chairman, chief executives and
nomination committee members

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

40%

60%

80%

100%

It may be noted that Clause 49 requires that at

least two-third of the audit committee should
comprise of independent directors. Our survey
reveals that there are companies that are not
complying with this mandatory requirement.
A considerable amount of time has been spent
discussing the issue of rotation of statutory
auditors. However, not many opinions have
been shared about the issue of rotation of the
audit committee. The argument again
originates from the cause of ensuring sufficient
internal controls and transparent financials to
upkeep investor confidence and market
credibility. A periodic rotation of the members
would not only enable a more independent
control on the company operations, it can also
be a tool to bring in fresh perspectives on the
reporting practices used by an organisation.
However, like independent directors, the
demand-supply gap is quite large and there is
an acute dearth of manpower to constitute
fresh audit committees on a regular basis. It is
this lack of knowledge pool that made 79% of
the respondents respond against the idea of
rotation of audit committee.

Page 23

12. How frequently do the audit committee

members meet in a year?

16%

12.1 What is the average duration of these

meetings?

11%

32%
5 - 7 times a year: 32%

Audit committees have been

directed to meet at least four times
in one financial year with a gap of
not more than four months
between the two meetings. As a
result, most of the audit
committee meetings, like Board
meetings, are conducted before
the publication of the quarterly
financial reports.
Our survey revealed that though
all the companies are compliant to
Clause 49, only a few go beyond
the prescribed level. 53% of the
responses stated that their
respective audit committees met
between 4-5 times in a year. Only
16% met seven times or more.
The audit committee should be
meeting more frequently as it is
the approver of all the financials
disclosed by the company, before
formally making them the part of
the company books that are
presented to the shareholders.

26%
0 - 2 hours: 26%
2 - 4 hours: 58%

4 - 5 times a year: 53%

53%

5%

4 - 6 hours: 11%

More than 7 times a year: 16%

58%

Therefore, it is widely and strongly

suggested that an audit committee
should be better integrated with the
management and should review its
operations and corresponding
reporting mechanisms. The director
has to be aware of the business and
its complexities in order to be able
to review the managements work
and give his feedback than be in a
deciding capacity.
Another aspect of audit committee
activity that is worth discussion in
conjunction with the frequency of
their meetings is the amount of
time spent on these meetings to
discuss the critical financial/
operational matters in a business
environment.

More than 6 hours: 5%

as compared to the last survey, the

effectiveness of the same is still not
at the desirable level. Most often,
time constraints are put forward as
the strongest argument against
longer meetings. However,
technology could provide solutions
to such issues.
Almost 90% of the companies
responded positively when asked if
the work of the audit committee
was given sufficient coverage in
their annual reports and that they
had implemented a structured
framework for assessing the
internal controls over financial
reporting.

Our survey reveals that this period

currently ranges between 2-4 hours.
However, whether this is sufficient
or not, depends on several factors.
Although we clearly observe a
movement towards longer meetings

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 24

V. Auditors

V. Auditors

13. Do you think compulsory joint auditor of all

companies shall bring in more transparency?

14%

13.1 How can the auditors be made more

independent?

29%

36%

29%
Audit f irm rotation: 29%

Yes: 36%
50%

Discussions on making joint audits

mandatory have recently gathered
momentum. The idea is to appoint two
or more auditors to audit different areas
of a companys financial statements and
express joint opinions on the financial
statements as a whole. Our survey
reveals that majority (50%) of the
respondents have felt that joint
statutory auditors may not be the
solution to provide the required and
desired level of transparency. However,
36% feel otherwise and 14% chose not
to respond.
Transparency, objectivity and
authenticity of information shared with
the shareholders are the key areas that
corporate governance standards intend
to address in any environment. The
ultimate chain of communication and
the correctness and cohesiveness of
disclosed financial information is
certified by the auditors.
Auditors have a responsibility to report
any material misstatements in the
financial statements. In order to
facilitate an unbiased analysis of the
company's books, it is very important
that auditors are independent to carry

No: 50%
Can't say: 14%

out their analyses. However, the

viewpoints on the issue remain
diverse as none of the frequently
proposed systems seem to be an ideal
solution for these issues. Our review
reveals mixed trends with 36%
favouring the system of rotation of
the engagement partner whereas 29%
considering audit firm rotation as a
solution.
Mandatory rotation of audit
firms may entail several
unintended negative
consequences, when compared
with illusions of gains. It is
noteworthy that international
experience is against rotation of
firms, and in many cases it was
tried and abandoned. There are
other alternative, yet more
effective measures, of
governance to ensure auditor
independence, and rotation can
be mandated through rotation of
partners/teams. FICCI

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Audit partner rotation: 36%

7%

Joint auditor: 7%
36%

None of the above: 29%

During our survey, respondents

expressed their opinions on the
qualitative aspects and arguments
for and against joint auditors. It
has been perceived that joint audits
can increase cost to the company,
lead to inefficiencies and do not
necessarily increase audit quality.
Also, there are possibilities of
omissions during the audit with
one firm blaming the other for
mistakes and the danger of an
unlevel playing field vis--vis
international counterpart.
Of the G20 countries, only France
has a tradition of joint
auditors. Denmark did have joint
auditing, but the mandatory
requirement was abandoned in
2005. The choice should rather be
left to Audit Committees and
shareholders to weigh the
advantages and disadvantages of a
dual appointment and not be
mandated.

Page 26

14. When did your company rotate your auditors last time?

29%

More than 15 years: 50%

50%

14%
7%

10 years ago: 7%
5 years ago: 14%
Recently: 29%

Rotation of auditors is one of the

most debated matters currently.
Supporters stand for frequent
rotation of auditors to ensure an
unbiased and fair opinion on
corporate affairs.
The International Federation of
Accountants (IFAC) Code of
Ethics mandates the rotation of
the audit partner at least every 7
years to protect against overfamiliarity. However, the
mandatory rotation of the audit
firm has been tried in some
jurisdictions and has had a very
chequered history.
Out of all the G20 economies,
only Italy has mandatory firm
rotation on a continuing basis. It
has been abandoned in Spain and
Brazil and also Korea, after
having adopted it for most
public companies.

A number of arguments revolve

around the subject of rotation of
auditors. For instance, it is said
that this practice may erase the
cumulative knowledge of an
audit firm and thus reduces audit
effectiveness. Moreover, it is also
perceived as a market-distorting
mechanism, creating significant
practical difficulties.
These notions were corroborated
during our survey wherein 50%
of the respondents have had the
same auditor for more than 15
years and a small percentage
(29%) had recently switched to a
new audit service provider.
In a concurrent survey with the
investor community, 67% of the
investors supported the idea of a
more frequent rotation of the
auditors and prefers to appoint
new statutory auditors as soon as
stake in a company is acquired.

On further enquiring about the

extent that an investing entity
enforces on a company to ensure
transparency and probably a
professional management,
surprisingly mixed and balanced
opinions were brought out where
33% of the respondents said that
they recommended a new
appointment for the position of
CFO, 33% were against and 33%
were undecided on the issue.

"Auditor's familiarity with the business

is a must. However, there is a thin line
between familiarity with the business
and familiarity with the management."
M. Damodaran
Former Chairman, SEBI

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 27

VI. Internal controls and

risk management

VI. Internal controls and risk management

15. Do you think that outsourcing the internal

audit function will ensure better independent
review of operations and add value to the
internal audit process?

15.1 Does your company have a Chief Risk Officer

(CRO)?

7%
36%

21%
Yes: 71%
71%

Internal auditors work as a

firewall to the operations of a
company, and are expected to
review the company procedures
and disclose all the exceptions
that are a result of noncompliance to the implemented
procedures or a consequence of
the lack of controls in the
established systems.
As a process, internal audit
claimed significance in the postEnron era. Nowadays, most large
organisations have separate
departments, which oversee the
internal audit function. However,
many organisations also believe
that internal auditors, like
statutory auditors, should be
independent of any influence
that can possibly be imparted
from within the organisation.
This conclusion gets
substantiated in the answer to
this matter raised during this
survey.

No: 21%

Yes: 36%

64%

No: 64%

Can't say: 7%

A large population, 71%, agreed

that outsourcing of internal audit
function would yield better
results, add more value to the
current processes and mitigate
the existing risks to a great
extent. Internal auditors' review
is also a part of the investor
confidence building mechanism.
All the investors, responding to
our survey, placed a certain
degree of importance over the
assessment of company
operations carried out during
their reviews.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

On further enquiry of internal

risk control mechanisms, we
found out that only 36% of the
responding entities had a person
appointed as CRO. The rest of
the respondents had no such
position in place. While sharing
his insights, one of the exregulators felt that compulsory
outsourcing of internal audit is a
must and should be widely
implemented and practiced.
"The effective functioning of
internal audit as a process is
more important whether done
internally or outsourced, and the
effectiveness of internal audit as
a function will largely depend on
the tone at the top which will
include initiatives on corporate
governance like setting up audit
committee, taking adequate
reporting, addressing key issues
etc."
Chitra Ramakrishna
Joint Managing Director, National Stock
Exchange (NSE)

Page 29

16. What are your suggestions to improve the state of corporate governance in India? What could be a
possible audit or check mechanism that can be implemented by SEBI to ensure compliance with
Clause 49 requirements?

The survey brought out several

suggestions for improving the
state of corporate governance in
the country. Although all the
participants did register their
concerns and recommendations,
the scope and nature of
suggestions varied significantly.
Some respondents suggested
stricter financial implications in
the case of non-compliance,
whereas, some emphasised that
the current guidelines be
implemented in spirit and
substance than letter and form.
Additionally, it was found that
management teams across
various sectors expect some kind
of recognition on pursuing
corporate governance guidelines.

opinions about independence

and better integration of auditors
with the management were also
echoed very frequently during
our interactions.
However, to reflect all these
changes in implementation and
in spirit of the organisations,
more valiant and voluntary steps
would be required from
corporates across the country.

Apart from these responses,

SEBI is the government's watchdog to ensure compliance with all the mandatory regulations of Clause 49. On
our queries about the role that SEBI has played in developing corporate governance norms so far and how it
could be improved; most of the respondents were convinced that it has played a major role in implementing
Clause 49 in its current state today.
However, all the respondents almost unanimously voiced their concerns about a more active role to be played by
SEBI in improving the current compliance levels. The most common suggestion that came to the fore was that
SEBI should conduct independent corporate governance compliance audits, in order to understand the
practicalities and other externalities attached with the adoption of these standards. Some of the respondents also
suggested for a periodic and independent third-party review of corporate governance norms both at the policy
and implementation levels. Such practices would also ensure that the companies are more vigilant in pursuing
these guidelines.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 30

Acknowledgement
FICCI and Grant Thornton gratefully acknowledge the inputs
of the following advocates of Corporate Governance.
Chitra Ramakrishna
M. Damodaran
Udayan Bose
Vijaya Sampath

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 32

About FICCI

FICCI is the rallying point for free enterprises in India. It has empowered Indian businesses, in the
changing times, to shore up their competitiveness and enhance their global reach.
With a nationwide membership of over 1,500 corporates and over 500 chambers of commerce and
business associations, FICCI espouses the shared vision of Indian businesses and speaks directly and
indirectly for over 2,50,000 business units.
It has an expanding direct membership of enterprises drawn from large, medium, small and tiny
segments of manufacturing, distributive trade and services. FICCI maintains the lead as the proactive
business solution provider through research, interactions at the highest political level and global
networking.
Set up in 1927, on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi, FICCI is the largest and oldest apex business
organisation of Indian business. Its history is very closely interwoven with the freedom movement.
FICCI inspired economic nationalism as a political tool to fight against discriminatory economic
policies. In the knowledge-driven globalised economy, FICCI stands for quality, competitiveness,
transparency, accountability and business-government-civil society partnership to spread ethics-based
business practices and to enhance the quality of life of the common people.
FICCI
Federation House
Tansen Marg
New Delhi 110 001
T +91 11 2373 8760 - 70
F +91 11 2332 0714
E: [email protected]
W www.ficci.com
Contacts:
Jyoti Vij
E [email protected]

FICCI offices in India:

Ahmedabad
Bangalore
Bhopal
Chennai
Cochin
Hyderabad
Jaipur
Kolkata
Margao
Mumbai
Raipur

Chikku Bose
E [email protected]

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 33

About Grant Thornton

Grant Thornton International

Grant Thornton International is one of the worlds leading organisations of independently owned and
managed accounting and consulting firms. These firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to
privately held businesses and public interest entities.
Clients of member and correspondent firms can access the knowledge and experience of more than 2,400
partners in over 100 countries and consistently receive a distinctive, high quality and personalised service
wherever they choose to do business.
Grant Thornton India

Grant Thornton India is a member firm within Grant Thornton International Ltd. The firm is one of the
oldest and most prestigious accountancy firms in the country. Today, it has grown to be one of the largest
accountancy and advisory firms in India with nearly 1,000 professional staff in New Delhi, Bengaluru,
Chandigarh, Chennai, Gurgaon, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune, and affiliate arrangements in most
of the major towns and cities across the country.
Corporate governance solutions

We have proven international capability and experience of adding value to internal audit, business process
change and information technology programmes of our clients.
Our end-to-end services provide comprehensive solutions to complex issues our clients face in todays
ever-dynamic business environment. The illustration below highlights the framework of corporate
governance solutions we offer to our clients:
Internal Audit
Outsourcing or co-sourcing of internal
audits
Internal audit effectiveness reviews
Process and control reviews
Operational audits
Verification audits
SAS70
Advisory

Information technology

Governance, risk and compliance

Process improvement
Enterprise risk management
Business integration
Fraud assessment and controls
Programme management
Sarbanes Oxley
Clause 49

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

IT governance and strategy

IT assessment and due diligence
Security services
Selection and implementation
effectiveness
Data centre reviews
Business continuity and disaster recovery
Data mining and investigations

Page 34

Corporate governance: our global survey reports

Moving beyond compliance: embracing the spirit

of the Code
The survey highlights corporate governance trends
related with the disclosure of compliance with the
Combined Code. The report continues analysis by
industry, using the FTSE Group and Dow Jones Index
classification system called the Industry Classification
Benchmark (ICB).

ISEQ: Corporate governance review 2009

The report examines the degree to which companies
listed on the main index of the Irish Stock Exchange
(ISEQ) comply with the disclosure provisions of the
Financial Reporting Councils Combined Code on
corporate governance.

Harmony from discord: emerging trends in

governance in the FTSE 350
An annual review of the UKs FTSE 350 corporate
governance disclosures. The report highlights trends in
the disclosure of compliance with the Combined Code
and assesses the quality of explanations of underlying
practices among the UKs largest listed companies.

FICCIGrant Thornton | Corporate Governance Review 2010-11

Page 35

Contact us

Lav Goyal
E [email protected]
T +91 98101 14013

Nidhi Maheshwari
E [email protected]
T +91 77380 57904

Grant Thornton offices in India:

NEW DELHI
National Office
Outer Circle
L 41 Connaught Circus
New Delhi 110 001
T +91 11 4278 7070

BENGALURU
Wings, First Floor
16/1 Cambridge Road
Ulsoor
Bengaluru 560 008
T +91 80 4243 0700

CHANDIGARH
SCO 17
2nd Floor
Sector 17 E
Chandigarh 160 017
T +91 172 4338 000

CHENNAI
Arihant Nitco Park, 6th floor
No.90, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore
Chennai 600 004
T +91 44 4294 0000

GURGAON
21st Floor, DLF Square
Jacaranda Marg
DLF Phase II
Gurgaon 122 002
T +91 124 462 8000

HYDERABAD
WK)ORRU:KLWH+RXVH
Block III, Kundan Bagh
Begumpet
Hyderabad 500 016
T +91 40 6630 8200

KOLKATA
MBC 6th floor
Block A
22 Camac Street
Kolkata 700 016
T +91 33 4019 2219

MUMBAI
Engineering Centre, 6th Floor
9 Matthew Road
Opera House
Mumbai 400 004
T +91 22 2367 1623

PUNE
401 Century Arcade
Narangi Baug Road
Off Boat Club Road
Pune 411 001
T +91 20 4105 7000

Editorial and production: Vikram Jethwani

www.wcgt.in
2011 Grant Thornton India
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this document has been compiled or arrived at from discussions with various
stakeholders, industry experts and other sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty
is made to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. The information contained in this document is
published for the knowledge of the recipient but is not to be relied upon as authoritative or taken in
substitution for the exercise of judgment by any recipient. This document is not intended to be a substitute
for professional, technical or legal advice or opinion and the contents in this document are subject to
change without notice.
Whilst due care has been taken in the preparation of this report and information contained herein, Grant
Thornton does not take ownership of or endorse any findings or personal views expressed herein or
accept any liability whatsoever, for any direct or consequential loss howsoever arising from any use of this
document or its contents or otherwise arising in connection herewith.