business ethics - final hard copy

7/27/2019 Business Ethics - Final Hard Copy

1/31

2

NAME OF GROUP MEMBERS

NAME ROLL NO.

Priyanka Maru 526

Jinal Mistry 527

Palak Mistry 528

Vidhi Miyani 529

Rachna Parekh 530

Karan Parikh 531

Sejal Patel 535

Bijal Kanakia 560


2/31

3

Acknowledgement

Any accomplishment requires the effort of many people and this

project was no different. Regardless of the source, we wish to express

my gratitude to those who may have contributed to this work, even

anonymously. We gratefully acknowledge and express deep

appreciation to many people who have made this project possible.

Ocean of thanks to Prof. Poonam Popat. Without her support,

motivation and suggestion this project would not have been possible.


3/31

4

INDEX

Topic Page No.

1.Introduction to Corporate Governance 5.2.History of Corporate Governance 6.3.Committees on Corporate Governance 8.4.Corporate Governance for Companies 14.5.Corporate Governance on Banks 16.6.Corporate Governance on Insurance Companies 19.7.Code on Board of Directors 23.8.Transparency in Decision Making 26.9.Measures for Improving Ethical Standards 31.


4/31

5

INTRODUCTION TO CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

A corporation is a congregation of various stakeholders, namely, customers,

employees, investors, vendor partners, government and society. A corporation

should be fair and transparent to its stakeholders in all its transactions. This has

become imperative in todays globalized business world where corporations need

to access global pools of capital, need to attract and retain the best human capital

from various parts of the world, need to partner with vendors on megacollaborations and need to live in harmony with the community. Unless a

corporation embraces and demonstrates ethical conduct, it will not be able to

succeed.

Corporate governance is the set of processes, customs, policies, laws, and

institutions affecting the way a corporation or company is directed, administered

or controlled. Corporate governance also includes the relationships among the

many stakeholders involved and the goals for which the corporation is governed.

Corporate Governance is the system by which companies are directed and

managed. It influences how the objectives of the company are set and achieved,

how risk is monitored and assessed and how performance is optimized. Sound

Corporate Governance is, therefore, critical to enhance and retain investors trust.

Definition of corporate governance

Report of SEBI Committee (India) on Corporate Governance defines corporate

governance as the acceptance by management of the inalienable rights of

shareholders as the true owners of the corporation and of their own role as

trustees on behalf of the shareholders. It is about commitment to values, about


5/31

6

ethical business conduct and about making a distinction between personal &

corporate funds in the management of a company.

The OECD provides the most authoritative functional definition of corporate

governance:

Corporate governance is the system by which business corporations are directed

and controlled.

The corporate governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and

responsibilities among different participants in the corporation, such as the

board, managers, shareholders and other stakeholders, and spells out the rules

and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs. By doing this, it also

provides the structure through which the company objectives are set, and the

means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance.

HISTORY OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN INDIA: A BACKGROUND

The history of the development of Indian corporate laws has been marked by

interesting contrasts. At independence, India inherited one of the worlds poorest

economies but one which had a factory sector accounting for a tenth of the

national product; four functioning stock markets with clearly defined rules

governing listing, trading and settlements; a well-developed equity culture if only

among the urban rich; and a banking system replete with well-developed lending

norms and recovery procedures. In terms of corporate laws and financial system,

therefore, India emerged far better endowed than most other colonies.

The years since liberalization, have witnessed wide-ranging changes in both laws

and regulations driving corporate governance as well as general consciousness

about it. Perhaps the single most important development in the field of corporate

governance and investor protection in India has been the establishment of the


6/31

7

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 1992 and its gradual

empowerment since then.

Established primarily to regulate and monitor stock trading, it has played a crucial

role in establishing the basic minimum ground rules of corporate conduct in thecountry. Concerns about corporate governance in India were, however, largely

triggered by a spate of crises in the early 90s the Harshad Mehta stock market

scam of 1992 followed by incidents of companies allotting preferential shares to

their promoters at deeply discounted prices as well as those of companies simply

disappearing with investors money.

Corporate governance in India is evident from the various legal and regulatory

frameworks and Committees set relating to corporate functioning comprising of

the following:

1. The Companies Act, 1956

2. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (replaced by new

Competition Law)

3. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 2000

4. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

5. Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956

6. The Depositories Act, 1996

7. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

8. SEBI Code on Corporate Governance


7/31

8

COMMITTEES ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Apart from these laws and acts, there were also committees setup globally as well

as in India that highlighted corporate Governance on various sectors. These

committees are as follows:-

Cadbury Committee Report- Recommendations:The 'Cadbury Committee' was set up in May 1991 with a view to overcome the

huge problems of scams and failures occurring in the corporate sectorworldwide in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Reviewing the structure and

responsibilities of Boards of Directors and recommending a Code of Best

Practice The boards of all listed companies should comply with the Code of

Best Practice. All listed companies should make a statement about their

compliance with the Code in their report and accounts as well as give reasons

for any areas of non-compliance. The Code of Best Practice is segregated into

four sections and their respective recommendations are:-

1. Board of Directors - The board should meet regularly, retain full andeffective control over the company and monitor the executive

management. There should be a clearly accepted division of responsibilities

at the head of a company, which will ensure a balance of power and

authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision.

Where the chairman is also the chief executive, it is essential that there

should be a strong and independent element on the board, with a

recognised senior member. Besides, all directors should have access to the

advice and services of the company secretary, who is responsible to the

Board for ensuring that board procedures are followed and that applicable

rules and regulations are complied with.


8/31

9

2. Non-Executive Directors - The non-executive directors should bring anindependent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance,

resources, including key appointments, and standards of conduct. Themajority of non-executive directors should be independent of management

and free from any business or other relationship which could materially

interfere with the exercise of their independent judgment, apart from their

fees and shareholding.

3. Executive Directors - There should be full and clear disclosure of directorstotal emoluments and those of the chairman and highest-paid directors,

including pension contributions and stock options, in the company's annual

report, including separate figures for salary and performance-related pay.

4. Financial Reporting and Controls - It is the duty of the board to present abalanced and understandable assessment oftheir companys position, in

reporting of financial statements, for providing true and fair picture of

financial reporting. The directors should report that the business is a going

concern, with supporting assumptions or qualifications as necessary. The

board should ensure that an objective and professional relationship is

maintained with the auditors.

Considering the role of Auditors and addressing a number of recommendations

to the Accountancy Profession:

The annual audit is one of the cornerstones of corporate governance. It provides

an external and objective check on the way in which the financial statements have

been prepared and presented by the directors of the company. The Cadbury


9/31

10

Committee recommended that a professional and objective relationship between

the board of directors and auditors should be maintained, so as to provide to all a

true and fair view of company's financial statements. Auditors' role is to design

audit in such a manner so that it provide a reasonable assurance that the financial

statements are free of material misstatements. Further, there is a need to

develop more effective accounting standards, which provide important reference

points against which auditors exercise their professional judgement. Secondly,

every listed company should form an audit committee which gives the auditors

direct access to the non-executive members of the board.

The Committee further recommended for a regular rotation of audit partners to

prevent unhealthy relationship between auditors and the management. It also

recommended for disclosure of payments to the auditors for non-audit services tothe company.

The Accountancy Profession, in conjunction with representatives of preparers of

accounts, should take the lead in:- (i) developing a set of criteria for assessing

effectiveness; (ii) developing guidance for companies on the form in which

directors should report; and (iii) developing guidance for auditors on relevant

audit procedures and the form in which auditors should report. However, it

should continue to improve its standards and procedures.

Dealing with the Rights and Responsibilities of Shareholders:

The shareholders, as owners of the company, elect the directors to run the

business on their behalf and hold them accountable for its progress. They appoint

the auditors to provide an external check on the directors financial statements.

The Committee's report places particular emphasis on the need for fair and

accurate reporting of a company's progress to its shareholders, which is the

responsibility of the board. It is encouraged that the institutional

investors/shareholders to make greater use of their voting rights and take

positive interest in the board functioning.


10/31

11

Both shareholders and boards of directors should consider how the effectiveness

of general meetings could be increased as well as how to strengthen the

accountability of boards of directors to shareholders.

Committees on corporate governance under the chairmanship of Shri Kumar

Mangalam Birla (1999)

The Kumar Mangalam Committee made mandatory and non mandatory

recommendations. Based on the recommendations of the Committee, the SEBI

had specified principles of Corporate Governance and introduced a new clause 49

in the Listing agreement of the Stock Exchanges in the year 2000.

Naresh Chandra Committee (2002)

The Enron debacle in July 2002, involving the hand-in-glove relationship between

the auditor and the corporate client and various other scams in the United States,and the consequent enactment of the stringent Sarbanes Oxley Act in the

United States were some important factors, which led the Indian government to

wake up. The Department of Company Affairs in the Ministry of Finance on 21

August 2002, appointed a high level committee, popularly known as the Naresh

Chandra Committee, to examine various corporate governance issues and to

recommend changes in the diverse areas involving the auditor client relationships

and the role of independent directors.

The Committee submitted its Report on 23 December 2002. Naresh Chandra

Committee recommendations relate to the Auditor-Company relationship and the

role of Auditors. Report of the SEBI Committee on Corporate Governance

recommended that the mandatory recommendations on matters of disclosure of

contingent liabilities, CEO/CFO Certification, definition of Independent Director,


11/31

12

independence of Audit Committee and independent director exemptions in the

report of the Naresh Chandra Committee, relating to corporate governance, be

implemented by SEBI.

Committee on Corporate Governance under the Chairmanship of Shri N. R.Narayana Murthy (2002)

Narayana Murthy Committee recommendations to clause 49 of the Listing

Agreement, include role of Audit Committee, Related party transactions, Risk

management, compensation to Non-Executive Directors, Whistle Blower Policy,

Affairs of Subsidiary Companies, Analyst Reports and other non mandatory

recommendations.

Corporate Governance under Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement

Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement, which deals with Corporate Governance

norms that a listed entity should follow, was first introduced in the financial year

2000-01 based on recommendations of Kumar Mangalam Birla committee. After

these recommendations were in place for about two years, SEBI, in order to

evaluate the adequacy of the existing practices and to further improve the

existing practices set up a committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Narayana

Murthy during 2002-03. The Murthy committee, after holding three meetings,

had submitted the draft recommendations on corporate governance norms7.

After deliberations, SEBI accepted the recommendations in August 2003 and

asked the Stock Exchanges to revise Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement based on

Murthy committee recommendations. This led to widespread protests and

representations from the Industry thereby forcing the Murthy committee to meet

again to consider the objections. The committee, thereafter, considerably revised

the earlier recommendations and the same was put up on SEBI website on 15th

December 2003 for public comments. It was only on 29th October 2004 that SEBI


12/31

13

finally announced revised Clause 49, which had to be implemented by the end of

financial year 2004- 05. These revised recommendations have also considerably

diluted the original Murthy Committee recommendations.

Areas where major changes were made include:

1. Independence of Directors

2. Whistle Blower policy

3. Performance evaluation of nonexecutive directors

4. Mandatory training of non-executive directors, etc.

Failure to comply with clause 49 (corporate governance) of SEBIs listing

agreement is punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to Rs

25 crore or both. Besides, stock exchanges can suspend the dealing/trading of

securities. With over 6000 listed companies, monitoring and enforcement are

significant challenges in the immediate term. While SEBIs ultimate sanction in

cases of serial non-compliance is delisting, this is unpopular as delisting penalises

the non-controlling dispersed shareholders and closes their exit options. Hence,

SEBI has tended to enforce the recommendations through dialog and in some

cases monetary penalties.


13/31

14

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956---FOR

COMPANIES

The Companies Act, 1956 is the central legislation in India that empowers the

Central Government to regulate the formation, financing, functioning and winding

up of companies. It applies to whole of India and to all types of companies.

The Companies Act, 1956 has elaborate provisions relating to the Governance of

Companies, which deals with management and administration of companies. It

contains special provisions with respect to the accounts and audit, directors

remuneration, other financial and nonfinancial disclosures, corporate democracy,

prevention of mismanagement, etc.

(1)Disclosures on Remuneration of DirectorsThe specific disclosures on the remuneration of directors regarding all elements

of remuneration package of all the directors should be made as a part of

Corporate Governance. Section 299 of the Act requires every director of a

company to make disclosure, at the Board meeting, of the nature of his concern

or interest in a contract or arrangement (present or proposed) entered by or on

behalf of the company10. The company is also required to record such

transactions in the Register of Contract under section 301 of the Act.


14/31

15

(2)Requirements of the Audit CommitteeAudit Committee has a critical role to play in ensuring the integrity of financial

management of the company. This Committee add assurance to the shareholders

that the auditors, who act on their behalf, are in a position to safeguard theirinterests. Besides the requirements of Clause 49, section 292A of the Act requires

every public having paid up capital of Rs 5 crores or more shall constitute a

committee of the board to be known as Audit Committee.

As per the Act, the committee shall consist of at least three directors; two-third of

the total strength shall be directors other than managing or whole time directors.

The Annual Report of the company shall disclose the composition of the Audit

Committee.

If the default is made in complying with the said provision of the Act, then the

company and every officer in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term extending to a year or with fine up to Rs 50000 or both.

(3)Number of Directorships RestrictedSections 275, 276 and 277 have been amended to provide that no person shallhold office as director in more than 15 companies (excluding private company,

unlimited company, etc., as defined in section 278) instead of 20 companies. This

shall enable the director concerned to devote more time to the affairs of

company in which he is a director.

(4)Corporate DemocracyWider participation by the shareholders in the decision making process is a pre-

condition for democratizing corporate bodies. Due to geographical distance or

other practical problems, a substantially large number of shareholders cannot

attend the general meetings. To overcome these obstacles and pave way for

introduction of real corporate democracy, section 192A of the Act and the


15/31

16

Companies (Passing of Resolution by Postal allot), Rules provides for certain

resolutions to be approved and passed by the shareholders through postal

ballots.

(5)Appointment of Nominee Director by Small ShareholdersSection 252 has been amended to provide that a public company having paid-up

capital of Rs. 5 crore or more and one thousand or more small shareholders can

elect a director by small shareholders. Small shareholders means a shareholder

holding shares of nominal value of Rs. 20,000 or less in a company14. However,

this provision is not mandatory and small shareholders have option to elect a

person as their representative for appointment as director on the Board of such

company.

(6)Directors Responsibility StatementSub-section (2AA) in section 217A has provided that the Boards report shall

include a directors responsibility statement with respect to applicable accounting

standards having been followed, consistent application of accounting policiesselected so as to give a true and fair view of state of affairs and of the profit and

loss of the company, maintenance of adequate accounting records with proper

care for safeguarding assets of company and to prevent and detect fraud and

other irregularities, and the preparation of annual accounts on a going concern

basis.


16/31

17

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ON BANKS

Report of RBI Committee

Both objective and subjective criteria have been laid down to determine the

eligibility of promoters to set up a bank. The subjective elements include

diversified ownership, sound credentials and integrity. Curiously, RBI has

demonstrated some uneasiness with reference to other businesses that

prospective promoters may be carrying on. Here are some extracts:

It is not clear if tainting all players in a specific type of business activity with the

same brush is a prudent approach. For example, as these comments observe,

stock broking activity is a regulated industry subject to fitness norms and may not

deserve the type of blacklisting treated meted out by the RBI.

Corporate Structure

RBI has specified the structure that corporates must be used while setting up

banking activity. Promoters must set up a non-operative holding company (NOHC)

through which they will hold the bank and all other regulated financial activities

within the group. As the draft guidelines note, this is to ring fence the regulated

financial services activities of the group from other nonfinancial activities.

Depending on existing structures of corporate groups, successful licensee may

need to restructure their group holdings to comply with the proposed structure.

Minimum Capital

An initial minimum capital requirement of Rs. 500 crores has been imposed.

There are very specific requirements on shareholding limits of the NOHC in the

bank. For instance, there is a lock-in of 40% shares of the NOHC in the bank for 5


17/31

18

years. Although the NOHC may start with a higher shareholding, it has to be pared

down to 40% within 2 years from the date of licensing, to 20% within 10 years,

and to 15% within 12 years. The bank will have to be listed on a stock exchange

within 2 years, which is quite a short time frame. Hence, the establishment of the

bank as well as its initial business operations must provide for early listing.

Foreign Shareholding

To begin with, a private sector bank can raise only up to 49% from foreign

investors. It is only after 5 years that the prevailing policy of foreign investment in

banking will become applicable, which is that foreign investment is allowed up to

74%. To that extent, RBI has followed a phased approach for the new private

sector banks by not making the general foreign investment policy applicable to

them at their initial stage. This would mean that a private bank conducting an IPO

in the first 2-year period will have to largely rely on the domestic supply of capital.

Corporate Governance

The draft guidelines provide some broad indication of the type of governance

norms to be followed by private sector banks. The emphasis is on ring fencing all

regulated activities under the umbrella of the NOHC. Moreover, the draft

guidelines call for a separation of ownership and management in promoter

companies that own or control the NOHC. This might be somewhat difficult to

comply with, especially in the case of banks to be established by traditional family

corporate groups. The only specific governance norm is that at least 50% of the

directors of the NOHC should be totally independent of the promoter / promoter

group entities, their business associates, and their customers and suppliers. In

that sense, RBI appears less concerned with governance issues at the level of the

bank itself, but more with the corporate group establishing it, as these norms

extend to both the NOHC as well as the promoters.

Overall, while the RBI has taken the bold step of further opening up the private

banking sector, it is treading with utmost caution. In terms of timing, it is unlikely

that the regime for private banking licenses will be in place anytime soon. As the


18/31

19

draft guidelines themselves suggest, they will be finalised and the process of

inviting applications for setting up new banks in the private sector will be initiated

only after the Banking Regulation Act is amended to include various matters that

are presently under consideration for legislative amendment, including removal

of restriction on voting rights and RBIs approval for change of shareholding

beyond 5% in a bank. It is difficult to hazard a guess as to the timeframe within

which the legislative amendments would be effected.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES

1. General

1.1 Corporate Governance is understood as a system of financial and other

controls in a corporate entity and broadly defines the relationship between the

Board of Directors, senior management and shareholders. In case of the financial

sector, where the entities accept public liabilities for fulfillment of certain

contracts, the relationship is fiduciary with enhanced responsibility to protect the

interests of all stakeholders. The Corporate Governance framework should clearly

define the roles and responsibilities and accountability within an organization

with built-in checks and balances. The importance of Corporate Governance has

received emphasis in recent times since poor governance and weak internal

controls have been associated with major corporate failures. It has also been

appreciated that the financial sector needs to have a more intensive governance

structure in view of its role in the economic development and since the safety and

financial strength of the institutions are critical for the overall strength of the

financial sector on which the economic growth is built upon. As regards theinsurance sector, the regulatory responsibility to protect the interests of the

policyholders demands that the insurers have in place, good governance practices

for maintenance of solvency, sound long term investment policy and assumption

of underwriting risks on a prudential basis. The emergence of insurance

companies as a part of financial conglomerates has added a further dimension to


19/31

20

sound Corporate Governance in the insurance sector with emphasis on overall

risk management across the structure and to prevent any contagion.

1.2 The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has outlined in

general terms, governance responsibilities of the Board in the management of theinsurance functions under various Regulations notified by it covering different

operational areas. It has now been decided to put them together and to issue the

following comprehensive guidelines for adoption by Indian insurance companies.

These guidelines are in addition to provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,

Insurance Act, 1938 and requirement of any other laws or regulations framed

thereunder. Where any provisions of these guidelines appear to be in conflict

with the provisions contained in any law or regulations, the legal provisions will

prevail. However, where the Guidelines on Corporate Governance requirementsof these guidelines are more rigorous than the provisions of any law, these

guidelines shall be followed.

2. Objectives

2.1 The objective of the guidelines is to ensure that the structure, responsibilities

and functions of Board of Directors and the senior management of the company

fully recognize the expectations of all stakeholders as well as those of the

regulator. The structure should take steps required to adopt sound and prudent

principles and practices for the governance of the company and should have the

ability to quickly address issues of non-compliance or weak oversight and

controls. These guidelines therefore amplify on certain issues which are covered

in the Insurance Act, 1938 and the regulations framed thereunder and include

measures which are additionally considered essential by IRDA for adoption by

insurance companies.

2.2 The guidelines accordingly address the various requirements broadly coveringthe following major structural elements of Corporate Governance in insurance

companies:-


20/31

21

Governance structure Board of Directors Control functions Senior management CEO & other senior functionaries Role of Appointed Actuaries External audit Appointment of Statutory Auditors Disclosures Outsourcing Relationship with stakeholders Interaction with the Supervisor Whistle blowing policy

2.3 In these guidelines, the reference to the Board would apply to the Board

ofDirectors and Senior Management to the team of personnel of the company

with core management functions. Normally, this would include officials at one

level below the Executive Director (including Functional Heads). In regards to

insurers, the Appointed Actuary has a special executive and statutory role.

3. Significant Owners, Controlling Shareholders and Conflict of

Interest Role of Board

3.1 IRDA prescribes a minimum lock-in period of 5 years from the date of

certificate of commencement of business of an insurer (R3) for the promoters of

the insurance company and no transfer of shares of the promoters would be

permitted within this period.

3.2 Section 2 (7A) of the Insurance Act, 1938 has prescribed the ceiling of FDI in

Indian Insurance Companies at 26%. It could be capped at such percentage as

may be notified by the Government of India1 in future. The manner of

computation of FDI to satisfy this requirement is detailed at Regulation 11 of the

IRDA (Registration of Insurance Companies) Regulations, 2000.


21/31

22

3.3 The Insurance Act stipulates prior approval of the IRDA for

registration/transfer of shares, exceeding one per cent and /or which involve

holding of share capital, after such transfer, in excess of 5 per cent of the paidup

capital of the company (2.5 per cent for banking or Investment Company).

The Board of Directors of the company shall ensure that the registration of shares

is in compliance with the above provisions of the Act and Circular on regulatory

framework on (i) issue of shares in any form other than equity and (ii) transfer of

shares.

3.4 Sections 297 & 299, of the Companies Act 1956, inter-alia, deal with the

potential areas of conflicts of interest and the obligation of the Directors and the

disclosures thereof. Primarily, the conflicts of interest in insurance companies

arise whenever there are conflicting interests of shareholders, policyholders and

management, and there is therefore a duty on the Board to act in the interest of

policyholders or prospective policyholders. The Authority may in due course also

define significant ownership that could attract potential conflicts of interest. AS

18 of ICAI also casts obligations for the disclosures of transactions involving

related parties. There should be adequate systems, policies and procedures to

address potential conflicts of interest, compliance with AS 18. These include

Board level review of key transactions, disclosures of any conflicts of interest tomanage and control such issues. Presently the ceiling is 26 per cent.

3.5 Auditors, Actuaries, Directors and Senior Managers shall not simultaneously

hold two positions in the insurance company that could lead to conflict or

potential conflicts of interest.

3.6 The Board should ensure ongoing compliance with the statutory

requirements on capital structure while planning or examining options for capital

augmentation of the Company.


22/31

23

4. Governance Structure

Currently, the private insurers in India are yet to go public and get their shares

listed on the stock exchanges. The composition of the Boards of the Public Sector

Undertakings in the insurance sector is also laid down by the Government of

India. It is relevant to observe here that the Corporate Governance requirements

of companies listed in the Stock Exchanges have evolved over time and are

outlined in Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement of the Stock Exchanges. As the

listing requirements are available in public domain they are not being repeated.

However, since the Indian insurance companies are as yet unlisted the Authority

advises all insurers to familiarize themselves with Corporate Governance

structures and requirements appropriate to listed entities. The companies are

also well advised to initiate necessary steps to address the extant gaps that are

so identified to facilitate smooth transition at the time of their eventual listing in

course of time.

CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS FOR PROFESSIONAL

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors (the "Board") must adopt the following Code of Business

Conduct and Ethics (the "Code ") for directors of the Company. This Code is

intended to focus the Board and each director on areas of ethical risk, provide

guidance to directors to help them recognize and deal with ethical issues, provide

mechanisms to report unethical conduct, and help foster a culture of honesty and

accountability. Each director must comply with the letter and spirit of this Code.

No code or policy can anticipate every situation that may arise. Accordingly, this


23/31

24

Code is intended to serve as a source of guiding principles for directors. Directors

are encouraged to bring questions about particular circumstances that may

implicate one or more of the provisions of this Code to the attention of the

Chairman of the Audit Committee, who may consult with inside or outside legal

counsel as appropriate.

Directors who also serve as officers of the Company should follow Code in

conjunction with the Company's Code of Conduct.

Director Responsibilities.

Conflict of Interest.

Corporate Opportunities.

Confidentiality.

Compliance with laws, rules and regulations; fair dealing.

Encouraging the reporting of any illegal or unethical behavior.

Compliance procedures; waivers.

Directors responsibilities

The Board represents the interests of shareholders, as owners of a corporation, in

optimizing long- term value by overseeing management performance on the

shareholders' behalf. The Board's responsibilities in performing this oversight

function include a duty of care and a duty of loyalty.

A director's duty of care refers to the responsibility to exercise appropriate

diligence in overseeing the management of the Company, making decisions and

taking other actions. In meeting the duty of care, directors are expected to:


24/31

25

Attend and participate in board and committee meetings: Personal participation

is required. Directors may not vote or participate by proxy.

Remain properly informed about the corporation's business and affairs:

Directors should review and devote appropriate time to studying board materials.

Rely on others: Absent knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted, directors

may rely on board committees, management, employees, and professional

advisors.

Make inquiries: Directors should make inquiries about potential problems that

come to their attention and follow up until they are reasonably satisfied that

management is addressing them appropriately.

A director's duty of loyalty refers to the responsibility to act in good faith and in

the Company's best interests, not the interests of the director, a family member

or an organization with which the director is affiliated. Directors should not use

their positions for personal gain. The duty of loyalty may be relevant in cases of

conflict of interest (section 2 below), and corporate opportunities (section 3

below).

Conflict of interest

Directors must avoid any conflicts of interest between the director and the

Company. Any situation that involves, or may reasonably be expected to involve,

a conflict of interest with the Company, should be disclosed promptly to the

Chairman of the Audit Committee.

A "conflict of interest" can occur when a director's personal interest is adverse to

or may appear to be adverse to the interests of the Company as a whole.Conflicts of interest also arise when a director, or a member of his or her

immediate family, receives improper personal benefits as a result of his or her

position as a director of the Company.


25/31

26

This Code does not attempt to describe all possible conflicts of interest that could

develop. Some of the more common conflicts from which directors must refrain,

however, are set out below.

Relationship of Company with third-parties: Directors may not engage in any

conduct or activities that are inconsistent with the Company's best interests or

that disrupt or impair the Company's relationship with any person or entity with

which the Company has or proposes to enter into a business or contractual

relationship.

Compensation from non-Company sources: Directors may not accept

compensation (in any form) for services performed for the Company from any

source other than the Company.

Gifts: Directors and members of their families may not accept gifts from persons

or entities who deal with the Company in those cases where any such gift is more

than modest in value, or where acceptance of the gifts could create the

appearance of a conflict of interest.

Personal use of Company assets: Directors may not use Company assets, labour

or information for personal use unless approved by the Chairman of the Audit

Committee or as part of a compensation or expense reimbursement program

available to all directors.


26/31

27

TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION MAKING AND OPERATIONS BY BOARD

OF DIRECTORS:

Many committees have focused on activities and decision making abilities of

BOD:-

University committees and staff make decisions that impact significantly on other

staff and students. These Guidelines are to assist University committees and staff

in making fair and transparent decisions.

University Legislation and Policy

In many instances, the Universitys legislation and/or policy determines the

procedures for reaching decisions including:

Authorising a particular body or individual to make the decision;

Specifying timelines and how to communicate with the student or staff member;

Providing parameters on what should be considered; and

Detailing penalties that can be applied or types of decisions that can be reached.

Staff should ensure they are familiar with the relevant University legislation

and/or policy and the types of decisions that the legislation/policy governs. If a

particular decision is governed by University legislation/policy, staff should follow

the procedural and approval processes as detailed in the relevant legislation.

For a decision to be valid and effective, the decision must be one that the decision

maker is authorised to make.


27/31

28

Privacy and Confidentiality

Any use of an individual's personal information must comply with the University's

Information Privacy Policy and the University's Information Privacy Statement -

Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information. Appropriate levels ofconfidentiality must also be maintained during the decision making process.

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness (also known as natural justice) is about ensuring the

procedure for making a decision is fair and proper.

Not all decisions made by University committees and staff are subject to the

principles of procedural fairness. The principles apply to the exercise of a power

which affects the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of an individual.

The principles of procedural fairness are summarised as follows.

Disclosure of Relevant InformationAn individual about whom a decision is to be made is entitled to know the case

that is to be met. They should be informed of the following:

Allegations or accusations made against them;

Information upon which the decision will be based;

Criteria for making the decision;

Nature of the decision that may be made; and

Possible penalties that may be imposed.

If the decision is governed by University legislation/policy, a copy of the

applicable University legislation/policy should be provided to the individual.


28/31

29

Sufficient Notice of HearingSufficient notice of the hearing will depend on the complexity and urgency of the

matter. If an oral hearing is to be held, an individual should be provided with

written information on when and where the hearing will be held, who will be

present and what the hearing will be about.

University legislation/policy may prescribe specific requirements such as the

number of days notice that is required prior to a hearing. These requirements

must be strictly observed. Where the legislation/policy does not prescribe specific

requirements, the decision maker should give notice that is fair and appropriate

in the circumstances.

Right to be HeardAn individual is entitled to an opportunity to reply to the case against them and

for their reply to be received and considered before the decision is made. A

hearing may not necessarily mean an oral hearing. A person may be heard in

writing (eg. considering documents or correspondence) if the Universitylegislation does not require an oral hearing and it is otherwise appropriate in the

circumstances.

University legislation/policy may permit an individual to be accompanied by a

support person at an oral hearing. However, the University does not allow an

individual to be represented by a lawyer and in most circumstances does not

allow an individual to be represented by an advocate. There are some exceptions

(eg. advocates are permitted for international students under the Student

Grievance Procedure).


29/31

30

Unbiased Decision MakerThe decision maker must be impartial and must not have an interest in the matter

being decided. The decision maker must not bring a biased or prejudiced mind to

making the decision. Even where no actual bias exists, the decision maker shouldbe careful to avoid the appearance of bias.

Examples of bias are when the decision maker has had prior involvement in the

matter or has a close association with someone involved.

Decision Based on Relevant EvidenceA decision maker must not base their decision on mere speculation or suspicion.

All irrelevant information should be disregarded and the decision should be based

solely on evidence that is relevant to the matter at hand.

Communicating the DecisionOnce the decision is made it should be communicated to all persons affected by

it. University legislation/policy may prescribe a time within which a decision mustbe made and/or communicated. University legislation/policy may also require the

decision maker to provide a written statement of the reasons for the decision.

Where a decision is made to impose some kind of penalty, the penalty must be

one that is authorized by the relevant University legislation/policy. Decision

makers should keep written records of all decisions and the processes followed in

reaching those decisions.

Appeal NotificationMany decisions that affect an individuals rights or expectations have an appeal

process under University legislation/policy (eg. decision to impose a penalty for a

breach of discipline). If an adverse decision is made and a right of appeal exists


30/31

31

within the University, the individual should be informed of that right of appeal in

writing together with the relevant procedural information (eg. method for lodging

appeal and time limits). Decisions that relate to students (and to a limited extent

staff) can be reviewed by the Victorian Ombudsman, who can investigate to

ensure a decision has been reached fairly and reasonably. If there is no internal

avenue of appeal, the individual should be notified in writing of any right they

may have to complain to the Victorian Ombudsman.

MEASURES FOR IMPROVING ETHICAL STANDARDS IN BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENT

To accelerate the standard on ethics in business, the main focus should be kept

on knowledge based values, aesthetic based values, instrumental values and

moral values that needs to be inculcated in behavior of personnel in the business

organisations. For many entrepreneurs business ethics are not at the top of their

list of priorities, but they should be. Good business ethics not only help others

(communities, other businesses, suppliers, employees etc) but they also help your

business. By being an ethical company you can promote a positive image and

encourage others to do business with you.

The benefits of a more ethical image is always something to consider, but will be

more or less important depending on the industry you're in and the nature of

your business. Think about it, would you be more or less likely to purchase a

product for your new born baby from a seemingly unethical company?

This is something we all do all the time, make judgements based on the

information we have of a business or person and as a business owner it is your job

to make sure that people see your business is the most positive light possible.


31/31

Have ethics!

Write a code of ethics, you may have strong ethical values, but unless you make

some effort to ensure your business and its employees are aware of your

businesses ethical stance it is likely each person will rely on their own judgementand what they deem to be ethical may not be the same as what you deem to be

ethical.

Promote good ethics

While its important to be ethical for the right reasons, making people aware that

you are an ethical company is important too. Advertising campaigns, stationary, a

"motto" or tag line that emphasises your ethical stance and the general ethos

within your business all add up to show youre an ethically responsible company

and will help to make people aware of such.

Ethics in life and ethics in business are not the same. In life, if faced with an

ethical choice many of us would like to think we would do the right thing, but in

business the right thing may not always be clear as a businesss objectives andpeoples ethical objectives do not always match. This doesnt mean thats its

impossible to have a profitable and ethically responsible business, it may just take

a little more effort.

business ethics - final hard copy

Documents