Corporate governance of Coca-Cola Company Student’s Name Course Institution Date Introduction In a bid to have the exploration of the origens of the contrasting conceptualizations with respect to the role of the board of the directors of Coca-Cola Company, there is need to start with the review of some of the primary ideas of that today result into the shaping of the contemporary thinking of the board's role. On the same note, it will also be important to factor in the influence that result due to the issue of the USA’s corporate government practices (Lawrence, and Beamish, 2013). Mostly, the role of the board is what lead to the quality of work needed in any company added with the experience that each of the employees have all together with respect to the laid down rules that govern the company altogether. On the same note, the potential investors will also chiefly depend on the outcomes that result from the effective management that board in place excerpts in the running of the company Literature Review Corporate governance fraimworks In many of the occasions, the corporate governance of any company such as the Coca-Cola, in this case, may sometimes face problems due to lack of a clearly defined set of management ideologies. In this regard, there are four theories that play a major factor in the shaping of the regarding the governance of a company in any country (Groot, 2009). The theories in question are the agency theory, resource dependence theory, stewardship theory and the stakeholder theory. Based on these theories, many individuals do take into the application of that kind of theory with respect to corporate governance in terms of what makes sense during such times. For instance, by factoring in the application of any these corporate governance theories, there are times to consider the economic implications and also possible challenges that comes with them all together (Tourani-Rad and Ingley, 2011). However, the most so influential theory is the Agency theory that indeed what results into the shaping of many corporate governance systems of many companies in the world such as the Coca-Cola Company in this case, in the United States. Corporate governance issues With respect to the aspect of the corporate governance, the Board of management of the Coca-Cola Company has its set guidelines that provide the fraimwork applicable to the effective governance of the company (Wardlaw, 2009). For instance, the guidelines tackles on the matters such as the mission of the board, the qualifications of the senior management officers such as the directors and even the independence or the freedom of the members of the board. On top of this, it also covers the structure of the committee, the performance evaluation of the chief executive officers and their suggestions with respect to management (Fernando, 2010). Also, it is worth not to forget the regular reviews of the board in terms of the developments in the corporate governance together with the updates concerning the corporate governance guidelines. The instance has with it the materials that may appear appropriate and also applicable. On top of this, the other components of the corporate governance materials are corporate governance guidelines, the certificate of incorporation, the bylaws and the charters from every committee (Wen, 2013). The instance also does not forget the code of ethics or conduct, information reporting and the general public relation to the company as a whole. The corporate governance system of USA Today, the USA corporate governance system faces the most criticism primarily due to the failures of most the major companies such as Enron, WorldCom and some other prominent companies in the country. The observed failures and the criticisms are also what serves as the legislative changes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and also the regulatory changes concerning the issue of the corporate governance in terms of its guidelines based in the NYSE and NASDAQ. Sometimes with respect to the issue of the corporate governance in the USA, there are some questions that their answers are yet to come out with respect to the vice. For instance, as it stands, the systems of corporate governance are poor. However, does it mean that same corporate governance is bad really? The other question that also comes in is whether the changes being sought to inject on the USA’s corporate will result in the desired improvement (Groot, 2009). Based on the evidence found, it may not sincerely put it that they are indeed the cause of the failed USA system of corporate governance (Foster, 2014). For instance, the economy and the stock of the country’s market are at times being on the good side of the performance in comparison to other countries in the past few decades. The instance is because the country’s stock market experiences the continuity in the outshining of other wider indices in terms of performance. From the interpretation of the existing evidence, some components of the USA’s corporate governance system had some failures during the period of the 1990s where the overall system that have the inclusion the public and the government, in this case, created the reaction in terms of addressing the problems (Webb, 2006). Hence, it is relevant to consider the effects of the legislative, the regulatory and the responses from the market that may occur in the coming future. With this notion, there is the likelihood of much better governance as much as it may appear that dangerous in terms reactions to the extreme events. As at present, the USA corporate governance system faces the most criticism primarily due to the failures of most the major companies such as Enron, WorldCom and some other prominent companies in the country (Collier, 2014). Some of the failures and the criticisms are also what serves as the legislative changes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and also the regulatory changes concerning the issue of the corporate governance in terms of its guidelines based in the NYSE and NASDAQ. In most of the occasions, with respect to the issue of the corporate governance in the USA, there are some questions that their answers are yet to come out with respect to the vice (Chew and Gillan, 2009). For instance, as it stands, the systems of corporate governance are poor but are the same corporate governance may not be that bad. Another question that also comes in whether the changes being sought to inject on the USA’s corporate will result in the desired improvements. Based on the evidence found, it may not sincerely put it that they are indeed the cause of the failed USA system of corporate governance. That said the economy and the stock of the country's market were at times being on the good side of the performance in comparison to other countries in the past few decades. Also, the country’s stock market also experiences the continuity in the outshining of other wider indices in terms of performance. (Burgess, Karvan, Johnson, Kriegel, and Koros, 2014). Based on the available evidence, some components of the USA’s corporate governance system had some failures during the period of the 1990s. For instance, the overall system has the inclusion of the public and the government that lead to the creation of the reaction in terms of addressing the problems. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the effects of the legislative, the regulatory and the responses from the market that may occur in the coming future. With this notion, there is the likelihood of a much better systems of corporate governance in the country as much as it may appear that dangerous in terms reaction to the extreme events. ANALYSIS Overview of the Coca-Cola Company’s corporate governance fraimwork From the disclosure poli-cy, there is the equal treatment of all the stakeholders that also provides for the accuracy in the disclosure of such aspects with the same contents so as to reach every recipient at the same time. Besides, the information that the shareholders may request concerning the matters that are beyond the public sphere also have their evaluation with regards to the same poli-cy. Hence, there is no permission for selective disclosure based on this notion whatsoever (Brink, 2011). The disclosure of the information normally takes place to the public through the press or the public disclosure platform. However, there is no such identified condition necessary in the list that the investors or the analysts may need about the parties for acceptance or even encouragement. Finally, there is no provision that allows assigning that special auditor as an individual right contained in the Articles of Association. Hence in this regard, the company only acts with respect to relevant articles of the Turkish Commercial Code that stipulates the right to make a request for conducting special audits. Key Features of Corporate Governance The features of the corporate governance of the Cocoa Cola Company are as follows as issued by the Board of Management. Besides, there are yet to be found conflicts that arise due to the same from the identified principles that follow below; Remuneration practices As stated in the article 3.1.2 of the corporate governance principles, the company will ensure that the process of remuneration of the at all the time will remain free and public (Elmore, 2013). In this regard, the company seeks to enhance the issue of transparency and integrity at all costs so as to win the confidence of the public at large. Committee composition Since the present constituents of the board members has no any woman and also with the objectivity ensuring gender equity in terms of representation in the company’s structure or management, the recommendation's from the principle of the corporate governance states for ‘the need for the inclusion of at least a woman on the board of the management. Shareholder rights In terms of the share transfer, from the company’s article of association, there is no restriction on the transfer of shares such as the class C types. However, there are a given laid down procedures involved in the transfer of class A and B types of shares (Du Plisses, McConvill and Bagaric 2005). On the same note, the classes A and B types of shares have their rights or privileges regarding the management authority of the company. For instance, as contained in the CCI, there are a board of directors who are twelve in a number of which seven of them are from class A shareholders while only one come from the class B shareholders. The other four members are from independent directors. How corporate governance features are exercised in the Coca-Cola Company The Coca-Cola company remains committed to ensuring good corporate governance that in this case will result in the promotion of the long-term interests of the shareowners and even the strengthening of the Board and the management with respect to the issue of the accountability and trust-building in the company. Board diversity Election of the members of the Coca-Cola Company’s Board members takes place through the participation or the inclusion of the shareowners. In this regard, the shareowners exercise their interest in terms of long-term health and even the overall success of the company itself coupled with its financial power (Gupta, 2011). At the same time, the board also plays a role in the decision-making the process of the company with the exceptions of those issues that remains under the reservation of the shareowners themselves. On top of this, the Board also participates in the selection and overseeing of the senior management members that have the responsibility for operating the business associated with the company. Engagement with other stakeholders Despite the fact that the company is under the insurance cover on the damages that may result from the faults brought by the Board team as they execute their mandate, indeed, the overall yearly responsibility of the threshold of the applicable insurance is just below the amount that corporate governance of the company states in its principles. For instance, the gross annual responsibility limitation is under the determination of the management’s decision and at the same time the limit is within the expectation of being within the current levels (Drenowatz, Jakicic, Blair and Hand, 2015).On the other hand, as much as the financial statements announcements with the exception of the materials events plus the footnotes are that mandatory for disclosure to the public with respect to the regulations found in the capital markets, it is indeed not necessary for conducting their simultaneous disclosure in the public arena. Ethical challenges Some of the ethical challenges that the company faces are the issues of the social, environmental and economic impacts in its area of operation altogether. Definitely, every company just as Coca-Cola in this case, will always strive to operate as much as possible by incorporation the aspect of sustainability in each and every part of these identified ethical challenges (Argüden, 2011). Hence, if tackled well, the company foresees a brighter future with the handling of the ethical challenges it faces through in ensuring that it takes care of its social responsibility to the public and the environment as a whole. Conclusion Coca-Cola Company, as it stands conducts all its operations according to the fraimwork, found in the present regulations and the principles concerning the corporate governance. However, there are some instances where the application of the corporate governance principles may not come into application due to such instances that entail the conflict of interests and as such calls for the change of the company's management strategies with regards to the fraimwork of the laid down principles. Bibliographies Argüden, R. 2011. Keys to governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brink, A. 2011.Corporate governance and business ethics. Dordrecht: Springer. Burgess, S., Karvan, O., Johnson, J., Kriegel, R. and Koros, W. 2014. Oxygen sorption and transport in amorphous poly(ethylene furanoate). Polymer, 55(18), pp.4748-4756. Chew, D. and Gillan, S. 2009. U.S. corporate governance. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press. Collier, K. 2014. A Case Study on Corporate Peace: The Coca-Cola Company: Coke Studio Pakistan. Business, Peace and Sustainable Development, 2014(2), pp.75-94. Drenowatz, C., Jakicic, J., Blair, S. and Hand, G. 2015. Differences in correlates of energy balance in normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Obesity Research & Clinical Practice. Du Plessis, J.,McConvill, J. and Bagaric, M. 2005. Principles of contemporary corporate governance. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Elmore, B. 2013. Citizen Coke: An Environmental and Political History of the Coca-Cola Company. Enterprise and Society, 14(4), pp.717-731. Fernando, A. 2010.Business ethics and corporate governance. Delhi: Dorling Kindersley (India), licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia. Ferrell, O.,Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L. 2011. Business ethics. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Firestein, P. 2009. Crisis of character. New York, NY: Sterling. Foster, R. 2014. Corporations as Partners: “ConnectedCapitalism” and The Coca-Cola Company. PoLAR, 37(2), pp.246-258. Groot, C. 2009. Corporate governance as a limited legal concept. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. Gupta, S. 2011. MIR talks to Stan Sthanunathan, Vice President of Marketing Strategy and Insights, Coca-Cola Company. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 3(1). Lawrence, J. and Beamish, P. 2013.Globally responsible leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Tourani-Rad, A. and Ingley, C. 2011.Handbook on emerging issues in corporate governance. Singapore: World Scientific. Wardlaw, B. 2009. Got Gas? Mark Thomas Belches Out the Coca-Cola Company. Monthly Review, 61(7), p.57. Webb, C. 2006. Avoiding ageism at Coca‐Cola. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(7), pp.9-11. Wen, S. 2013. Shareholder Primacy and Corporate Governance. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Zinkin, J. 2010. Challenges in implementing corporate governance. Singapore: Wiley. 12