Topic: The comparative analysis of corporate social responsibilities and corporate

governance structure of Cipla Limited and GlaxoSmithKline PLC regarding shareholder

value and satisfaction

Description:
The political, cultural, legal, and economic climates in which multinational corporations
operate vary significantly from one country to the next (Bowie, 2019). Given the recent surge
in global commerce and investment, no single national corporate governance framework may
remain supreme (Zaman et al., 2022). The findings of this study may give valuable
background for interpreting differences in company law and board composition among
nations. A brief literature study about corporate governance systems in various countries is
presented (Al-ahdal et al. 2020). Through these studies, this research seeks to identify the
most critical features of these frameworks with the potential to enhance the boards'
monitoring functions (Vitolla, Raimo, and Rubino, 2020). Corporate governance standards
are designed to improve management and reduce ethical or legal challenges more than simple
policies and practices like a dress code or expense reimbursement process (Lassou, Hopper,
and Soobaroyen, 2021). Serving on a board of directors, hiring family members, resolving
conflicts of interest, keeping owners, investors, and partners informed of critical meetings
and decisions, and dividing profits are all examples of the many facets of corporate
governance. Increasing numbers of people are interested in learning more about corporate
governance (Lagasio and Cucari, 2019). Its benefits to the industry and the economy explain
its widespread support. Economic growth and prosperity, as well as company prosperity, are
the results. Businesses have voluntarily adopted and implemented increasingly stringent
corporate governance systems over time (Alaali et al. 2021).

Most importantly, companies that violate this Code must explain their actions or face legal
repercussions (Cosbey et al., 2019). All the company's stakeholders' interests should be
considered in managing the business (Torelli, Balluchi, and Furlotti, 2020). However, it is not
always the case that the best way to achieve effective governance in the business sector is
through a rule-based approach to corporate governance (Sarpong, and Bein, 2020). Codes of
corporate governance that enable businesses to establish and make public their corporate
governance practices while also ensuring they respect the law should be adopted by
regulatory agencies to ensure companies comply with the law in areas where regulation
appears successful (Puni and Anlesinya, 2020). But the key participants in building excellent
corporate governance should also be vigilant. If the corporate sector is to have better control,
stakeholders, particularly the investing community and auditors, need to play a more active
role (Salvioni and Almici, 2020).

Projects undertaken as part of a company's commitment to social responsibility may be

ethical, financial, legal, or entirely voluntary (Faeq et al., 2022). The Board is accountable for
ensuring these duties are completed (Martela, 2019). As outlined in the CSR Guidelines,
strategic planning, annual goals, day-to-day operations, and communications with the
company's many stakeholder groups should all consider social and environmental concerns.
The new laws and regulations have proven helpful (Bloom, Van Reenen, and Williams,
2019).

This research paper aims to analyze the corporate social responsibilities and corporate
governance structure of Cipla Limited and GlaxoSmithKline PLC on shareholder value and
satisfaction

The objective of this study is provided below:

 To determine the factors of corporate social responsibilities and corporate governance
structure regarding shareholder value and satisfaction
 To compare the corporate social responsibilities and corporate governance structure of
Cipla Limited and GlaxoSmithKline PLC regarding shareholder value and satisfaction
 To recommend strategies for improving corporate social responsibilities and governance
structure in terms of shareholder value and satisfaction.

Problem Statement
The concept of corporate governance was developed due to widespread management failures
and fraud committed by board members and executives. Both corporate social responsibility
and corporate governance are affected by market factors. While CSR tends to be more ad
hoc, CG is grounded in established practices.

Effective corporate management requires fixing problems. It is crucial to ensure that the
Board's independence from control is maintained while maximizing long-term value and
performance, establishing credibility, increasing stakeholder satisfaction, striking a balance
between commercial and social goals, and so on.
Socially responsible company practices can lead to financial success. The reputation of a
business will improve, and it will save money if the time and effort spent on complying with
regulations are reduced.

All corporate social responsibility projects must be carried out within the United States as per
the Act. The law mandates that any business with a profit more significant than the statutory
threshold set up a CSR committee, which an independent director shall chair. The
committee's job is to create CSR initiatives. The committee must check that the company's
policy follows all laws and standards. Certain deeds can be deemed CSR and listed in
Schedule VII of the Act. Here are all of the choices:

 eliminating extreme poverty and hunger;

 support for intellectual pursuits;
 promoting gender equality and women's empowerment;
 Improvements in maternal health and a decrease in newborn mortality (iv);
 combating deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria;
 protecting natural resources and maintaining a healthy ecosystem;
 fulfilling work to climb the corporate ladder;
 non-profit and community-based initiatives;
 for the benefit of SC/ST people, other low-income people, minorities, and women,
including but not limited to a contribution to the Prime Minister's National Relief
Fund or another fund established by the federal or state governments;
 whatever more would be necessary.

The legal framework in India is limited by the country's weak infrastructure, despite its
widespread acceptance.

References:
Alaali, N., Al Marzouqi, A., Albaqaeen, A., Dahabreh, F., Alshurideh, M., Mouzaek, E.,
Alrwashdh, S., Iyadeh, I., Salloum, S. and Aburayya, A., 2021. The impact of adopting
corporate governance strategic performance in the tourism sector: A case study in the
Kingdom of Bahrain. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24, pp.1-18.
Al-ahdal, W.M., Alsamhi, M.H., Tabash, M.I. and Farhan, N.H., 2020. The impact of
corporate governance on the financial performance of Indian and GCC listed firms: An
empirical investigation. Research in International Business and Finance, 51, p.101083.
Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J. and Williams, H., 2019. A toolkit of policies to promote
innovation. Journal of economic perspectives, 33(3), pp.163-84.
Bowie, N., 2019. The moral obligations of multinational corporations. In Problems of
international justice (pp. 97-113). Routledge.
Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C. and Munnings, C., 2019. Developing guidance for
implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the
literature. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.
Faeq, D.K., Saleh, P.F., Hiwa, H., Ismael, A. and Nawzad, M., 2022. Purchase intention in
the scope firm of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Research in
Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 11(6), pp.43-55.
Lagasio, V. and Cucari, N., 2019. Corporate governance and environmental, social
governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 26(4), pp.701-711.
Lassou, P.J., Hopper, T. and Soobaroyen, T., 2021. Financial controls to control corruption in
an African country: Insider experts within an enabling environment. Financial Accountability
& Management, 37(2), pp.107-123.
Martela, F., 2019. What makes self-managing organizations novel? Comparing how
Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg's adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental
organizing problems. Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), pp.1-23.
Salvioni, D.M. and Almici, A., 2020. We are transitioning toward a circular economy: The
impact of stakeholder engagement on sustainability culture. Sustainability, 12(20), p.8641.
Sarpong, S.Y. and Bein, M.A., 2020. The relationship between good governance and CO2
emissions in oil-and non-oil-producing countries: a dynamic panel study of sub-Saharan
Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(17), pp.21986-22003.
Puni, A. and Anlesinya, A., 2020. Corporate governance mechanisms and firm performance
in a developing country. International Journal of Law and Management, 62(2), pp.147-169.
Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Furlotti, K., 2020. The materiality assessment and stakeholder
engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 27(2), pp.470-484.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N. and Rubino, M., 2020. Board characteristics and integrated reporting
quality: An agency theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 27(2), pp.1152-1163.
Zaman, R., Jain, T., Samara, G. and Jamali, D., 2022. Corporate governance meets corporate
social responsibility: Mapping the interface. Business & Society, 61(3), pp.690-752.