Through the course of this paper, it has been established that the role of promoters is

undeniably one of the most important roles in any company. A promoter is involved in the
process of building a company from its nascent stage and mostly later on joins the company
in a different capacity. Being an important part of the company, promoters enjoy a certain
dominance in few aspects of the functioning of the company and the same, more often than
not, results in failure of corporate governance. One of the most prominent examples of such
a situation is the feud between the Tata Sons Ltd and Cyrus Mistry. Huge shareholdings of
promoters in the company are believed to be one of the major causes of failure of corporate
governance.

Such a position of promoters is not limited to Indian companies. They are in fact present in
almost all the developed countries such as the United States of America and the United
Kingdom. After a thorough analysis of the functioning of companies and the major roles
played in the process, in UK as well there exists “promoter dominance” which is very similar
to that of in India. Although there are a lot of measures ensured in the concerned rules and
regulations governing the companies, corporate governance gets effected ultimately. By
comparing and contrasting the rules in place in both countries, policymakers can identify
areas for improvement and take steps to ensure that corporate governance frameworks are
more accountable, transparent, and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders. Similarly,
when compared with the USA, unlike how it works in India wherein the government itself
plays an important role in regulating the affairs of the business, in the USA, it is not quite
similar as the interest of the shareholders are given priority and is lesser “promoter driven”.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the governing body of the USA and it
requires companies to disclose the ownership and control of shares by promoters, insiders,
and related parties along with that the companies have independent directors on their boards
who have no material relationship with the company or its officers. The Companies Act, 2013
of India also makes it mandatory for companies to make such an appointment which will
have unbiased opinions and will make the decisions free of any ulterior motives. Promoters
all across the world have the option to abuse the powers conferred in them and excessive
involvement in board decisions is one of the many. Even after multiple laws and legistlations
have been passed to keep this under check, there are few more things that one can do to
make the situation better-
One potential measure that policy makers could consider is the introduction of greater
regulation and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that promoter dominance is addressed.
This could include measures such as the introduction of more robust disclosure requirements,
which would require companies to disclose more detailed information about their ownership
structures and the degree of control exercised by their promoters. In addition, policy makers
could consider introducing penalties for companies that fail to comply with these regulations,
such as fines or other sanctions.

Another potential measure that policy makers could consider is the introduction of greater
transparency measures, which would help to ensure that all stakeholders have access to key
information about a company's operations and decision-making processes. This could include
measures such as the introduction of greater disclosure requirements for executive pay, or the
establishment of independent audit committees to oversee key decision-making processes.

One potential measure that policy makers could consider is the introduction of greater
competition in the banking sector, which would help to ensure that power is more evenly
distributed among a larger number of institutions. This could include measures such as the
establishment of a state-owned bank, which would provide an alternative to the existing
banking oligopoly, or the introduction of greater incentives for new entrants to the market.

Another potential measure that policy makers could consider is the introduction of greater
regulation and enforcement mechanisms, which would help to ensure that promoter
dominance is addressed. This could include measures such as the introduction of more robust
disclosure requirements, which would require banks to disclose more detailed information
about their ownership structures and the degree of control exercised by their promoters. In
addition, policy makers could consider introducing penalties for banks that fail to comply
with these regulations, such as fines or other sanctions.