The paper "Importance of the Issues to the General Public and Business " is a good example of business coursework. The article provides criticisms concerning the treatment of workers in the sports direct. Sports direct did not seem to care about the needs of the employees hence the management could not consider their interests in the decision making process. Besides, corporate governance in sports direct was in doubt as the management did not properly engage the stakeholders in managing the affairs of the company. The decision made my sports direct concerning allowing the representatives of the employees to be engaged in the board meeting is considered inadequate in addressing the failings of corporate governance.
The shareholders pressured the management to make sure that staff is represented in the board meetings. The major problem is the way the employees are treated in the organization as the management is not much concerned with the issues facing the workers. The interests of the employees are not considered in the process of making business decisions. Following a series of scandals concerning the way, the company is being managed the shareholders have intervened where they consider engaging the employees as one way of addressing the challenges.
However, employee engagement was considered to be inadequate as more long-lasting solutions were needed in the process of addressing the problems facing the company. There was the need to come up with corporate governance strategies that could be important to investors, employees, and customers among other relevant stakeholders. Many stakeholders argued that there was a need for a radical overhaul of the governance in the Sports direct. Sports Direct was founded and run by Ashley who was not much concerned with the corporate responsibilities of the company.
The failure to have the necessary value for the corporate governance led to increasing in scandals as the management of the company was poor. As a result, there was a need for independent oversight of the management of the company to ensure proper management and guarantee the necessary corporate governance practices. In any company that ensures corporate governance in its management has to put into consideration the interests of its stakeholders. The management of Sports direct failed to hear the voice of its relevant stakeholders making the business perform negatively. The management was managing the company without making any consultations from the stakeholders making the manager abuse his powers.
Ashley was managing the company as though it as his own private business to a point where the shareholders’ interests were not of importance to the manager. Failing to engage the stakeholders led to poor decision making as the manager could not seek opinions even from the employees in the process of making decisions. The supervisors and managers who were employed directly by the company could not voice the concerns of the employees.
Therefore, they could not properly represent the workforce in the organization hence the interests of the employees could not be heard. The workers in the sport direct lacked the necessary union support making them unable to be heard as they also feared to speak out. They lacked the necessary confidence necessary to ensure they speak up for representation of their interests. The general wellbeing of the employees was not guaranteed to make the employees demotivated and their morale for work decline.
Besides, the workers in the sport direct were not being paid the minimum wage making the company fail to motivate its workforce. The working conditions for the workers were bad making them unproductive as management could even impose financial deductions for being slightly late. The management also forced the workers to go through searchers after shifts that were not payable. The other stakeholders had the view that employees were not treated as human beings but as commodities hence there was the need for the interests of the workers in sport direct to be addressed.
The positive change needed in the company could be realized by engaging the stakeholders in making decisions regarding the affairs of the company.
Agrawal, A. and Chadha, S., 2005. Corporate governance and accounting scandals. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), pp.371-406.
Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A. and Ferrell, A., 2009. What matters in corporate governance?. Review of Financial studies, 22(2), pp.783-827.
Bhagat, S. and Bolton, B., 2008. Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of corporate finance, 14(3), pp.257-273.
Black, B.S., Jang, H. and Kim, W., 2006. Does corporate governance predict firms' market values? Evidence from Korea. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22(2), pp.366-413.
Brown, L.D. and Caylor, M.L., 2006. Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of accounting and public policy, 25(4), pp.409-434.
Council, A.C.G., 2007. Corporate governance principles and recommendations.
Dittmar, A. and Mahrt-Smith, J., 2007. Corporate governance and the value of cash holdings. Journal of financial economics, 83(3), pp.599-634.
Fan, J.P., Wong, T.J. and Zhang, T., 2007. Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China's newly partially privatized firms. Journal of financial economics, 84(2), pp.330-357.
Harford, J., Mansi, S.A. and Maxwell, W.F., 2012. Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US. In Corporate Governance (pp. 107-138). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D. and Yeung, B., 2005. Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth. Journal of economic literature, 43(3), pp.655-720.