Need APA Paper I Have Provided Sample Answers Just Need It ✓ Solved

Need Apa Paper I Have Provided Sample Answers Just Need It Re Writte

Need APA paper - I HAVE PROVIDED SAMPLE ANSWERS JUST NEED IT RE-WRITTEN WITH NO PLAGIARISM

Governance in Japan, Germany, and China has been undergoing significant changes as Western governance frameworks are increasingly adopted. Historically, the boards of directors in these nations predominantly comprised insider managers. However, reforms such as Japan's adoption of a new governance code in 2015 have emphasized the importance of appointing more independent outside directors.

In Japan, the corporate governance environment has traditionally been characterized by a lack of activist shareholders and a subdued market for corporate control. Recently, shareholder activism has gained traction, largely driven by engagement funds such as Taiyo Pacific Partners LP, a U.S.-based entity managing some of Japan's massive $1 trillion pension assets through the Government Pension Investment Fund. Concurrently, the Japanese Financial Services Agency introduced a stewardship code urging investors to seek greater returns, signaling a shift towards stronger shareholder rights, although Japan’s activism remains less aggressive compared to Western standards.

This evolving landscape reflects broader global trends, including in Germany, where revised governance codes advocate for more shareholder-friendly practices—particularly emphasizing the role of outside directors and long-term incentive compensation. Such reforms have catalyzed activism from funds like Cevian Capital and Elliott Management, which have targeted companies such as ThyssenKrupp, Bilfinger, Celesio, and Kabel Deutschland. Nevertheless, in Germany and other continental European countries, the degree of influence exerted by activists remains constrained by strict regulatory frameworks that often limit the extent of management’s responsiveness, as evidenced by studies indicating a lack of significant CEO turnover following activist engagement.

In China and Hong Kong, the influence of activism manifests differently. While some activism has occurred within mainland Chinese firms, foreign investors face barriers due to predominant ownership structures—largely state-controlled or parent group holdings—limiting their influence. Conversely, Hong Kong-listed companies have opened their markets to foreign ownership, with regulatory adjustments making it easier for foreign investors to exercise voting rights and influence corporate governance. The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect further enhances access for foreign investors, enabling them to exert greater influence within Chinese markets. Domestic Chinese activist funds, particularly in technology sectors, have also risen in prominence, aligning with successes from companies like Alibaba and Tencent.

Emerging market countries and governments with substantial ownership stakes also play notable roles in governance. Sovereign wealth funds, often from developing economies, are increasingly active on the global stage. For instance, Gulf States have invested heavily in German automotive firms during financial restructurings, serving as long-term investors less inclined to pursue hostile takeovers. Similarly, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund has prioritized sustainability by divesting from fossil fuels, aligning its investment strategy with climate change mitigation efforts. Brazil’s BNDES exemplifies government-supported investment aimed at fostering national champions—such as aiding JBS in expanding internationally through acquisitions.

Overall, the spread of Western governance devices and shareholder activism has driven significant changes in corporate governance worldwide. Sovereign wealth funds and government-backed investors are increasingly influential, shaping corporate strategies both domestically and abroad. These developments often serve broader political and economic goals, from sustainability initiatives to national economic resilience.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of corporate governance in Japan, Germany, and China exemplifies a global shift toward shareholder-oriented frameworks influenced by Western practices. This transformation is driven by reforms aimed at increasing transparency, promoting independent oversight, and empowering shareholders. Each country’s unique economic and regulatory environment shapes how these changes are implemented and their effectiveness.

In Japan, the adoption of a new governance code in 2015 marked a pivotal step towards aligning with international standards. This code prioritized the appointment of outside directors to improve accountability and provide external perspectives within corporate boards. Historically, Japanese firms maintained insular governance models with insider managers dominating decision-making processes, which limited the influence of outside stakeholders. The shift towards encouraging independent directors was partly motivated by a desire to attract foreign investment and improve corporate competitiveness. The Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund’s engagement with activist funds like Taiyo Pacific Partners signifies a notable change, as government-managed assets are increasingly allocated to active investors seeking to influence corporate strategies positively.

The stewardship code introduced by Japan’s Financial Services Agency further underscores this trend by urging institutional investors to advocate for better returns, thus encouraging a more shareholder-friendly environment. Despite these reforms, Japan’s activism remains relatively restrained compared to Western countries; shareholders tend to engage more subtly and through dialogue rather than aggressive tactics.

Germany’s corporate governance landscape has also undergone notable reforms to increase shareholder influence. The revised governance code emphasizes independence and robust long-term incentives, aligning with broader European trends favoring stakeholder accountability. Activist funds like Cevian Capital and Elliott Management have entered German markets, pushing for strategic changes in major corporations. For example, Cevian’s stake in ThyssenKrupp exemplifies efforts to restructure management and improve operational efficiency. However, due to regulatory constraints focused on protecting minority shareholders, activist efforts often face resistance, and empirical research indicates limited impact on CEO turnover or management restructuring.

In China and Hong Kong, the dynamics of governance and activism are influenced by differences in ownership structures. Mainland Chinese firms often feature concentrated ownership—state entities or founding families—which diminishes the capacity of foreign investors to exert influence. The Chinese government maintains strict control over listed companies, rendering shareholder activism less impactful. Nonetheless, the establishment of the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect has opened avenues for foreign investors to participate directly in mainland Chinese capital markets, increasing their ability to influence corporate governance through voting rights and engagement.

Hong Kong’s more liberal market environment has attracted foreign activism, with foreign investors paying closer attention to governance practices, transparency, and disclosure. The rise of local Chinese activist funds, along with the success stories of Alibaba and Tencent, demonstrates growing capabilities for domestic activism. Yet, the Chinese government’s overarching control continues to moderate activism’s scope, especially within the mainland.

Emerging economies and countries with significant government ownership, such as Brazil and the Gulf States, use sovereign wealth funds as influential instruments of governance. These funds often pursue long-term investments aligned with national strategic interests, such as resource acquisition and industrial development. For example, BNDES has actively supported domestic companies like JBS in expanding globally through acquisitions, successfully fostering national champions. Similarly, Gulf sovereign wealth funds have invested in German automakers, aiming to stabilize changes during financial crises while offering long-term stability rather than activism in the traditional sense.

Norwegian funds exemplify environmentally conscious investing, actively divesting from fossil fuels to address climate change. This demonstrates how sovereign funds are not only economic tools but also vehicles for social and political influences, shaping sustainability agendas. Overall, these funds wield considerable influence in both home and foreign jurisdictions, promoting strategic investments aligned with national interests and broader societal goals.

In conclusion, the spread of Western governance devices, coupled with increasing shareholder activism and sovereign wealth fund involvement, signifies a global shift towards more progressive and strategic governance frameworks. Countries are adopting reforms to balance managerial accountability with shareholder rights, although cultural, regulatory, and ownership structures influence the extent of change. As these trends evolve, continuous dialogue among regulators, investors, and firms is vital to fostering sustainable and effective governance systems tailored to each country’s context.

References

• Almadi, M., & Lazic, P. (2016). CEO incentive compensation and earnings management. Management Decision, 54(10), 2447–2461.
• Braunstein, J. (2017). The domestic drivers of state finance institutions: Evidence from sovereign wealth funds. Review of International Political Economy, 24(6), 980–1003.
• Fletcher, L., & Johanningsmeier, E. (2017). Hedge funds prosper on China tech but bubble fears emerge. Wall Street Journal.
• Hasegawa, N., Kim, H., & Yasuda, Y. (2017). The adoption of stock option plans and their effects on firm performance during Japan’s period of corporate governance reform. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 44, 13–25.
• Kaspereit, T., Lopatta, K., & Onnen, D. (2017). Shareholder value implications of compliance with the German corporate governance code. Managerial and Decision Economics, 38, 166–177.
• Nagata, K., & Nguyen, P. (2017). Ownership structure and disclosure quality: Evidence from management forecasts revisions in Japan. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(6), 451–467.
• Noreng, O. (2017). Norway’s diversification. World Oil, 238(12), 23.
• Stancati, M., & Farrell, M. (2017). Saudi sovereign wealth fund sets growth targets. Wall Street Journal.
• Geng, X., Yoshikawa, T., & Colpan, A. M. (2016). Leveraging foreign institutional logic in the adoption of stock option pay among Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1472–1492.
• Alhashel, B. (2015). Sovereign wealth funds: A literature review. Journal of Economics and Business, 78, 1–13.