Introduction

A standard classification of corporate governance shows that it is the system of directions and controls for companies as per Sir Adrian Cadbury in his influential statement in 1992 on the Monetary Features of Corporate Governance . Cadbury elaborated that boards of directors are liable for their company’s corporate governance, whereas, the influence of shareholders is to induct the directors and the auditors and to get self-satisfaction from the existing framework. , in the context of Australia proposed that the liability of a board is to confirm that the corporate management strived for ongoing and result-oriented business performance while considering risk aversion measures and not to refuse the supplementary responsibility with regard to the protection of shareholders. The standard insights of corporate governance shows emphasis on the framework, function, and performance of governing bodies that encompassed the governance thinking for the last thirty years, and it as well procured the foundation of regulation, research and practice . Barclays corporate governance practices enable directors to receive guidance for encouraging the above average corporate governance standards in Barclays. The practices ensured to execute the provisions of corporate governance established in the UK’s Corporate Governance Code (“the UK Code”), the Companies Act, Walker Review proposals and their pertinent leadership, the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 and the FCA/PRA’s code on salary .

Barclay’s Board Governance
Barclays bank remained ahead from its peers in planning its Board governance structure . For instance, it formed a divide committee of risk board more than ten years ago, before the majority of additional banks and well before this confirmed by the Walker Review. The Board established annual exterior evaluations instead of three years considered by UK Corporate Governance Code. The Board brought advancements for the governance design upon identification of issues. For instance, it brought an objective of fifty percent non-executive directors to bear professional financial background in 2010 . Afterwards, another objective in 2011 was to induct twenty percent of women in the Board by the end of 2013 which should increase to twenty five percent by the end of 2015. Marcus Agius recognized the importance of cultural diversity and in November 2011, declared about the duties of the Board that “The Board must encompass ethical leadership in order to get effectiveness and encourage the collaborative vision of a bank for its values, purpose, culture and attitudes” . The committees of Board showed an important input in the effective of Board governance and their influence on banks underwent in recent years. The committees permitted non-executive directors to evaluate problems in extensive detail along with significant efficiency than at the complete level of Board. The Board of Barclays bank in 2012 possessed six fundamental sub-committees in the domains of Audit, Risk, Remuneration, Finance, Citizenship and a Corporate Governance and Nominations Committees , each of them chaired by non-executive director . According to , the positive governance is subject to the assurance of effective decisions but, it is not mandatory that every decision shows positivity. The following are the issues pertinent of the corporate governance of Barclay’s Bank:
- The formation and organization of a Board to address management challenges effectively
- The anticipations of period done for non-executives
- The availability of records for favorable decision-making and oversight
- The ignorance of a Board for the executive group
- The attempt to the planning of succession
- The subsidiary boards’ operation
- The cultural and values approach present in the Group and their influence on business activities
- The avoidance of pay decisions
- The avoidance of reputational, operational and conduct danger
- The Board’s assessment tactics and enhancement in its effectiveness
- The involvement with exterior stakeholders, particularly with shareholders and the flexibility in communication

Basis of Challenge

The function of the Board is to procure ‘challenge’ to management’s actions. Sir David Walker illustrated the phenomenon to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Benchmarks as the grouping of people’s relations and their quality: “The examination is not only specific to the people’s quality, but the foundations established in the Boardroom and if there is unavailability of true dynamic despite people are positive but there will have no true challenge” . The Walker Review detailed about the “major shortcomings in Boards of a bank relevant to the attitude of patterns than to entity” . The further exploration of the statement showed that the influence for the conformance on Boards may strong; develop subsequent complexities for an independent Board member that wished to challenge a group point of view. This challenge on the influential policy
problems reflected non-collegial, troublesome and unfaithful attributes. Excluding it, there is an existence of false impression of the agreement to the Board equipped with silence assumption for the consent. The adequate management among stiff conflicting issues is the highly complex segment of the complete operations of the Board . A Board of a bank must not show over specialization and demonstrate varied abilities and experience. The common abilities expected to encompass insight, perspective and confidence in differentiating between fundamental problems that are before the Board but insignificant problems if avoided may crowd out and divert from the objective of a Board on the significant problems; a willingness in which there is a need to challenge the executive and additional non-executive directors (NED) in dialogues on fundamental problems where a long-term scheme from the rising traditional knowledge may demand effective scrutiny; and expertise pertinent to evaluating the performance of seniors. The following diagram depicts the level of financial and banking experience among non-executives of Barclays bank from 2002 to 2012.
The following diagram illustrated over-targeted that is fifty percent for its non-executive directors bearing relevant experience. The preliminary experience of expert individuals in bank risk or policies or compliance activities is specifically important along with expertise of few of supplementary difficult investment banking businesses. The diversity in gender and their experience was mandatory to ignore ‘groupthink’. It was unfavorable that only a single female NED finished two terms between 2002 and 2012.

Time Expectation

It was mandatory that the time anticipations of NEDs to spend are realistic, or else there were dangers for them in identifying the period to give to a particular decision. The personal assessment of Barclays’ Board in current years culminated that the support of NEDs was not smooth. It was predictable that excessively greater liabilities are on shoulders of the Board Committees Chairs. There were few committee chairs forecasted that they utilized one-hundred days annually or more on the issues of Barclays while the financial crunch. It was praiseworthy that they supervised to locate the period against the highly lower stages showed when they consented to the tasks. The Board convened in 2008 on thirty events, from time to time by conference call and twenty-seven times in 2009 . The Walker Review in its provisional account illustrated a time commitment of thirty to thirty-six days annually for each NED on a fundamental Board of a bank .

Board Information

Each board has to get the adequate highly significant information to execute their tasks effectively. The favorable governance and decision making are difficult without the relevant knowledge. The Chairman took the responsibility to face the music in the cases of mistakes in getting the required knowledge . The Board documents must encompass special commissioning and good enough for a specific standpoint of the Board involving the pertinent summary of the problems .

Board Oversight of the Executive Team

The highly significant element in confirming strategic business success, whether in a non-financial company or a bank, is the extremely advanced team of expert which is non-dominated by a solitary influence. The team is enough competent and collaboratively potential to face the challenges and open debates. The healthy corporate governance processes in a non-potential team cannot promise the protection of the organization.

Group Chief Executive Succession Planning

There were few Boards that demonstrated succession planning involving the establishment of effective leaders, more professionally than other conventional events occurred at Barclays. For example, Boards evaluated reports, reflected importance on a number of executives and devoted substantial time to the conversation of a number of supervisors having advanced-level potential. The evaluation documents represented financial reports that procured granularity about performance. The ability (can do), personality preferences (likes to do), motivation (will do), behavior (how done) and red flags (de-raiders) variables showed data gathering tips .

Operation of Subsidiary Boards

The subsidiary Board governance showed its future significance in law by UK. The Banking Reform Bill demanded for self-governing NEDs on the equivalent management bodies of ring-fenced banks and their subsidiaries to promote taking actions separately from additional individuals of the team. There were considerations about conflicts including the unfavorable liability of alternate directors to the parent as its owner on one hand and, on other hand, for the ring-fence .

Culture and Values

The team of thirty individuals showed particular values that included integrity, thought independence, transparency, honesty and the bravery to converse and perform which are the bedrock values of the corporate governance. The liability lies on the directors of the Board and experts to formulate a culture that allows values embedment from the bottom to top level of the organization .

Risk Oversight

The separation of duties and the interaction of activity between the Board committees and the Barclays Board demanded lucidity. Initially, the Board itself formed obvious bond on the appetite of Group’s danger that showed relevance for the business of a bank. The allotment of the danger oversight between the Risk, Citizenship and Audit Committees and their feedback to the Remuneration Committee was also apparent. The appetite of a group danger for operational danger and assessment of its position against the appetite was the significant liability of the Board risk committee. The Barclays’ 2009 annual report illustrated the risks focus of the Board Risk Committee that involved market, capital, credit and liquidity risks rather operational risks that were limited to simple conduction of a business .

Board Evaluation

There was an improved reception of the importance of exterior facilitated board evaluations which is a best practice in corporate governance. The Walker Review showed emphasis on the annual demand of this review before confirmation to exterior facilitations conduction at every three years. This is a liability which involved in the UK Corporate Governance Code from 2010 onwards. The code demanded the Board’s performance assessment, its independent directors and committees .

Conclusion

Banks in the contemporary world act a significant role. They procure payments that permit circulation of money among businesses, individuals and additional organizations without bothering them to physically travel. Banks made possible for strangers to execute transaction relevant to trade, commerce and investment between them even if they are very far geographically. They promoted that the productive activities are attributable to the utilization of savings despite hid them in unproductive objects. The corporate governance in banks is to promote favorable, entrepreneurial and careful management for the assurance of strategic success and it referred to what the Bank’s board does which is discernible from the daily operational management by permanent leaders. The occasions that revealed financial and reputational injury to the bank reflected adverse Board governance is not confirmed. The effective governance elucidated the decision taken after mutual consent of a bunch of individuals that possessed required knowledge, skills and experience in their respective fields.

References

Barclays. (2009). Annual Report, March 2010, p. 166.
Barclays. (2013). Corporate Governance in Barclays. London: Barclays Corporate Secretariat.
Barclays Bank. (2009). Barclays Annual Reports 2008 and 2009.
Barclays Bank. (2012). Recently renamed Board Conduct, Reputation and Operational Risk Committee. London.
Barclays Bank. (2012). The Finance Committee exists to approve specific decisions (e.g., M&A transactions), as authorised by the Board in each case. London.
Barclays Corporate Secretariat. (2014, November 2). Corporate Governance in Barclays, July 2012. Retrieved from http://group.barclays.com/about-barclays/about-us#corporate-governance/
BBCGNC. (2011). Papers presented to Barclays Board Corporate Governance & Nominations Committee (BBCGNC). London.
Bob, T., & Gretchen, T. (2014). Business Ethics: Uniting Corporate Governance and Risk Managemen. New York: Routledge.
Financial Reporting Council. (2012). The chairman is responsible for ensuring that the directors receive accurate, timely and clear information, p.9.
Financial Reporting Council. (2012). UK Corporate Governance Code, p.15.
Financial Service Bill. (2014, November 2). Financial Service (Banking Reform) Bill 2012-13. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0130/2013130.pdf
Group of Thirty. (2012). Towards Effective Governance of Financial Institutions, p. 25.
Hector, S. (2012). FSA, “Delivering effective corporate governance: the financial regulator’s role”.
Hilmer, & Frederick, G. (1993). Strictly Boardroom - improving governance to enhance company performance. Melbourne: The Sydnery Institute and Information Austrlia.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. (2013). Corrected transcript of oral evidence, p. 4.
Salz. (2013). An Independent Review of Barclays’ Business Practices. London: Business Practice Reveiw Committee, Barclays PLC.