Section 2 discusses the initial methodological questions that needed to be addressed from the outset of the study: defining the scope of CG as a concept, and determining the geographical scope of the comparator jurisdictions.
Given the profusion of applied, conceptual and value-laden variations in how CG can be understood, it was necessary to provide some form of definition for the purposes of this study that strives for neutrality. Section 2 provides a definition of «good CG» around five key variables upon which it is dependent - information, involvement, equality, accountability and effectiveness. Together with the particular problem of dealing with non-locally incorporated companies, these variables form the structure of the analysis in Section 3. Inevitably, some items are excluded although they may in another context merit investigation, for example, gender and racial diversity, corporate social responsibility, and the relationship between CG and share price performance.
Section 2 also explains the process of collecting and organizing the data, and the identification of key differences and observations of interest across each CG system studied. The data collected on each of the five CG systems studied are presented in the five Appendices to this Report.
Concurrent with the data collection and organization process, oral interviews were undertaken, on a candid and confidential basis, with senior individuals from issuers, investment banks and regulators, among others.