Today (Nov. 3) the Subcommittee on Investors Education and Public Relations and Corporate Governance in Thailand, The Stock Exchange of Thailand, The Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Thai Institute of Directors (Thai IOD) co-hosted a seminar on “Corporate Governance Report on Thai Listed Companies in 2005”. The report was produced by the Thai IOD. Dr. Thanong Bidaya, Thailand’s Finance Minister, presided over the event and gave a keynote address. The seminar drew 400 directors and executives of listed companies and other capital market organizations.
Mr. Vijit Supinit, Chairman of the Subcommittee, said: “This year CG assessment criterions have been adjusted to be more in line with the international standards. Although it became tougher, the overall results showed there is an improvement in Thai CG.”
The CG of 371 listed companies has been assessed and reported an overall score of 69 (on a 100 scale), up from 60 in the last assessment. This represents a 15% improvement. The industry groups with the most members in the top quartile were as before, i.e., 1) Resources, 2) Technology, and 3) Financials, with 77%, 42%, and 35%, respectively, of each group being in the top CG quartile group.
Companies with outstanding CG are not concentrated only in the large-scale groups. The proportions of companies with annual revenues less than THB5 bln. and those companies with revenues from THB10 bln. up are not so much different.
Mr. Charnchai Charuvastr, President of the Thai IOD, announced that: “The overall CG of Thai listed companies has improved over the past three years, especially in the areas concerned with the role of stakeholders and disclosure and transparency. The CG score on the role of stakeholders improved greatly from the 2003 assessment, rising by 60%. For disclosure and transparency, the Thai listed companies had a 28% increase in this criterion. The score that is still not exceptionally high is the one concerned with the board’s responsibilities, for as the World Bank suggested, Thai listed companies should more rigorously develop and promote a more active role by the board of directors.”
