This Case is about INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
PUBLICATION DATE: January 08, 2014 PRODUCT #: HK1031-PDF-ENG
If one perspective is to look at the organizational chart of Hong Kong Blind Union, it can be easily noticed that the concept of “execution” sits especially in the centre of the organization. Regardless of calling its most apex governance body the board of directors (BOD) and its members directors, HKBU names it an executive committee (“EC”) and its members as the executive committee members. Reporting in relation to this EC is the executive director, who is the Union’s apex-ranking employee.
The titles represent the inclination of the governing body of the little self help non-governmental organization (“NGO”). This practice stands in marked comparison to the type of NGO corporate governance that’s prescribed by the Hong Kong authorities (“HKG”). It’s tried to set a code of practices for corporate governance since the HKG found its subvention strategy to NGOs in Hong Kong in 2002. The code of practices recommend that NGO boards of directors should focus on places that will ensure NGOs’ regulatory and legal compliance, transparency, performance monitoring, and sensible fiscal management. Moreover, the best practice of getting a varied group of independent board members with professionalism and different qualifications is supported. As truly one of the subvented NGOs of the HKG, HKBU received 55% of its cost from the HKG subvention and grants in 2011-2012. As an organization that receives grants and government funds, in other words, a subvented organization, HKBU is subject to the audit and governing process and framework inflicted by the authorities.
The Hong Kong Blind Union A Small Self-help NGO With Board Of Directors Actively Involved In Operation case solution
To a great extent, this audit and government strategy and framework is derived from the corporate governance practices of the business sector. Nevertheless, as a self help organization for those who have visual impairment, HKBU presents a convincing case for these control and observation functions and practices of NGO boards must not always be universally relevant to all subvented organizations in Hong Kong. Against the backdrop of the government advocacy of the HKG, responsibilities and what functions do the EC and its particular members of HKBU carry through? Do you know the results? And above all, why were such practices adopted by HKBU?
Related Case Solutions:
Fullness Christian Social Enterprise Limited-Offering a Right Path to Deviant Youth in Hong Kong
Manfold Toy Company: Corporate Governance and Ethics for Directors and Professionals
China or the World? A Financial Reporting Strategy for Hong Kong’s Capital Markets
Hong Kong Stock Exchange: The Mainland Challenge
The Hong Kong Jockey Club: Repositioning a Not-for-Profit Powerhouse
Hong Kong: The Pursuit of Freedom
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish: Hong Kong’s Penny Stock Incident
Bank of Hong Kong: Refocusing BranchesBank of Hong Kong
Board of Directors at Medtronic Inc.
Bringing in a New Board of Directors