1. Regional Score Card Initiative
Private Sector Initiatives and CG in East Asia
13 September 2006

2. Background Thai IOD started a CG base-lining evaluation in 2001.
McKinsey & Company assisted in developing the
evaluation criteria.
The World Bank provided funding for data gathering
and report compilation.
The evaluation criteria and scoring template was
adopted by the Philippines, Hong Kong, China and
Indonesia.

3. Evaluation Criteria Based on Five OECD Principles Criteria
2001
2005
2006
Weight (%)
Rights of Shareholders
Equitable Treatment
of Shareholders
C. Role of Stakeholders in Corporate
Governance
D. Disclosure and Transparency
Board Responsibilities
Total
Companies Scored

4. Evaluation Method Based on publicly available information
(Annual Report, report to regulators, Notice and
Minutes, Website)
Minimize subjectivity in scoring:
- Scoring template, scoring methodology.
- Commission Sasin Business School.
Not dependent on companies’ willingness to participate.
Not as detailed as conducted by a rating agency.

5. B. Equitable Treatment of Shareholders
2005 Results - THAILAND
2005
CG Score by Category
Average
100
Best CG 97 97 97
100 92 92 83 80 75 69 69 66 60 53 51 40 48 45 37 20 23
Overall
A. Rights of
Shareholders
B. Equitable Treatment of Shareholders
C. Role of Stakeholders
D. Disclosure and
Transparency
E. Board
Responsibilities
Worst CG

6. 2005 VS 2003 - THAILAND CG Score by Category 2005 2003 + 9 - 6 + 6
Average
Best CG
+ 9
- 6
+ 6
+ 26
+18
+ 8
100 83 80 72 75 69 69 69 66 65 60 60 53 45 40 43 20
Overall
A. Rights of
Shareholders
B. Equitable Treatment
of Shareholders
C. Role of Stakeholders
D. Disclosure and
Transparency
E. Board
Responsibilities
Worst CG

7. 2005 Score by Quartile Overall CG Score Best CG Worst CG 100 92 90 8075 75 70 71 68 68 66 63 60 63 58 50
Worst CG 40 45
Quartile
Q 1
Q 2
Q 3
Q 4

8. 2005 TOP Quartile Companies–By Sector
No. of Companies
Top Quartile %
Resources&Energies 13 10
77 %
Technology 36 15
42 %
Financials 59 21
35 %
Services 69 16
26 %
Property & Construction 55 14
25 %
Industrials 41 7
17 %
Consumer Products 38 5
13 %
Market for Alternative Investment (MAI) 8 1
Agro & Food Industry 3
7 %

9. 2005 Results Thailand

10. Board Responsibilities
Percentage of analyzed Thai companies with best possible evaluation
E.18.1
100%
- Appoint Audit Committee.
E.12
96%
- Provide risk management policy.
E.22
92%
- The company has Non – Executive Directors > 50%.
Strong
E.17
88%
- Chairman is not also a CEO.
E.6
84%
The internal audit function has a
reporting line to the Audit Committee.
E.14 8%
- The board conduct annual self assessment.
E.23 8%
- The company has Independent Director > 50%.
Weak
E.15 5%
The company conducts annual performance
assessment of CEO.
E.26 4%
The company provides an option scheme with
period over 3 years and price above market.
E.8 2%
- The company provides orientation to new directors

11. 2005 - Thailand Corporate Governance Quartiles
Average Tobin’s Q Values By Corporate Governance Quartiles
Top Quartile
2nd Quartile
3rd Quartile
Bottom Quartile
Corporate Governance Quartiles

12. Companies Scored 2003 2004 2005 2006 CHI HKG IND PHI THAI - 100
(Top 100)
HKG
168
174
IND 61
(Top 61)
PHI 49
(Top 49) 64
(Top 64)
THAI
337
371
402

13. Equitable Treatment of Shareholders Board Respon-sibilities
Countries Scored
Overall
Rights
of Shareholders
Equitable Treatment of Shareholders
Role of Stakeholders
Disclosure
and Transparency
Board Respon-sibilities
CHI
(2006) 56 37 69 21 81 46
HKG
(2005) 71 72 40 90 70
IND 67 88 75 64
PHI 54 45 74 39 36
THAI 66 83 53

14. Regional Scorecard Observation :
Generated awareness and better understanding
of CG practices.
Stimulated companies to enhance their CG.
Endorsement from countries regulators critical
to success.
Provided a common metrics to measure CG progress and synergy in the region.

15. Regional Scorecard What next? Expand companies and countries.
Develop core criteria for a “Regional Score Card”
Raise funds for expansion
Regional Conference and recognition
Consolidated reporting
Regional CG Awards