An Assessment of Good Corporate Governance in State Owned Enterprises of Mauritius

Soujata Rughoobur 1
  • 1 Univeristy of Mauritius, , Mauritius


The study seeks to assess the impact good corporate governance in State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) of Mauritius by obtaining the general perspectives of employees in this particular sector. This study comprised of two stages. Firstly, a focus group discussion was conducted among few employees in SOEs of Mauritius. This exploratory phase was useful in identifying additional views on the impact, barriers, issues and challenges on the level of good corporate governance in SOEs of Mauritius. A survey was then being conducted as a second phase of the study among a sample of employees from SOEs in Mauritius. The analysis focused on the objectives of the study, which were to assess the practice of good governance in SOEs in Mauritius, its benefits and the barriers towards practicing good governance in these firms. The major findings of the study showed that most respondents acknowledge the positive impact of good corporate governance in the day to day of their organisations. However, they also reported that constant governmental intervention acts as a barrier for the proper functioning of SOEs in Mauritius.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • AHARONI, Y. 1986. The Evolution and Management of State Owned Enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publication.

  • Ahlawat, S. S. and D. J. Lowe. 2004. An examination of internal auditor objectivity: In-house versus outsourcing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23 (2): pp. 149-160.

  • BICKSLER, J.L. 2003. ‘What We Know And What We Don’t Know about Corporate Governance’. Business Economics, 38: pp 69-73.

  • BLACK, B. S., JANG, H. & KIM, W. 2006. Predicting Firms’ Corporate Governance Choices: Evidence from Korea, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 12, pp. 660-691.

  • BRANSCOMB, A.W. 1995. ‘Anonymity, Autonomy and Accountability: Challenges to the first Amendment in Cyberspaces’. The Yale Law Journal 104: pp 1639-1679.

  • Brody, R. G. and D. J. Lowe. 2000. The new role of the internal auditor: Implications for internal auditor objectivity. International Journal of Auditing 4 (2): pp.169-176.

  • CAMERON, R.L. 1992. ‘Overview And Historical Background’ in Revisiting the SOE Model. Wllington, NZ: New Zealand Institute of Public Administration Inc.

  • CARVER, J And OLIVER, C. 2002. Corporate Boards That Create Value: Governing Company Performance from the Boardroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • CLAESSENS, S. 2003, Corporate Governance and Development Global Corporate Governance Forum Focus 1 Washington: World Bank.

  • Code of Corporate Governance for Mauritius (2004)

  • Companies Act Mauritius (2001)

  • EICHENSEHER, J and SHIELDS, D. 1985, “Corporate Director liability and monitoring preferences”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 4: pp. 13-31.

  • FERNANDES, P. 1986. Managing Relations between Government and Public Enterprises: A handbook for Administrators and Managers. Geneva: International Labour Office.

  • FREDERICK D. Lipman and KEITH Lipman 2006, Corporate Governance Best Practices: Strategies for Public, Private, and Not-for-Profit Organisations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

  • Gansberghe C. 2005. Internal audit finding its place in public finance management. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

  • GOMPERS, P., ISHII, J. & METRICK, A. 2003. Corporate Governance and Equity Prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118(1), pp. 107-155.

  • GRANDMONT, R., GRANT, G. & SILVA, F. 2004. Beyond the Numbers Corporate Governance: Implications for Investors, The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, Deutsche Bank, Geneva: UNEP, pp. 17-18.

  • Higgs Report (2003)

  • JONES, I.W. and POLLITT, M.G. 2002a, ‘Who Influences Debates in Business Ethics? An Investigation into the Development of Corporate Governance in the UK since 1990’ in I.W. Jones and M.G.Pollitt (eds.), Understanding How Issues in Business Ethics Develop, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • KHOZA, R. J. And ADAM, M. 2005, The Power of Governance: Enhancing the performance of State Owned Enterprises. Johannesburg: Pan Mac-Millan and Business in Africa.

  • MARDJONO, A 2005, ‘A tell of corporate governance: Lessons why firms fail’, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 272-283.

  • Mazzolini, R. 1979. Government Controlled Enterprises: International Strategic and Policy Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • MURTHY, N. R. N. 2006. Good Corporate Governance – A checklist or a mindset? Robert P. Maxon Lecture, George Washington University, February 06, 2006.

  • OECD (1999), “OECD Principles of Corporate Governance”.

  • Okafor, C. and Otalor, I. J. 2013, Narrowing the Expectation Gap in Auditing: The Role of the Auditing Profession. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, Vol.5(9), pp. 43-53.

  • OMAN, C. P. 2001. Corporate Governance and National Development, OECD

  • Paape, L. 2007. Corporate governance: The impact on the role, position, and scope of services of the internal audit function. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Erasmus

  • PINCUS,K., RUSBARSKY, M., and WONG, J. 1989, “Voluntary formation of Corporate Audit Committee among NASDAQ firms”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 8, pp. 239-265.

  • RAMANADHAM, V.V. 1984. The Nature of Public Enterprise. London: Croom Helm.

  • RECHNER, P.L. 1989. ‘Corporate Governance: Fact or Fiction?’ Business Horizons 32: pp 11-15.

  • SHLEIFER, A. and VISHNY, R. W. 1997, “A Survey of Corporate Governance”, The Journal of Finance LII (2), pp737-83

  • Simanjuntak, D.S. 2005, “Indonesia’s Tolerated Low-Speed Reform of Corporate Governance”, “Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia”, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2005, pp. 157-179.

  • Smith Report (2003)

  • Tirole, J. 2001, “Corporate Governance”, Econometrica Vol. 69 (1), pp. 1-35.

  • Van Peursem, K. 2005. Conversations with internal auditors: The power of ambiguity. Managerial Auditing Journal 20 (5): pp 489-512.


Journal + Issues