1. The case study is based on Exxon Mobile. The CEO of company saidthat according to him, the company had to made focus on the mission to establish more oil and gas reserve, and that oil and gas will stay primary fuel sources for periods to come. Many shareholders did not agree. They argued that company’s importance on establishing oil and gas as energy source exposed global environment and economical or financial condition of the company. It is analysed that the company need to stick with its mission and vision for developing sustainability in their business operation. The company addresses the impacts of the rising greenhouse gas emission, which result to propose changes of climate. After evaluating the case, it is suggested that the company should continue to involve the related stakeholders in various sustainability procedure for securing the surroundings. Thus, company should make focus on the mission to establish more oil and gas reserves (Kallamu, 2015).
2. The corporations do not have ethics. It is required by the Board of company to be morality of corporation. The directors are required to render the corporation with ethical scope. For this, board is liable for making the substantial effects of the approaches it makes. The board is also accountable to recognise the both long-term effects and short-term effects of policies it accepts and for identifying the probable results on the individuals and for admitting the obligations to be responsible. It is a duty of board to make strategies of the company and identify the involved risk. It is necessary to balance challenging claims of various stakeholders and develop maintainable corporate social responsibility strategies, when fulfilling the expectations of shareholders. As per the concepts of stewardship, leadership, and corporate social responsibility (CSR), the motion of shareholder is correct that the company is required to curb greenhouse gas emissions enhance renewable energy research and establish the alternate fuel sources (Basco, 2014).

1. The board of company was very large, managerial and missing any logic of self-governing external directors. It is very difficult in various well-known corporations of Japan. The government of Japan and world-wide organisational depositors like US Calpers have been made efforts but they have not succeed to later the attitude in boardroom, to where powers must exist in and who is required to be encouraged to the board of company(Kallamu, 2016).
2. It was the corporation, which seemingly did not admit the importance of professional corporate governance believing, however went over the motion to fulfil the controllers, managers, and depositors of stock market.
3. After reading the case, it is recognised that the chairman has main role in appointing the directors of the company. There may be great effect of the resignation from the board on the conduct of Chairman or CEO of the company. The resignation of the directors of the company creates the negative image of Chairman of company or CEO of company. The main important thing to be taken as challenge is to know the constitution of the board and process of behaviour of the directors. It is considered as other corporate governance standard or model. It is analysed that supplanting the board of company with majority of independent directors, is not good suggestion. There is no such provision of practise of the independent directors; it operates conflicting to various top managerial beliefs. The burden from organisational depositors to leave the job might work; however, there must be replacement. Otherwise, the accessing advices, consultation services, directions, guidance, mentoring, reviewing, activities related to changing the behaviour, involvement and understanding on further board might be the better ideas or suggestions for the chairman of the TEPCO company(Çetinkaya, Agca & Ozutku, 2016).  

1. As per the Corporations Act, 2001, there are no prescribed maximum number limit of the directors (Clarke, Thurstan & Yates, 2016). Mostly, states based associations incorporation legislations do not recommend minimum number of member or maximum number of member for the board of company. The minimum number of board or maximum number of board for legal experts and other public sector organisations are generally recommended in legislature or the regulations by which the companies or authorities are created. Further, as per the provision of the Corporations Act, 2001, the number of the non-executive members should be more than executive members in company. It means there should be majority of non-executive members. In this company, the board of company has six members including four males and two females. The company has majority of non-executive directors. According to these criteria, the board has appropriate body structure. However, the board has only one independent non-executive director. It may affect the independency of the company. Because as per the Corporations Act, 2001, there should be at least two independent directors for smaller board (Bateman & Balmford, 2018). This structure may arise the question on the appropriateness of the board structure of company. In the given situations, it is analysed that the board structure of the company is not appropriate structure. Furthermore, it is the fiduciary duty of director to act in good faith (Ljubojevic & Dasic, 2018). The person who is holding the position in one company, cannot hold the position in same or other capacity in other company. In this company, David Smith, Christopher Fisher and Nancy Hollendoner hold the position in some other companies. In this way, they are not eligible to be director in this company.  

1. As per the above discussion, it is recommended to appoint one or more independent director in the company to avoid the situation of interest confliction. It is also recommended to ask the David Smith, Christopher Fisher and Nancy Hollendoner to held the position in Blackstone only or in other company. if they wish to continue in other company, then it is required to appoint more executive or non-executive directors in appropriate balancing number(Nikhmah & Asrori, 2017).

References

Bateman, I. J., & Balmford, B. (2018). Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy. Land Use Policy, 79(5), 293-300.

Clarke, B., Thurstan, R., & Yates, K. (2016). Stakeholder perceptions of a coastal marine protected area. Journal of Coastal Research, 75(sp1), 622-626.

Kallamu, B. S. (2016). Nomination Commitee Attributes and Firm Performance: Evidence from Finance Companies in Malaysia. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 3(1), 150-165.

Kallamu, B. S. (2015). Ownership Structure, independent directors and firm performance. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 3(1), 17-30.

Ljubojevic, G., & Dasic, G. (2018). Boards attributes and their implications on decision-making process. Hotel and Tourism Management, 6(1), 19-29.

Nikhmah, S., & Asrori, A. (2017). The Effect of Good Corporate Governence Implementation on Profit Sharing Financing through Banking Risk. Accounting Analysis Journal, 5(4), 263-270.

Çetinkaya, M., Agca, V., & Ozutku, H. (2016). Priorities for Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: Evidence from Listed Turkish Companies in Istanbul Stock Exchange. Journal of Economic & Social Studies (JECOSS), 6(2).

Basco, R. (2014). Exploring the influence of the family upon firm performance: Does strategic behaviour matter?. International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 967-995.