CORPORATE JARGONS - WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU - THE BOMBASTIC TERMS THAT UNDERMINE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES

Disclaimer: The observations shared in this article highlight corporate practices that can obscure transparency, governance, and accountability. They are not meant to suggest that all corporations engage in such practices. Many organisations are upholding the highest standards of ethics, governance, and ESG compliance, and are demonstrating exemplary leadership and integrity in their operations. The purpose of this discussion is to encourage scrutiny, informed oversight, and continuous improvement in corporate practices.

In today’s corporate landscape, language has become a powerful shield.

Annual reports, sustainability statements, investor briefings and press releases are increasingly filled with impressive-sounding terms : order books, adjusted earnings, strategic partnerships, net-zero commitments. None of these are inherently wrong.

But when clarity, metrics, and accountability are missing, language becomes a tool of concealment rather than communication.

This is where credibility, good practices of management systems and board governance expectations quietly erode.

Below are common corporate terms that deserve closer scrutiny, especially by boards, auditors, regulators, and stakeholders.

1. ORDER BOOK VALUE

A large order book is often presented as proof of future strength.

Governance question: 

• How much is legally binding versus indicative?

• What is the cancellation risk and margin quality?

From governance standpoint, overstating certainty misleads stakeholders and distorts risk disclosure.

2. “MISCELLAENEOUS" or “OTHER” ITEMS

These are often dismissed as immaterial.

Red flag: When “miscellaneous” becomes material in size, it signals weak internal controls and poor financial transparency both inconsistent with good practices on accurate record-keeping.

3. ADJUSTED EBITDA

Adjustments are sometimes necessary.

Governance failure occurs when:  Recurring costs are repeatedly labelled “exceptional” to manufacture performance.

Boards should ask: Why does the business need constant adjustment to look viable?

4. NON-RECURRING/ONE-OFF ITEMS

If a “one-off” appears every year, it is no longer one-off.

This practice undermines truthful reporting, a core requirement of ethical governance and anti-corruption frameworks.

5. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

Often announced with fanfare.

Key oversight questions:

• Is there capital commitment or just an MoU?

• Are responsibilities and risks clearly allocated?

Anti Corruption Practices expects clear due diligence on partners, not headline-driven alliances.

6. PIPLELINE PROJECTS

A pipeline is potential not performance.

Boards should demand:

• Approval status,

• Funding certainty,

• Historical conversion rates

Without this, pipeline disclosures become optimism bias masquerading as strategy.

7. REVENUE GROWTH

Revenue growth alone does not indicate value creation.

From a governance lens:

• Are margins sustainable?

• Are receivables ballooning?

Is growth driven by discounting or risk-taking?

Cash integrity matters more than top-line numbers.

8. COST OPTIMIZATION AND EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES

Cost optimisation is often celebrated.

But what is being cut? Training? maintenance? safety? and compliance? - cuts from these items may boost short-term figures while creating long-term ESG and operational risks.

9. “STRONG BALANCE SHEET”

This phrase deserves interrogation.

Boards must look beyond headline ratios to:

• Off-balance-sheet obligations,

• Short-term liquidity dependence,

• Covenant exposure

True financial resilience is stress-tested, not asserted.

10. DEFERRED REVENUE

Often framed as future income.

In reality, it is a delivery obligation. Failure to deliver can trigger penalties, refunds, or reputational damage directly impacting ESG trust.

11. FAIR VALUE GAINS

Valuation gains are not cash.

When executive incentives are linked to unrealised gains, governance misalignment emerges, contradicting responsible remuneration principles.

12. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Legal does not automatically mean "ethical".

Anti-Corruption practices and good governance require:

• Transparent pricing,

• Independent approval,

• Minority shareholder protection

13. GOING CONCERN STATEMENTS

A going concern statement signals survival, not strength.

Boards should ensure stakeholders understand the assumptions behind continuity, not just the conclusion.

14. DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION/AI-DRIVEN/ESG LED

Buzzwords are not strategies.

Boards should demand evidence of:

• Implementation,

• ROI

• Risk management and controls

PowerPoint compliance is not operational compliance.

15. GREENWASHING - THE ESG CREDIBILITY CRISIS

Perhaps the most damaging practice today.

Common patterns include:

• Selective emissions reporting (Scope 3 ignored),

• Heavy reliance on offsets instead of reductions,

• Sustainability claims without third-party assurance,

ESG without verifiable data, targets, and accountability is greenwashing branding not responsibility.

Governance reminds us that misrepresentation is a corruption risk, even when framed as sustainability.

What This Means for Boards

Modern boards are no longer judged only on financial performance. They are expected to ensure:

• Truthful, complete, and balanced disclosure,

• Ethical conduct embedded in systems, not slogans,

• ESG claims aligned with operational reality

Anti-Corruption principles reflected in decision-making (not just certification)

15. CORPORATE JARGON AND IMPACT ON STOCK MARKET PRICING

Corporate language doesn’t just influence internal governance, it can have a direct impact on market perception and stock valuation.

When public companies use bombastic terms, order books, adjusted EBITDA, pipeline projects, or ESG/green claims  without full transparency, Investors may overestimate future cash flows or profitability, driving share prices higher than fundamentals justify.

Short-term enthusiasm can mask long-term risks, such as margin erosion, unsustainable cost cuts, or one-off accounting adjustments. 

Greenwashing or exaggerated ESG claims can temporarily attract ESG-focused funds, yet may lead to reputational and financial risk if claims are later questioned.

Conversely, strong, transparent reporting builds credibility, leading to more stable valuation, lower cost of capital, and better investor confidence.

Stock markets react not just to actual performance, but to narratives, trust, and perceived governance quality. Boards, auditors, and investors should recognize that clarity and accountability in corporate communication are as critical as the underlying numbers themselves.

In short - the way a company presents itself is inseparable from how the market values it. Misleading or vague corporate language can inflate short-term pricing but undermines long-term shareholder trust and market efficiency.

BRIEF CONCLUSION (for now)

The louder the language, the greater the duty to question it.

Strong organisations do not hide behind terms. They explain them, evidence them, and invite scrutiny. That is the real test of governance, ESG integrity, and leadership accountability. 

From Production to Knowledge: Why Malaysia and ASEAN’s Digital Economy Is Still Stuck and What Policy Must Change - By Nik Zafri

Read this article as well : 

SHARING ECONOMY VS TRADITIONAL BRICK AND MORTAR IN THE 21ST CENTURY – BY NIK ZAFRI

By Nik Zafri

Summary

Malaysia and ASEAN have made significant strides in digitalisation, from e‑government services and fintech adoption to AI roadmaps and smart cities. Yet beneath this progress lies a structural contradiction: our digital economy largely operates on a production‑based (P‑based) capitalist logic, rather than a true knowledge‑based (K‑based) economy that digital technology promises.

This article will try to address the constraint is not technological capability, but policy design, governance frameworks, and legacy measurement systems. Without deliberate reform, digitalisation will continue to amplify consumption, inequality, and environmental stress rather than generate shared intelligence, resilience, and long‑term value.

1. THE ASEAN-MALAYSIAN DIGITAL PARADOX

Malaysia’s digital agenda supported by initiatives such as #MyDIGITAL, #Industry4WRD, National AI Roadmaps, and various smart city programmes emphasises:

• Platform growth,

• Startup ecosystems,

• Cashless payments

• E‑commerce expansion

Across ASEAN, similar patterns emerge in Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand.

However, most digital success is still measured by:

• Gross transaction value (GTV),

• User acquisition numbers,

• Platform scale,

• Contribution to GDP

These are P‑based indicators, not K‑based ones. The result is a digital economy that sells more efficiently, but does not necessarily think better.

2. WHY P-BASED LOGIC PERSISTS IN POLICY

2.1 GDP and Fiscal Metrics Dominate

Public policy continues to rely on GDP growth, consumption, and investment flows as primary indicators of success. Knowledge creation, prevention of loss, environmental preservation, and social trust, all critical in ASEAN’s climate‑vulnerable context remain largely invisible to national accounts.

2.2 Investment and Incentive Structures

Government grants, tax incentives, and venture funding prioritise:

• Scale,

• Speed,

• Monetisation

Rarely do they reward:

• Knowledge transfer,

• Skills deepening,

• Open data contribution,

• Reduction of systemic risk

This biases innovation toward platforms that extract value rather than systems that distribute intelligence.

3. P‑BASED VS K-BASED ECONOMY (Policy Lens)

4. THE ASEAN CONTEXT : Why This Matters More Here

ASEAN economies face overlapping challenges:

• Climate vulnerability (floods, heat, food security),

• Ageing infrastructure,

• Youth underemployment,

• Skills mismatch,

• Environmental degradation

A P‑based digital economy worsens these by encouraging over‑consumption and resource strain. A K‑based economy, by contrast, prioritises:

• Predictive systems,

• Preventive policy,

• Skills intelligence,

• Regional knowledge sharing

For Malaysia, this aligns directly with national aspirations on sustainability, ESG leadership, and high‑income status.

5. GOVERNANCE GAPS HOLDING BACK THE TRANSITION

• Policy Silos : Digital, climate, education, and economic policies operate independently,

• Outdated Accounting : Intangible assets and avoided losses are not recognised,

• Platform Regulation : Focused on competition, not knowledge responsibility,

• Public Procurement : Rewards lowest cost, not highest intelligence,

• Data Governance : Treats data as commodity rather than public infrastructure

6. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MALAYSIA AND ASEAN

6.1 Redefine National Success Metrics

• Complement GDP with knowledge, resilience, and risk‑reduction indicators,

• Integrate ESG, SDG, and climate intelligence into fiscal planning

6.2 Reform Digital Incentives

Tie grants and tax incentives to measurable knowledge transfer

Reward platforms that reduce systemic costs (energy, fraud, waste)

6.3 Treat Data as Strategic Infrastructure

(which is the very reason why we need a real working Data Centers not for fancy but what works and benefits us)

• Establish trusted data commons for climate, health, and finance
• Encourage cross‑ASEAN data interoperability

6.4 Embed Knowledge in Public Procurement

• Prioritise solutions that improve decision quality, not just cost savings,

• Value learning systems, not one‑off deliverables

6.5 Strengthen Regional Knowledge Cooperation

• ASEAN‑level platforms for shared intelligence on climate, supply chains, and security,

• Reduce duplication through collective learning

7. REFRAMING DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Digital transformation must shift from:

• Faster consumption to Smarter decisions,

• Platform scale to System intelligence,

• User capture to Capability building

AI, analytics, and automation should be deployed to prevent harm, optimise resources, and raise collective competence, not merely to increase sales.

CONCLUSION : A POLICY CHOICE, NOT A TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

Malaysia and ASEAN do not lack digital infrastructure, talent, or ambition. What is missing is policy alignment with a knowledge‑based future.

The continued dominance of a P‑based digital economy is a governance choice,  reinforced by outdated metrics, incentives, and power structures. Transitioning to a K‑based economy requires courage to redefine value, patience to invest long‑term, and humility to share intelligence across institutions and borders.

We are not constrained by technology. We are constrained by how we choose to measure success.

The digital future will not be decided by how much we produce or consume but by how well we learn, adapt, and govern together.

A DECADE OF JOURNEY WITH GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP

After 10 years with GLG, including my memorable visit to GLG Malaysia and meeting Ms. Karen Soh, the journey has truly been meaningful. I’ve gained invaluable insights, especially in compliance and governance, which have strengthened my work across various engagements.

Here where I am now, certain institutions (not all) still face limitations in formally certifying or validating my diverse experience and competencies due to regulatory frameworks (possibly bureaucracy). That’s why I value platforms like GLG, (even UKAS, C & G, BCA Sing, ABAC CB UK etc) other international professional institutions that recognize expertise based on merit. Their trust has placed me in a comfortable and confident position, and it’s a testament to how Malaysian professionals can be acknowledged globally.

Thank you to the entire GLG team, for the continued trust, opportunities, and commitment to building a strong community of expertise. I look forward to contributing more in 2026 and growing together with the network.

Wishing everyone at GLG a meaningful year-end and an inspiring year ahead.

The Volume Advantage: Why Competitive Pricing and High Turnover Beat High Margins in a Value-Driven Market - by Nik Zafri

A simple business scenario:

 The cost of one product is RM0.50.

• Seller A buys 1,000 units and resells them at RM1.00 (a 50% margin)
• Seller B buys 500 units and sells them at RM0.80 (a 30% margin).

Both offer the same product quality and service. However, within one week, A only manages to sell 100 units, while B sells all 500 units and continues receiving similar demand.

1. Lower Margin, Higher Volume Can Outperform Higher Margin, Lower Volume

• A sells at a higher profit per unit (RM0.50) but only manages to sell 100 units.
• B sells at a lower profit per unit (RM0.30) and manages to sell 500 units, fully clearing stock.

 In absolute profit terms:

• A’s profit: 100 units × RM0.50 = RM50
• B’s profit: 500 units × RM0.30 = RM150

So, B earns 3 times more profit despite a lower margin.

Lesson 1 - A business strategy cannot rely solely on high margins. Competitive pricing + high turnover often leads to better total profit.

2. The Market Dictates the Price - Not the Seller

Both products are identical in quality and service. Yet customers prefer the cheaper option.

Lesson 2 : Customers will gravitate to the price that feels fair and offers value, especially when comparing identical products. Pricing must align with what the market is willing to pay.

3. Accessibility and Affordability Expand Your Customer Base

A higher price reduces your reachable market. B’s lower price makes it accessible to more buyers, which increases volume.

Lesson 3 : Sometimes, the best approach is to reduce your margin but widen your reach.

4. Cash Flow Matters

• B sells all 500 units, turning stock into cash quickly.
• A sells slowly, locking capital in inventory.

Lesson 4 : High turnover improves cash flow, reduces risk of dead stock, and allows faster reinvestment.

5. Customer Behavior: Perception of Fairness and Trust

Even if quality and service are the same, customers may perceive A’s pricing as too high, creating resistance.

Lesson 5 : Customers are more likely to trust a price that aligns with their perception of value.

6. Long-Term Advantage - Repeat Customers

If B continues providing good value, customers remember the “fair price” and come back.

A risks losing customers permanently if perceived as overpriced.

7. Strategy Must Match Market Conditions

• A is using a premium pricing strategy in a market that behaves like a value-driven market.
• B is aligning with what the market wants.

Lesson 6 : Choose a strategy that fits the market, not the seller’s personal preference.

In short : A’s mistake is prioritizing profit margin instead of total profit and turnover. B wins because of competitive pricing, faster cash flow, and better alignment with customer expectations.

8. Understanding the Surroundings

What Seller B is doing reflects a deeper understanding of economic reality and customer psychology during a downturn.

i. B Recognizes Reduced Purchasing Power

In a slow or uncertain economy, customers:

• become more price-sensitive
• compare options more carefully
• cut back on non-essentials
• prefer lower-priced alternatives even if quality is the same

Seller B's pricing aligns with this behaviour, making it easier for customers to continue buying.

 

ii. B Reduces the Customer’s Financial Burden

By lowering margin and offering a fairer price:

• customers feel less “pain of paying”
• they can buy more or more frequently
• they perceive B as understanding and trustworthy

This builds loyalty - very valuable in tough times.

iii. B Helps Customers Regain Purchasing Power

When a seller provides value pricing:

• customers conserve money
• they can buy other necessities
• they feel more in control of their spending

This creates repeat demand because customers feel respected.

iv. Pricing Strategy Reflects Situational Awareness

• Seller A uses a premium-pricing mindset in a value-driven market.
• Seller B uses a market-aligned strategy, showing awareness of inflation, declining disposable income, cost-of-living pressures and competitive landscape

This awareness is a major advantage, especially when consumers are cautious.

v) B Gains Trust During Hard Times

Customers remember sellers who:

• remained affordable
• did not take advantage of the situation
• provided consistent value

This often results in long-term loyalty even after the economy improves.

In short : Yes - Seller B’s success strongly indicates that:

• B understands the economic downturn
• B empathizes with customers’ reduced purchasing power
• B adapts pricing to match real-world conditions

 

9. B Hires a Worker (10 sen/day) While A Sells Alone

a. B Invests in Leverage while A Relies Only on Himself

B understands that:

• One person alone can only sell so much,
• By hiring help, he increases capacity, reach, and speed.

Even though the worker is paid 10 sen per day, B trades a small cost for a large increase in sales volume.

A, however, is limited by time, physical ability, energy, customer reach

This is a classic difference between working IN the business vs working ON the business.

b. B Converts Cost into Growth

B’s commission cost is tiny compared to his profit:

• Total profit: RM150
• Worker cost (example: if 7 days × RM0.10): RM0.70
• Net profit: RM149.30

The worker cost is less than 1% of B’s earnings (to me, this is good trade-off)

This shows B understands scalability.

c. A Avoids Expenses but Also Avoids Growth

A tries to “save money” by doing it alone.

This is common among small businesses, but:

• Saving costs does not equal making profit.
• Doing everything alone slows the business.
• Opportunity cost becomes huge.

A’s choice actually costs him more because he misses out on potential sales.

d. B Creates Employment and Strengthens Community Trust

Hiring someone even for a small commission:

• builds goodwill

• creates local support

• strengthens reputation

• increases customer trust (“This seller is growing”)

Customers often prefer businesses that create jobs rather than solo traders who appear stagnant.

v) B Understands That Cash Flow Is King

The faster the stock clears:

the faster money returns, the faster B can reinvest, the faster B grows

Hiring help accelerates this cycle.

A, by relying on only himself, slows everything down.

vi. B Is Playing a Long-Term Game, A Is Stuck in Day-to-Day Survival

• B is building a system.

• A is building self-dependence only.

Systems win long-term.

In summary

Seller B shows understanding of:

• leverage
• business scaling
• cash flow management
• customer behaviour
• market environment
• productivity
• long-term business mindset

Seller A focuses on:

• saving costs
• doing it alone
• short-term thinking
• limited growth

CONCLUSION

The scenario of Seller A and Seller B decisively illustrates that a successful business strategy cannot rely solely on high margins. Seller Bs victory, earning triple the profit (RM150 vs. RM50) despite a lower margin, highlights the power of competitive pricing, high turnover, and strategic alignment with customer expectations. 

By recognizing reduced purchasing power in the market and prioritizing cash flow and accessibility , Seller B not only maximized absolute profit but also cultivated customer trust and loyalty by offering perceived fairness and value. Furthermore, Bs willingness to leverage a worker for a small cost demonstrates an understanding of scalability and long-term systems thinking over As focus on cost-saving and self-dependence. 

Ultimately, success comes from choosing a strategy that fits the market, not the sellers personal preference.

Political and Voting Self-Profiling: An Independent Perspective of Me

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of any organization, group, or individual. They are not intended to influence, persuade, or interfere with anyone’s personal political beliefs or decisions. Readers are encouraged to form their own opinions based on their perspectives and judgment.

I have often been labeled an independent-minded, pragmatic voter neither strictly partisan nor a fence-sitter. I consider myself a centrist reformist with a socially conscious approach. I dislike being coerced into supporting something I fundamentally disagree with, even if the majority favors it.

Someone “on the fence” typically avoids taking a stand due to uncertainty or indifference. I, however, actively evaluate each issue or policy and make a conscious decision to support or reject it. I have principles, a perspective, and a reasoning process. In short, I am a principled, issue-driven voter- engaged, thoughtful, and selective.

My Approach to Politics and Voting

1. Selective support based on principles: I evaluate policies and actions on merit, not party loyalty. This is principled pragmatism,
2. Support for modernization with social conscience: I value progress and development but care about fairness and justice for ordinary people.
3. Critical thinking and analysis: My decisions are evidence-based, not driven solely by emotion or rhetoric.
4. Balanced outlook: I see merit across political spectrums, avoiding extremes and dogma.

In everyday terms, I support what works and is just.

How My Professional Background Shapes My Political Mindset

• Consultant mindset: Trained to analyze situations objectively, evaluate risks, and weigh pros and cons. This translates naturally into assessing policies and candidates based on evidence and impact,
• Training and mentorship: Exposure to diverse perspectives and human behavior fosters fairness, ethics, and empathy.
• Thought leadership: Critical thinking and foresight lead me to reject simplistic or populist narratives.
• Prolific writing: Structuring arguments logically strengthens my ability to evaluate political issues deliberately.
• Project and risk management: Experience balancing stakeholders and ethical constraints makes me sensitive to policies that advance progress without harming vulnerable groups.
• Analytical mindset from reading and research: I value historical context, evidence, and data-driven reasoning.
• Creative and cultural exposure: Appreciation for arts, history, and heritage encourages a balance between modernization and preservation.
• Exposure to regulatory frameworks: Handling audits and certifications reinforces the importance of governance, transparency, and lawfulness.
• Global perspective and trend awareness : My awareness of international standards, climate change, ESG, and modernization trends helps me evaluate policies in terms of long-term sustainability and competitiveness.

My Place Among Malaysian Voters

There are certainly others like me in Malaysia, though exact numbers are hard to determine.

From the data I extracted from multiple past and present surveys despite I don't rely too much on them but overall, it would indicate:

• Over 30% of respondents were unsure whom to vote for or had no party preference,
• I found out many young voters rejected traditional party outreach and divisive tactics, favoring “fairer, more inclusive” policies,
• Roughly 28% of non-Malay voters did not disclose a party preference in one survey.

Putting this together, 20–35% of Malaysian voters could share a mindset similar to mine - independent, issue-driven, and willing to support what is right rather than simply following a party.

This segment, principled, selective, progressive, and socially conscious may be less vocal than staunch party loyalists, but they are influential. Parties must appeal to this 35% of voters like us to secure swing votes, making independent, thoughtful voters a powerful force in shaping the country’s future.

I’ve noticed that many political parties, in their fiery speeches, focus heavily on loyalists and fence-sitters, yet they often underestimate the influence of the remaining 35% surprisingly, this group comes from the silent grassroots rather than top political figures, academicians, corporate leaders, or intellectuals, who, despite their best efforts, have repeatedly failed to sway them

Conclusions for now

As we can see, voting and politics in Malaysia are influenced by a variety of factors, including personal values, social conscience, evidence-based reasoning, cultural and professional experiences, and broader societal and global trends.

Each voter weighs these differently, which is why the country’s politics is as complex and diverse as its people brings a unique perspective, making Malaysia’s political landscape diverse and dynamic

Malaysians are thinking differently now, politicians, take heed.