Answer: Company 2

## Explanation Based on the table provided: - **Company 1**: Low percentage of non-executive directors with relevant industry experience, but has say-on-pay provision - **Company 2**: High percentage of non-executive directors with relevant industry experience, and has say-on-pay provision - **Company 3**: High percentage of non-executive directors with relevant industry experience, but NO say-on-pay provision **Analysis of Corporate Governance Effectiveness:** 1. **Non-executive directors with industry experience**: This is a key governance factor as directors with relevant industry expertise can provide better oversight and strategic guidance. Companies 2 and 3 both have high percentages, which is superior to Company 1's low percentage. 2. **Say-on-pay provision**: This allows shareholders to vote on executive compensation, which is a strong governance mechanism to align management interests with shareholder interests. Companies 1 and 2 have this provision, while Company 3 does not. **Comparison:** - Company 1 has weak director expertise but strong compensation oversight - Company 2 has strong director expertise AND strong compensation oversight - Company 3 has strong director expertise but weak compensation oversight **Conclusion**: Company 2 has the most effective corporate governance practices because it combines both key governance elements - high percentage of experienced non-executive directors AND say-on-pay provisions for executive compensation oversight.

Author: LeetQuiz .