Corporate governance is indeed a relative concept, as it varies across companies and industries due to factors such as legal frameworks, cultural norms, stakeholder expectations, and organizational structures. What constitutes effective corporate governance in one context may not necessarily be the same in another.

Corporate governance is relative means that corporate governance is firm-specific, meaning that corporate governance is different in each company. Two companies in different industries, e.g Tesla and Apple, will have some differences in their corporate governance structure, while two companies in the same industry, e.g Amazon and Alibaba, will some similarities and some small differences in their corporate governance structure. Therefore, corporate governance is relative because the CG structure in one firm will not be exactly the same in another firm. There will be small or large differences depending on the industry and the nature of mandatory corporate governance regulations

Corporate governance is not relative but an absolute objective. Business houses need to achieve high standard of corporate governance to sustain and accelerate their business growth rate in long run.

Maintaining high standard of corporate governance also helps companies to get through tuff phase of business environment. e.g. Tata Sons could able to get out of the most challenging (worst phase of Tata Sons since its inception) of 2008 to 2016 only because of the good relationship it has developed with investors and consumers because of high level of Corporate Governance It follows since inception.

First, we must define the concept of corporate governance, its mechanisms, and tools... In short, it is a tool for monitoring and controlling. They are not relative, especially if we talk about the internal and external mechanisms, as they include, for example, the internal and external auditor, the board of directors characteristics, data analysts, etc.

Corporate Governance is relative. It is highly accentuated but still we keep seeing company failures. I.e. the recent bank failures in US. Silicon Valley Bank went bankrupt due to investing their cash in low return US bonds. When interest rates rose, the value of those bonds in the secondary market was not enough to pay the deposits of scares deposit customers who wanted to withdraw their money from the bank. That means, internal control was weak. The bank management did not act in time, they put all the cash in one bowl-asset concentartion. I.e. if they had diversified in their investments, they would not have failed. Many developing countries pay 6-7% interest rates on their Eurobonds.