**Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *Organizational culture will have a significant effect on CG implementation.*

Semenov (2000) compared the CG systems of industrialized western countries and argued that cultural scores explained differences in CG in 17 Western countries better than any other economic variable listed in the literature. Lin (1976) supports this argument and

demonstrates an intercultural theory of CG systems based on the dimensions of cultural values that link shareholder structure and self-dealing arrangements, insider trading, and disclosure. Since organizational culture studies, internal CG are rare, this study seeks to fill a gap in the literature. This argument is similar to Schwartz and Davis (1981), who stated that 'company culture has a major impact on a company's ability to realize goals and plans . . . '.

Organizational structure describes how work is divided, grouped, and formally coordinated. In the context of CG, Blau and Schoenher (1971) defines CG in its broadest sense as "the totality of the legal, cultural, and institutional arrangements that determine what public companies can do, who controls, how those controls are implemented, and how the risks and rewards of activities are allocated. In contrast, Shleifer and Vishny (1997) give a narrow definition of CG, who state that CG deals with 'how financial suppliers guarantee themselves a return on their investment". Similarly, the Cadbury Committee of Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance defines CG as 'the system that directs and controls companies' (Cadbury 1992). Nguyen (2022) found the fact that, in corporate governance at banks, there is a difference between bank stability and the effectiveness of audit committees that depend heavily on the soundness of each bank and the institutional quality of each country. On the other hand, Dang and Nguyen (2021) found that internal corporate governance is significantly related to future stock risk. These different definitions reflect CG's perspectives and areas that must be addressed. This broad definition captures not only the function of a corporate governance structure or organ, but also its external environment, which consists of social influences, government regulations that regulate companies, and labor and capital markets.
