Archive for March, 2010|Monthly archive page
Society, acting through their legislative processes, provides for the incorporation of corporate entities in their midst, and permits companies to limit the liability of their shareholders for the debts of those companies. But over time, the accountability of those companies to society, and the way that power is exercised over them has slipped for society to shareholders, and from shareholders to incumbent management.
We need to re-think the way that power is exercised over companies for the good of all affected by their activities. But before such ideas can evolve, some fundamental dilemmas have to be resolved. We lack a coherent unifying theory of corporate governance. The most widely used research tool, agency theory, is proving to be a straight jacket: useful in context but inevitably constraining. We need some new theoretical insights that will take us beyond agency theory or the perspectives of jurisprudence.
The corporate governance principles published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) were designed to assist countries develop their own corporate governance codes. They reflected what was considered best practice in the UK and USA. This so-called Anglo-Saxon model of corporate governance required listed companies to have unitary boards, independent outside directors, and board committees. The principles focused on enhancing shareholder value, and in the process richly rewarded top executives. In this model shareholders are widely dispersed, in markets that are liquid, with the discipline of hostile bids.
This so-called ‘Anglo-American approach’ to corporate governance, became the basis for governance codes around the world. Indeed, in the United States it was widely assumed that the rest of the world would eventually converge with American corporate governance norms and reporting requirements, simply because it was thought the rest of the world needed access to American capital.
But a schism has emerged in the ‘Anglo-American approach’. In the United States, Sarbanes Oxley mandated conformance with corporate governance by law. Whilst in the United Kingdom and those other jurisdictions whose company law has been influenced over the years by UK common law, including Australia, Hong Kong, India, Singapore and South Africa, compliance is based on a voluntary ‘comply or explain’ philosophy. Companies report compliance with the corporate governance code or explain why they have not. This ‘rules versus principles’ dilemma seems to have been amplified by the ongoing global financial crisis. It needs resolving.
But the Anglo-Saxon system is not the only governance model and some are questioning whether it is necessarily the best. Corporate governance is concerned with the way power is exercised over corporate entities. In other parts of the world, alternative insider-relationship systems exercise power through corporate groups in chains, pyramids or power networks, by dominant families, or by states. These markets are less likely to be liquid, the market for control poor, and the interests of employees, and other stakeholders more important.
In Japan, keiretsu organizational networks spread power around a group of inter-connected companies in ways that might provide insights for complex western groups. The view that business involves relationships with all those involved – employees, customers, suppliers, and society, as well as shareholders, has only recently been recognized in the West under the umbrella of ‘corporate social responsibility’.
The governance of Chinese family businesses throughout East Asia can provide some valuable insights: for example, the emphasis on top-level leadership, the view that the independence of outside directors is less important than their character and business ability, and the way that the Chinese family business sees business more as a succession of trades rather than the building of empires.
In China, the link between state, at the national, provincial and local levels, and companies relies on a network of relationships, and policies can be pursued in the interests of the people, seen as the Party.
Of course there are problems with Asian approaches: corruption, insider trading, unfair treatment of minority shareholders, and domination by company leaders, to name a few. But these are not uniquely eastern attributes as case-studies of US and UK company failures show.
These diverse models reflect more concentrated ownership, different cultures, and varied company law jurisdictions. But they also show different perceptions about the way power should be exercised over corporate entities. The eastern experience suggests that board leadership and board-level culture, in other words people and the way they behave, are more important than board structures and strictures, rules and regulations. New theoretical perspectives will need to embrace such diversity.