|
"Corporate
Governance is concerned with holding the balance between economic
and social goals and between individual and communal goals. The
corporate governance framework is there to encourage the efficient
use of resources and equally to require accountability for the stewardship
of those resources. The aim is to align as nearly as possible the
interests of individuals, corporations and society" (Sir Adrian
Cadbury in 'Global Corporate Governance Forum', World Bank, 2000)
|
|
The
basis for recent international work (see, for instance, the World
Bank's work in www.gcgF.org
on Corporate Governance is the OECD "Principles of Corporate Governance"
(www.OECD.org)
which cover the rights of shareholders, the equitable treatment
of shareholders, the role of stakeholders in corporate governance,
disclosure and transparency and the responsibilities of the board.
The World Bank notes, however, that there is no single model of
corporate governance with systems varying by country, sector and
even in the same corporation over time. Among the most prominent
systems are the US and UK models, which focus on dispersed controls;
and the German and Japanese models which reflect a more concentrated
ownership structure.
|
|
Corporate
social responsibility is concerned with treating the stakeholders
of the firm ethically or in a socially responsible manner. Stakeholders
exist both within a firm and outside. Consequently, behaving socially
responsibly will increase the human development of stakeholders
both within and outside the corporation. This definition (from glossary)
is much wider than the stakeholder definition used, to date, by
the OECD and the World Bank. For instance the OECD principles imply
that a key role for stakeholders is concerned with ensuring the
flow of external capital to firms and that stakeholders are protected
by law and have access to disclosure. While the World Bank have
been intrigued by a June 2000 Investor Opinion Survey of McKinsey
(survey)
that finds that investors say that board governance is as important
as financial performance in their investment decisions and that
across Latin America, Europe, the USA and Asia investors (over 80%
of those interviewed) would be willing to pay more for a company
with good board governance practices. 'Poor governance' was defined
by McKinsey as a company that has:
|
|
-
Minority of outside directors
- Outside directors have financial ties with management
- Directors own little or no stock
- Directors compensated only with cash
- No formal director evaluation process
- Very unresponsive to investor requests for information on governance
issues
|
|
'Good
governance' was defined by McKinsey as:
|
|
-
Majority of outside directors
- Outside directors are truly independent, no management ties
- Directors have significant stockholdings
- Large proportion of director pay is stock/options
- Formal director evaluation in place
- Very responsive to investor requests for information on governance
issues
|
Given
the questions, it is not surprising that the figure of 80% was arrived
at, but the point is that 'Good Governance' has a very narrow fit
to the OECD principles and even narrower when compared with corporate
social responsibility sentiments. |
Nevertheless,
there is increasing advocacy of a broader and more inclusive concept
of corporate governance that extends to corporate responsibility and
has a wider concept of 'stakeholder' than that used by the OECD (see
schematic). These ideas are reflected in the King Report for South
Africa, the Commonwealth principles of business practice, the UK's
Tomorrow's Company etc. |
Schematic
kindly supplied with permission of Mervyn King of the King Commission,
South Africa |
In
conclusion, the notion of corporate governance fits well into current
concerns of management structure at the top of corporations and is
becoming increasingly better defined thanks to the work of the World
Bank and OECD etc., but hardly encompasses the concerns of corporate
social responsibility notions. On the other hand, notions of corporate
social responsibility have not advanced as far as the corporate governance
school with its agreed set of principles. There is light on the horizon
thanks to work by King and others and also in the Cadbury definition
itself that notes that the aim of corporate governance is to align
as nearly as possible the interests of individuals, corporations and
society. |
[Contributed
by Michael Hopkins with thanks to an interview with Alyssa Machold
of the Private Sector Governance Group, World Bank, Washington, DC] |