Boards in Information Governance

Faith Stevelman, Sarah C. Haan
{"title":"Boards in Information Governance","authors":"Faith Stevelman, Sarah C. Haan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3593623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article charts the decline of the two leading twentieth-century paradigms of corporate governance: the agency-cost theory, which produced the limited “monitoring board,” and the “separate realms” theory, which deferred consideration of all matters other than profit to government regulation. Repeated stock market crashes and hedge fund activism have exposed the limits of the agency-cost theory. A global pandemic and financial crisis, investor demands for corporate social responsibility and stewardship, and corporations’ own participation in the political process have made separate realms thinking nearly irrelevant. We argue that, while much of corporate law theory remains constrained by these twin paradigms, the practice of board governance has largely moved beyond them. The economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, has sent public company boards into high gear, forcing them to look beyond stock prices, to engage the firm’s full capacity for information gathering and synthesis, and to actively command the firm’s systems of internal and external communication. Even before a global pandemic placed heightened demands on corporate boards, the trend toward information-based governance was well underway, catalyzed by new legal requirements, industry best practices, committee charters, fiduciary duties, and investor demands for more active board governance. It has been observable in audit committees’ increased participation in financial reporting, the expanding application of boards’ knowledge about the firm to strategic advising and to executive compensation decisions, and boards’ greater role in decision-making about risk management, legal compliance, and ESG matters. To capture the board’s investment in data gathering, deliberation, and reporting processes as constitutive of the firm’s status, and the board’s strategic management and authoritative deployment of knowledge and communication, we label this new board governance “informational governance.” Informational governance includes a robust role for corporate boards in communicative action—the active creation and deployment of the firm’s self-knowledge—recognizing an important, value-creating role for boards that has long been discouraged by the “monitoring board” conceit. Focusing on informational governance helps sharpen our understanding of the board’s role in corporate strategy, an overlooked subject in the corporate law literature, but one that has assumed new importance in the postpandemic era. We identify some areas in which the law is likely to evolve as this new, technologically-enhanced, information-rich paradigm continues to cohere.","PeriodicalId":256682,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Board Decision-Making (Topic)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Board Decision-Making (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This Article charts the decline of the two leading twentieth-century paradigms of corporate governance: the agency-cost theory, which produced the limited “monitoring board,” and the “separate realms” theory, which deferred consideration of all matters other than profit to government regulation. Repeated stock market crashes and hedge fund activism have exposed the limits of the agency-cost theory. A global pandemic and financial crisis, investor demands for corporate social responsibility and stewardship, and corporations’ own participation in the political process have made separate realms thinking nearly irrelevant. We argue that, while much of corporate law theory remains constrained by these twin paradigms, the practice of board governance has largely moved beyond them. The economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, has sent public company boards into high gear, forcing them to look beyond stock prices, to engage the firm’s full capacity for information gathering and synthesis, and to actively command the firm’s systems of internal and external communication. Even before a global pandemic placed heightened demands on corporate boards, the trend toward information-based governance was well underway, catalyzed by new legal requirements, industry best practices, committee charters, fiduciary duties, and investor demands for more active board governance. It has been observable in audit committees’ increased participation in financial reporting, the expanding application of boards’ knowledge about the firm to strategic advising and to executive compensation decisions, and boards’ greater role in decision-making about risk management, legal compliance, and ESG matters. To capture the board’s investment in data gathering, deliberation, and reporting processes as constitutive of the firm’s status, and the board’s strategic management and authoritative deployment of knowledge and communication, we label this new board governance “informational governance.” Informational governance includes a robust role for corporate boards in communicative action—the active creation and deployment of the firm’s self-knowledge—recognizing an important, value-creating role for boards that has long been discouraged by the “monitoring board” conceit. Focusing on informational governance helps sharpen our understanding of the board’s role in corporate strategy, an overlooked subject in the corporate law literature, but one that has assumed new importance in the postpandemic era. We identify some areas in which the law is likely to evolve as this new, technologically-enhanced, information-rich paradigm continues to cohere.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
资讯管治委员会
这篇文章描绘了20世纪两种主要的公司治理范式的衰落:代理成本理论,它产生了有限的“监督委员会”,以及“独立领域”理论,它把除利润以外的所有问题都推迟到政府监管的考虑。反复出现的股市崩盘和对冲基金的激进主义暴露了代理成本理论的局限性。全球流行病和金融危机,投资者对企业社会责任和管理的要求,以及企业自身对政治进程的参与,使得独立领域的思考几乎无关紧要。我们认为,尽管许多公司法理论仍然受到这两种范式的约束,但董事会治理的实践在很大程度上已经超越了它们。特别是2019冠状病毒病大流行带来的经济冲击,使上市公司董事会进入了高速运转状态,迫使他们超越股价,充分发挥公司收集和综合信息的能力,并积极指挥公司的内部和外部沟通系统。即使在全球大流行对公司董事会提出更高要求之前,在新的法律要求、行业最佳实践、委员会章程、信托责任和投资者对更积极的董事会治理的要求的推动下,基于信息的治理趋势就已经在进行中。审计委员会越来越多地参与财务报告,董事会对公司的了解越来越多地应用于战略咨询和高管薪酬决策,董事会在风险管理、法律合规和ESG事务决策中发挥了更大的作用,这些都可以观察到这一点。为了将董事会在数据收集、审议和报告过程中的投资作为公司地位的组成部分,以及董事会的战略管理和知识和沟通的权威部署,我们将这种新的董事会治理称为“信息治理”。信息治理包括公司董事会在沟通行动中发挥强有力的作用——积极创造和部署公司的自我认识——认识到董事会长期以来被“监督董事会”自负所阻碍的重要的、创造价值的作用。关注信息治理有助于加深我们对董事会在公司战略中的作用的理解,这是公司法文献中被忽视的一个主题,但在大流行后时代,它被赋予了新的重要性。随着这种新的、技术增强的、信息丰富的范式继续凝聚,我们确定了法律可能演变的一些领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of Shariah supervisory board and Shariah audit committee on CSR adoption at Islamic banks Nudging Toward Diversity in the Boardroom: A Systematic Literature Review of Board Diversity of Financial Institutions Activist Settlements COVID-19 Pandemic: Emerging Board and Governance Considerations Boards in Information Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1