The Supervisory Board Report: Little Insight About Oversight

M. Lückerath-Rovers, M. Scheltema
{"title":"The Supervisory Board Report: Little Insight About Oversight","authors":"M. Lückerath-Rovers, M. Scheltema","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1748485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates to what extent the report by the Supervisory Board (hereafter: the SB-report) provides the reader with useful information. We investigate this for sixty companies testing all requirements regarding the SB-report. First of all, we investigate whether the SB-report fulfils the formal requirements. Furthermore, a judgment is being rendered regarding the degree of insight that the report provides to the user. Our investigation shows that little insight can be obtained about the way in which the SB monitors the Management Board (hereafter: MB), even though the Dutch Corporate Governance Code (hereafter: the Code) requires this. Thus, we plead for the Code to become more descriptive in this respect. At the same time, we give examples of SB-reports that, in our view, do provide adequate insight, albeit occasionally. This article contributes to the discussion about the openness that Bs are prepared to give regarding their work. The way in which SBs operate is often felt as being a “black box”. Even though shareholders may query the SBs about the execution of their Supervision of the MB at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, they – like other stakeholders – have little information at hand to form themselves a reasonable impression thereof. This article not only contains a theoretical section regarding the use of transparency and legal requirements, but also takes a look at current practices. The article closes with some recommendations that may contribute to the quality of SB-reports.","PeriodicalId":343950,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: International/Non-US eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: International/Non-US eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1748485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article investigates to what extent the report by the Supervisory Board (hereafter: the SB-report) provides the reader with useful information. We investigate this for sixty companies testing all requirements regarding the SB-report. First of all, we investigate whether the SB-report fulfils the formal requirements. Furthermore, a judgment is being rendered regarding the degree of insight that the report provides to the user. Our investigation shows that little insight can be obtained about the way in which the SB monitors the Management Board (hereafter: MB), even though the Dutch Corporate Governance Code (hereafter: the Code) requires this. Thus, we plead for the Code to become more descriptive in this respect. At the same time, we give examples of SB-reports that, in our view, do provide adequate insight, albeit occasionally. This article contributes to the discussion about the openness that Bs are prepared to give regarding their work. The way in which SBs operate is often felt as being a “black box”. Even though shareholders may query the SBs about the execution of their Supervision of the MB at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, they – like other stakeholders – have little information at hand to form themselves a reasonable impression thereof. This article not only contains a theoretical section regarding the use of transparency and legal requirements, but also takes a look at current practices. The article closes with some recommendations that may contribute to the quality of SB-reports.
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
监事会报告:对监管缺乏了解
本文调查了监事会报告(以下简称sb报告)在多大程度上为读者提供了有用的信息。我们对60家公司进行了调查,测试了与sb报告相关的所有需求。首先,我们调查sb -报告是否满足正式要求。此外,正在对报告向用户提供的洞察力程度作出判断。我们的调查显示,尽管《荷兰公司治理守则》(以下简称《守则》)要求这样做,但关于董事会监督管理委员会(以下简称“MB”)的方式,我们几乎没有得到什么见解。因此,我们请求《治罪法》在这方面更加具有描述性。同时,我们给出了sb报告的例子,在我们看来,这些报告确实提供了足够的洞察力,尽管偶尔如此。本文有助于讨论b准备对其工作的开放性。SBs的运作方式通常被认为是一个“黑盒子”。尽管股东可能会在股东年会上询问SBs对MB的监督执行情况,但他们-像其他利益相关者一样-手头的信息很少,无法形成合理的印象。本文不仅包含关于透明度的使用和法律要求的理论部分,而且还介绍了当前的实践。本文最后给出了一些可能有助于提高sb报告质量的建议。
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
New Japan’s Corporate Governance Code and its Scrutiny from the Perspective of 'Sustainable Growth of the Company and Improvement of Medium-to Long-Term Corporate Value' (Presentation Slides) Cross-Border Mergers: What does Market reaction tell us about Post-Merger Performance? Country‐, Firm‐ and Director‐level Risk and Responsibilities and Independent Director Compensation Decoding the Distribution of House Price & Income Mix Ratio (HPIMR) to Calculate the Proportionate Investments required for Housing Demand based on Affordability in India at the Country Level Alibaba: A Case Study of Synthetic Control
×
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:604180095
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