德国上市公司行为准则:内容、执行与实施

Thomas Stöber, Peter Kotzian
{"title":"德国上市公司行为准则:内容、执行与实施","authors":"Thomas Stöber, Peter Kotzian","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3455206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Apart from a few comparative surveys focusing on the largest companies, there are no content analyses of the codes of conduct of German companies. Due to country-specific differences in the legal, economic, and cultural environment, results of content analyses can hardly be transferred from one country to another. Refining existing coding schemes to include upcoming topics, like privacy consideration, but also code enforcement and implementation, we analyze the content, patterns, and anteceding background factors. Our findings indicate that while codes are very common nowadays, there are substantial differences in the degree to which codes address specific topics and functions. We find a single underlying dimension: the intensity of regulation. Codes are most elaborate in terms of what actors are supposed to do, while issues like guidance and enforcement are dealt with in less detail. Endorsement of the code by the top management is also quite low. As for background factors like sector and stock market segment, we find that regulatory intensity differs in line with stock market segment, which is not a proxy for company size but rather for the presence of companies in the public and regarding the code’s role, e.g., the preservation of a company’s image. Our study contributes to the literature by examining codes’ content of the largest German listed companies, which allows for both, international level comparisons and comparisons over time. In addition, we modified and disclosed a frequently used coding scheme that can be used for future research. Finally, we contribute to the business practice by generating a basis for benchmarking their code and giving recommendations for reconsidering their content and design.","PeriodicalId":181062,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Disclosure","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Codes of Conduct of German Public-Listed Companies: Content, Enforcement, and Implementation\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Stöber, Peter Kotzian\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3455206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Apart from a few comparative surveys focusing on the largest companies, there are no content analyses of the codes of conduct of German companies. Due to country-specific differences in the legal, economic, and cultural environment, results of content analyses can hardly be transferred from one country to another. Refining existing coding schemes to include upcoming topics, like privacy consideration, but also code enforcement and implementation, we analyze the content, patterns, and anteceding background factors. Our findings indicate that while codes are very common nowadays, there are substantial differences in the degree to which codes address specific topics and functions. We find a single underlying dimension: the intensity of regulation. Codes are most elaborate in terms of what actors are supposed to do, while issues like guidance and enforcement are dealt with in less detail. Endorsement of the code by the top management is also quite low. As for background factors like sector and stock market segment, we find that regulatory intensity differs in line with stock market segment, which is not a proxy for company size but rather for the presence of companies in the public and regarding the code’s role, e.g., the preservation of a company’s image. Our study contributes to the literature by examining codes’ content of the largest German listed companies, which allows for both, international level comparisons and comparisons over time. In addition, we modified and disclosed a frequently used coding scheme that can be used for future research. Finally, we contribute to the business practice by generating a basis for benchmarking their code and giving recommendations for reconsidering their content and design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":181062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance: Disclosure\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance: Disclosure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3455206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Disclosure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3455206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

除了针对最大公司的一些比较调查外,没有对德国公司行为准则的内容分析。由于各国法律、经济和文化环境的差异,内容分析的结果很难从一个国家转移到另一个国家。改进现有的编码方案以包含即将到来的主题,如隐私考虑,以及代码的执行和实现,我们分析了内容、模式和前面的背景因素。我们的研究结果表明,虽然代码现在非常普遍,但在代码处理特定主题和功能的程度上存在实质性差异。我们发现了一个潜在的维度:监管的强度。就行为者应该做什么而言,准则是最详尽的,而像指导和执行这样的问题则不太详细。高层管理人员对准则的认可程度也相当低。至于行业和股票市场细分等背景因素,我们发现监管强度根据股票市场细分而不同,这不是公司规模的代表,而是公司在公众中的存在以及代码的作用,例如,维护公司形象。我们的研究通过检查德国最大上市公司的代码内容来为文献做出贡献,这既可以进行国际水平的比较,也可以进行时间的比较。此外,我们修改并公开了一种常用的编码方案,可用于未来的研究。最后,我们通过生成基准测试代码的基础,并给出重新考虑其内容和设计的建议,从而为业务实践做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Codes of Conduct of German Public-Listed Companies: Content, Enforcement, and Implementation
Apart from a few comparative surveys focusing on the largest companies, there are no content analyses of the codes of conduct of German companies. Due to country-specific differences in the legal, economic, and cultural environment, results of content analyses can hardly be transferred from one country to another. Refining existing coding schemes to include upcoming topics, like privacy consideration, but also code enforcement and implementation, we analyze the content, patterns, and anteceding background factors. Our findings indicate that while codes are very common nowadays, there are substantial differences in the degree to which codes address specific topics and functions. We find a single underlying dimension: the intensity of regulation. Codes are most elaborate in terms of what actors are supposed to do, while issues like guidance and enforcement are dealt with in less detail. Endorsement of the code by the top management is also quite low. As for background factors like sector and stock market segment, we find that regulatory intensity differs in line with stock market segment, which is not a proxy for company size but rather for the presence of companies in the public and regarding the code’s role, e.g., the preservation of a company’s image. Our study contributes to the literature by examining codes’ content of the largest German listed companies, which allows for both, international level comparisons and comparisons over time. In addition, we modified and disclosed a frequently used coding scheme that can be used for future research. Finally, we contribute to the business practice by generating a basis for benchmarking their code and giving recommendations for reconsidering their content and design.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Do Firms Redact Information from Material Contracts to Conceal Bad News? Forecasting Shares Outstanding How Important Are Semi-Annual Earnings Announcements? An Information Event Perspective Tone at the Bottom: Measuring Corporate Misconduct Risk from the Text of Employee Reviews Hiding in Plain Sight: The Global Implications of Manager Disclosure
×
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