跳出框框思考——消除新公司治理准则中“打勾”的危害

Bobby V. Reddy
{"title":"跳出框框思考——消除新公司治理准则中“打勾”的危害","authors":"Bobby V. Reddy","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 16 July 2018, a new corporate governance code was published. Like previous iterations, it applies on a ‘comply‐or‐explain’ basis, whereby companies are required to either comply with provisions or explain reasons for non‐compliance. However, the new code substantially simplified the previous version of the code in an attempt to attenuate the process of ‘box‐ticking’. Box‐ticking manifests itself firstly, by companies complying with the letter rather than the spirit of the provisions, and, second, by companies not utilising the inherent flexibility of the code to implement their optimum firm‐specific governance structures by explaining rather than complying. This article elucidates the history of box‐ticking, and the reasons why companies succumb to it, since Adrian Cadbury pioneered the concept of ‘comply‐or‐explain’ in 1992, before proposing an exclusively principles‐driven approach to the corporate governance code which would alleviate box‐ticking and fulfill the original aspirations of Cadbury over a quarter of a century ago.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking Outside the Box – Eliminating the Perniciousness of Box‐Ticking in the New Corporate Governance Code\",\"authors\":\"Bobby V. Reddy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 16 July 2018, a new corporate governance code was published. Like previous iterations, it applies on a ‘comply‐or‐explain’ basis, whereby companies are required to either comply with provisions or explain reasons for non‐compliance. However, the new code substantially simplified the previous version of the code in an attempt to attenuate the process of ‘box‐ticking’. Box‐ticking manifests itself firstly, by companies complying with the letter rather than the spirit of the provisions, and, second, by companies not utilising the inherent flexibility of the code to implement their optimum firm‐specific governance structures by explaining rather than complying. This article elucidates the history of box‐ticking, and the reasons why companies succumb to it, since Adrian Cadbury pioneered the concept of ‘comply‐or‐explain’ in 1992, before proposing an exclusively principles‐driven approach to the corporate governance code which would alleviate box‐ticking and fulfill the original aspirations of Cadbury over a quarter of a century ago.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

2018年7月16日,新的公司治理准则发布。像以前的迭代一样,它适用于‘comply‐或‐explain’基础,据此要求公司要么遵守规定,要么解释不遵守规定的原因。但是,新代码大大简化了前一版本的代码,试图减弱‘box‐ticking’的过程。首先,公司遵守条文而不是条文的精神,其次,公司没有利用守则固有的灵活性,通过解释而不是遵守来实施其最佳的公司具体治理结构。本文阐述了box‐tick的历史,以及公司屈服于它的原因,因为Adrian Cadbury率先提出了‘compliance ‐或‐explain’1992年,他提出了一种完全以原则为导向的公司治理准则,这种准则将减轻公司的滴答声,并实现吉百利25年前的最初愿望。
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
Thinking Outside the Box – Eliminating the Perniciousness of Box‐Ticking in the New Corporate Governance Code
On 16 July 2018, a new corporate governance code was published. Like previous iterations, it applies on a ‘comply‐or‐explain’ basis, whereby companies are required to either comply with provisions or explain reasons for non‐compliance. However, the new code substantially simplified the previous version of the code in an attempt to attenuate the process of ‘box‐ticking’. Box‐ticking manifests itself firstly, by companies complying with the letter rather than the spirit of the provisions, and, second, by companies not utilising the inherent flexibility of the code to implement their optimum firm‐specific governance structures by explaining rather than complying. This article elucidates the history of box‐ticking, and the reasons why companies succumb to it, since Adrian Cadbury pioneered the concept of ‘comply‐or‐explain’ in 1992, before proposing an exclusively principles‐driven approach to the corporate governance code which would alleviate box‐ticking and fulfill the original aspirations of Cadbury over a quarter of a century ago.
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
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
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