反思南非的公司治理:经验教训和未来之路

Marilee van Zyl, Nadia Mans-Kemp
{"title":"反思南非的公司治理:经验教训和未来之路","authors":"Marilee van Zyl, Nadia Mans-Kemp","doi":"10.25159/1998-8125/6654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: South Africa is a corporate governance pioneer. The King Reports have offered guidance to listed companies in the country since 1994 and unlisted entities since 2016. In the drive for corporate change, attention is increasingly placed on the role of activist shareholders, in particular institutional investors, given the size of their investments.\nPurpose/objectives: This study aimed to gauge institutional investors’ views on the differences between the King III and IV Reports related to positive aspects and room for improvement.\nDesign/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected institutional investors. Themes were then derived by conducting an interpretive thematic analysis.\nFindings: Interviewees commended the format and scope of the latest King Report but suggested that outcomes-based training should be offered to directors to ease implementation. Executive remuneration, director independence and auditor independence were highlighted as areas that require attention. Some interviewees questioned whether the current non-binding vote on executive remuneration is sufficient. They suggested that executive remuneration should be tied to performance outcomes across the triple bottom line. Participants recommended that director independence should be considered on a case-by-case basis, instead of strictly applying King IV’s suggested tenure guideline. Furthermore, mandatory audit firm rotation could enhance auditor independence, and hence transparency. Stakeholders are encouraged to demand enhanced transparency on corporate matters to enable more informed decision-making.","PeriodicalId":44582,"journal":{"name":"Southern African Business Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflecting on Corporate Governance in South Africa: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward\",\"authors\":\"Marilee van Zyl, Nadia Mans-Kemp\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/1998-8125/6654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: South Africa is a corporate governance pioneer. The King Reports have offered guidance to listed companies in the country since 1994 and unlisted entities since 2016. In the drive for corporate change, attention is increasingly placed on the role of activist shareholders, in particular institutional investors, given the size of their investments.\\nPurpose/objectives: This study aimed to gauge institutional investors’ views on the differences between the King III and IV Reports related to positive aspects and room for improvement.\\nDesign/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected institutional investors. Themes were then derived by conducting an interpretive thematic analysis.\\nFindings: Interviewees commended the format and scope of the latest King Report but suggested that outcomes-based training should be offered to directors to ease implementation. Executive remuneration, director independence and auditor independence were highlighted as areas that require attention. Some interviewees questioned whether the current non-binding vote on executive remuneration is sufficient. They suggested that executive remuneration should be tied to performance outcomes across the triple bottom line. Participants recommended that director independence should be considered on a case-by-case basis, instead of strictly applying King IV’s suggested tenure guideline. Furthermore, mandatory audit firm rotation could enhance auditor independence, and hence transparency. Stakeholders are encouraged to demand enhanced transparency on corporate matters to enable more informed decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern African Business Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern African Business Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/1998-8125/6654\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern African Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/1998-8125/6654","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:南非是公司治理的先驱。《King报告》自1994年起为中国上市公司提供指导,自2016年起为非上市实体提供指导。在推动企业变革的过程中,考虑到维权股东(尤其是机构投资者)的投资规模,他们的作用日益受到关注。目的/目标:本研究旨在评估机构投资者对King III和King IV报告在积极方面和改进空间方面的差异的看法。设计/方法/方法:对选定的机构投资者进行半结构化访谈。然后通过解释性主题分析得出主题。调查结果:受访者对最新的King报告的格式和范围表示赞赏,但建议应向董事提供基于结果的培训,以简化实施。高管薪酬、董事独立性和审计师独立性被强调为需要关注的领域。一些受访者质疑,目前对高管薪酬的无约束力投票是否足够。他们建议,高管薪酬应与整个三重底线的业绩结果挂钩。与会者建议,应根据具体情况考虑董事独立性,而不是严格执行国王四世建议的任期指导原则。此外,强制性的审计事务所轮转可以提高审计师的独立性,从而提高透明度。鼓励持份者要求提高公司事务的透明度,使决策更明智。
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
Reflecting on Corporate Governance in South Africa: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward
Background: South Africa is a corporate governance pioneer. The King Reports have offered guidance to listed companies in the country since 1994 and unlisted entities since 2016. In the drive for corporate change, attention is increasingly placed on the role of activist shareholders, in particular institutional investors, given the size of their investments. Purpose/objectives: This study aimed to gauge institutional investors’ views on the differences between the King III and IV Reports related to positive aspects and room for improvement. Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected institutional investors. Themes were then derived by conducting an interpretive thematic analysis. Findings: Interviewees commended the format and scope of the latest King Report but suggested that outcomes-based training should be offered to directors to ease implementation. Executive remuneration, director independence and auditor independence were highlighted as areas that require attention. Some interviewees questioned whether the current non-binding vote on executive remuneration is sufficient. They suggested that executive remuneration should be tied to performance outcomes across the triple bottom line. Participants recommended that director independence should be considered on a case-by-case basis, instead of strictly applying King IV’s suggested tenure guideline. Furthermore, mandatory audit firm rotation could enhance auditor independence, and hence transparency. Stakeholders are encouraged to demand enhanced transparency on corporate matters to enable more informed decision-making.
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
6
期刊最新文献
Student Entrepreneurship Support at South African Public Universities: An Ecosystem Perspective Improving Automotive Component Supplier Service through Physical Distribution Activities to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) The Role of Social Network Brand Personality in a Consumer-Brand Relational Model Value Network Configuration and Competitiveness of Emerging Agricultural Cooperatives in the Central Free State of South Africa Incubate-Based Challenges and Deficiencies to Successful Business Incubation in Northern Cape, South Africa
×
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