The emerging European corporate governance model: Anglo-Saxon, Continental, or still the century of diversity?

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucian Cernat
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Corporate Governance Model ◽  
European Corporate Governance

scholarly journals The Italian two-tiers model. Evidence and comparison with some other countries

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 388-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Provasi ◽  
Patrizia Lucia Maria Riva
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Dual Model ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Tier System ◽  
And Control ◽  
Corporate Governance Model ◽  
First Time

New dynamics and globalized economy has led to the need to modify the Corporate Governance systems. Many countries have not identified a unique model for the company management but they allow free choice between continuing to use the traditional models adopted by the country itself or implementing different models sometimes considered more suitable with the aims and operational management of the companies. The new Corporate Governance model introduced in the most global jurisdictions is the two-tiers model (or dual model) considered the most suitable to achieve a better separation between ownership and control and to ensure a better transparency. The introduction of the two-tier system of Corporate Governance is not without uncertainty; it has affected all countries except the Anglo-Saxon ones. The purpose of this research is to investigate the features of the dualistic governance model in some countries different for their culture and legislative system. In particular the research aims to point out the characteristics of the dual model introduced for the first time in the Italian Legal System by Law No. 6/2003 and to perform a comparative analysis with the most consolidated two-tiers model implemented in Germany (which is considered the benchmark), in some other European countries (France and the Nordic countries) and with the experiences of Asian countries and in particular of Japan. From the comparative analysis we try to understand whether differences in purposes and ways of implementation can be pointed out

scholarly journals A Study of Institutional Change: Corporate Governance Reform in Britain

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-47
Author(s):  
Tae-Soo Ha
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Governance Reform ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Finance Industry ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Corporate Governance Reform ◽  
Industry Relationship ◽  
Corporate Governance Model

This article analyzes corporate governance reform in Britain from the viewpoint of historical institutionalism. There have been three stages of reforms since the early-1970s: pure self-regulation, semi-statutory self-regulation and statutory regualtion. Despite these changes, however, there appeared institutional persistence, the maintenance of the Anglo-Saxon Corporate Governance Model. Although there had been several movements that had intended to introduce the Germany-originated Rhine Model to Britain, they all failed. This phenomenon resulted from three institutional structures: the Outside Initiative Policy Agenda-Setting Model, finance-dominating finance-industry relationship and the relatively strong and autonomous status of the British economy within the world economy.

Examination of the Institutional and Regulatory Framework for Corporate Human Rights Accountability in South Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-175
Author(s):  
Abiodun Jacob Osuntogun
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Wide Gap ◽  
Corporate Governance Model

This article examines the existing statutory and institutional framework for corporate human rights accountability in South Africa. It considers the questions whether corporations are duty bearers and whether they have responsibilities or obligations to respect human rights and the mode of corporate governance model adopted to regulate them. It argues that although the Bill of Rights adequately provides for the culture and entrenchment of corporate accountability for human rights, the possibility of achieving its objective is not certain because there is a wide gap between the fulfilment of the vision of the Constitution and the mechanism adopted for its realisation.

The Merit of the DATA Act to Enhance the Governmental Reporting Process: A Corporate Governance Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Errichetti ◽  
Saeed J. Roohani
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Information Flows ◽  
Corporate Context ◽  
Governance Model ◽  
Reporting Process ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Corporate Governance Model ◽  
Conceptual Link

ABSTRACT This paper utilizes corporate governance concepts to assess the merit of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). The paper first compares the information flows seen in a corporate context to those seen in a governmental reporting context. The paper then utilizes agency theory to establish a conceptual link between the two reporting processes. This conceptual link is used to identify common goals between the participants in the information flows. Following this, a corporate governance model is used to outline factors that contribute to effective corporate governance. This governance model is then used as a basis for assessing the merit of the DATA Act. After this, differences between the participants in the information flows are discussed and limitations of the paper are acknowledged. The paper suggests that the DATA Act has merit due to its potential to improve transparency and monitoring in the governmental reporting process. Increased data timeliness and usability will enhance transparency, while improvements in automation, data transfer, and data analytics will improve monitoring. The conclusions of this paper have implications for the participants in the governmental reporting process including government agencies, legislators, regulatory bodies, contractors, non-voting taxpayers, and members of the voting public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document