scholarly journals Great Expectations: What shareholders and directors expect from New Zealand public company boards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
David Ware

<p>One of the key roles of corporate boards is to decide how the cash generated by these companies is distributed, and through these decisions they influence the wealth of many in our society. But beyond this task what is expected of corporate boards? Although researchers have spent decades examining boards, a general consensus regarding the objectives and tasks that they should perform has yet to emerge. Using a combination of primary and secondary research, this study examines the expectations that shareholders and directors have of corporate boards in New Zealand and identifies some concordance between their views and some of the extant literature. These findings highlight the contingent nature of corporate governance and provide guidance to both practitioners and future researchers.  New Zealand public companies were selected for this study because their directors and shareholders remain open to sharing their views and experiences with external researchers. New Zealand uses a straightforward variant of the common Anglo-Saxon corporate governance model so there is some potential to generalise to other contexts. Developing the foundation for this research required refreshing and extending the extant research concerning aspects of the NZ commercial environment including company ownership and control, shareholder and director demographics, and the underlying commercial environment. Subsequently, a mixed methods approach was adopted for the core study which included conducting focus groups and surveys with both shareholders and directors. Data were also derived from secondary sources including, company annual shareholder meeting minutes, the Companies Office’s records and the social media website Linkedin.  The research finds that while both directors’ and shareholders’ expectations of boards are broadly aligned, the expectations that both groups have of boards are heterogeneous in some key respects. Interestingly, the diversity of opinion that appears to exist within each of these groups tends to reflect the diversity that is apparent within the governance literature. Socio-economic factors including the influence of ‘women on boards’ lobby groups and company specific environmental factors such as a company’s financial position were identified as some of the influences which contribute to this diversity of opinion.  Environmental factors not only appear to influence the opinions of directors and shareholders but also appear to influence other aspects of corporate governance such as the selection of directors, and the tasks that boards choose to perform. This suggests that a pragmatic rather than a doctrinal basis for this heterogeneity is applicable. So rather than boards adhering to a specific pre-established framework such as ‘shareholder advocate’ or ‘company controller,’ corporate boards appear willing to adjust their objectives and practices to meet the circumstances at hand. For researchers, these findings emphasise the importance of considering contextual factors when designing corporate governance research projects. They also highlight the importance of understanding stakeholder motivations when applying common governance theories. From a policy perspective, the findings reinforce the advantages of the ‘comply or explain’ approach to regulation and they add caution to making local and international best practice guidelines mandatory.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
David Ware

<p>One of the key roles of corporate boards is to decide how the cash generated by these companies is distributed, and through these decisions they influence the wealth of many in our society. But beyond this task what is expected of corporate boards? Although researchers have spent decades examining boards, a general consensus regarding the objectives and tasks that they should perform has yet to emerge. Using a combination of primary and secondary research, this study examines the expectations that shareholders and directors have of corporate boards in New Zealand and identifies some concordance between their views and some of the extant literature. These findings highlight the contingent nature of corporate governance and provide guidance to both practitioners and future researchers.  New Zealand public companies were selected for this study because their directors and shareholders remain open to sharing their views and experiences with external researchers. New Zealand uses a straightforward variant of the common Anglo-Saxon corporate governance model so there is some potential to generalise to other contexts. Developing the foundation for this research required refreshing and extending the extant research concerning aspects of the NZ commercial environment including company ownership and control, shareholder and director demographics, and the underlying commercial environment. Subsequently, a mixed methods approach was adopted for the core study which included conducting focus groups and surveys with both shareholders and directors. Data were also derived from secondary sources including, company annual shareholder meeting minutes, the Companies Office’s records and the social media website Linkedin.  The research finds that while both directors’ and shareholders’ expectations of boards are broadly aligned, the expectations that both groups have of boards are heterogeneous in some key respects. Interestingly, the diversity of opinion that appears to exist within each of these groups tends to reflect the diversity that is apparent within the governance literature. Socio-economic factors including the influence of ‘women on boards’ lobby groups and company specific environmental factors such as a company’s financial position were identified as some of the influences which contribute to this diversity of opinion.  Environmental factors not only appear to influence the opinions of directors and shareholders but also appear to influence other aspects of corporate governance such as the selection of directors, and the tasks that boards choose to perform. This suggests that a pragmatic rather than a doctrinal basis for this heterogeneity is applicable. So rather than boards adhering to a specific pre-established framework such as ‘shareholder advocate’ or ‘company controller,’ corporate boards appear willing to adjust their objectives and practices to meet the circumstances at hand. For researchers, these findings emphasise the importance of considering contextual factors when designing corporate governance research projects. They also highlight the importance of understanding stakeholder motivations when applying common governance theories. From a policy perspective, the findings reinforce the advantages of the ‘comply or explain’ approach to regulation and they add caution to making local and international best practice guidelines mandatory.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Bilal Farooq ◽  
Rashid Zaman ◽  
Muhammad Nadeem

Purpose This study aims to evaluate corporate sustainability integration by evaluating corporate practices against the sustainability principles of inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact outlined in AccountAbility’s AA1000 Accountability Principles (AA1000AP) standard. Design/methodology/approach Data comprise 12 semi-structured interviews with senior managers of listed New Zealand companies. Findings are evaluated against AccountAbility’s principles of inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact, which are based on a normative view of stakeholder theory. Findings In terms of inclusivity, stakeholder engagement is primarily monologic and is directed more towards traditional stakeholder groups. However, social media, which is gaining popularity, has the potential to facilitate greater dialogic stakeholder engagement. While most companies undertake a materiality assessment (with varying degrees of rigour) to support sustainability reporting, only some use it to drive planning and decision-making. Companies demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder concerns through corporate governance and sustainability initiatives. Companies are monitoring and measuring their impact on stakeholders using sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs). However, measuring traditional metrics is easier than measuring areas such as the community. In rare instances, the executive’s remuneration is linked to these sustainability KPIs. Practical implications The study findings offer useful examples of the integration of sustainability into corporate processes and systems. Practitioners may find the insights useful in understanding how sustainability is currently being integrated into corporate practices by best practice New Zealand companies. Regulators may consider incorporating AA1000AP into their corporate governance guidelines. Finally, academics may find the study useful for teaching business and accounting courses and to guide the next generation of business managers. Originality/value First, the study brings together four streams of research on how sustainability reports are prepared (inclusivity, materiality, responsiveness and impact) in a single study. Second, the findings offer novel insights by evaluating corporate sustainability against the requirements of a standard that has received little academic attention.


2019 ◽  
pp. 223-334
Author(s):  
Carsten Gerner-Beuerle ◽  
Michael Schillig

This chapter first analyses whether the corporation is merely a profit-maximizing entity or performs a more inclusive, social function. It then discusses some basic economic concepts that are important to understand the underlying conflicts that corporate governance regulation seeks to address, such as efficiency, incomplete contracts, and agency costs. Next, it examines the goals that corporate governance regulation in the United States, the UK, Germany, and France pursues, and gives an overview of the evolution of the corporate governance movement, which started in the United States in the 1970s. The chapter then introduces the most important corporate actors—officers, directors, and shareholders—and explores whether the ownership structure of public stock corporations has changed over time and continues to differ between countries. The final section analyses how corporate boards are designed, and how best practice standards contained in corporate governance codes shape the composition of boards.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Tebogo Israel Teddy Magang ◽  
Veronica Goitsemang Magang

This paper aims to provide a theoretical analysis on the relationship between nationality/ethnicity and compliance with international best practice corporate governance principles. Using Hofstede-Gray cultural-accounting dimensions, the paper attempts to demonstrate that the Ubuntu/Botho culture may in some instances promote/not promote compliance with international best practice corporate governance principles because of the value system(s) of this culture. In view of this, the paper further attempts to present a case for diversity in corporate boards and executive management to enhance corporate compliance with best practice corporate governance principles, performance, disclosure etc. in line with the literature and theoretical arguments on diversity.On one hand, this paper provides future research an opportunity to empirically assess the relationship between corporate compliance with international best practice and nationality/ethnicity (Ubuntu/Botho culture). Future research could also investigate whether the Ubuntu/Botho values hold true today in view of the autocratic regimes in the African continent which have perfected a culture of impunity, corruption and bad governance.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ammad Ahmed ◽  
Helen Higgs ◽  
Chew Ng ◽  
Deborah Anne Delaney

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the determinants of women representation on Australian corporate boards under the ASX’s “if not, why not” corporate governance framework. It further aims to improve the study of Geiger and Marlin (2012) by using a theoretically sound two-limit Tobit model to examine the determinants. Design/methodology/approach This study uses the two-limit Tobit model to examine the determinants of women representation on ASX 500 boards. This approach is used due to the censored nature of the dependent variable. Findings This study finds that the two-limit Tobit model is an appropriate methodology to accommodate the censored dependent variable. It further finds that firm size, women as chair of boards, corporate governance index, Global Reporting Initiative signatory, debt ratio, average board age, BIG4 auditors, chief executive officer tenure and shareholder concentration are major determinants of women on boards. Research limitations/implications The use of only ASX 500 companies and the sample years (2011-2014) may limit the generalisation of the findings. Originality/value This is the first extensive longitudinal Australian study to examine the drivers of women representation on corporate boards. It is also the first of its kind to use the two-limit Tobit model to consider these determinants.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Sara De Masi ◽  
Andrea Zorzi

In companies with a controlling shareholder the agency relationship between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders poses significant issue. Managers may pursue, rather than the interests of the company as a whole, the interest of the controlling shareholder. When there is a controlling shareholder, independent directors may not prove sufficient to monitor the management behaviour, given that they are ultimately appointed by the same controlling shareholder whose possible opportunistic behaviour they are meant to constrain. Therefore, minority shareholders may be given appointment rights to the board: directors elected by minority shareholders may work as a corporate governance mechanism that fosters the board&rsquo;s willingness and ability to monitor managers&rsquo; behaviour, on the assumption that managers are appointed by the controlling shareholder. This paper examines empirically whether having a minority-elected director on corporate boards increases the ability of the board to monitor management behaviour. Using a sample of the largest listed Italian companies in years 2008-2017, we find that minority-elected directors have a positive and statistically significant effect on board monitoring tasks. We also document that this effect is higher when they are elected by institutional investors. Our results have important implications for policy makers and, more generally, corporate governance best practice in all contexts in which companies have a concentrated ownership structure.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Tayyaba Noor Asghar

With the increased attention given to corporate governance, there has been more focus on the lack of gender diversity in corporate boards. Within the context of corporate governance, this research focuses on the gender diversity in the boardrooms and to evaluate how the percentage of female directors on a company’s board affects the firm’s performance. For this purpose, Gender diversity in both Norway and in the Pakistan are studied, but this study more focuses on the Pakistan’s board gender diversity, legislations, implementation and its impact on company’s performance, this study also focuses on Norwegian experience and the impact of the Norwegian gender diversity rule. This study is conducted by a qualitative research and a socio-legal research methodology due to library based and its mixed nature of being legal and corporate respectively. This study is also based on primary as well as secondary sources. The results of this study show that there is observable performance benefit to adding more females to the board of directors. Companies found a significant and positive relationship between the percentage of women on the board and performance. These results suggest that if Pakistan decides to adopt strong legislation for corporations in relation to gender diversity and implement them; it will observe significant improvement in firm performance.


Author(s):  
William R. Wilson ◽  
John F. Pinfold ◽  
Lawrence C. Rose

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document