IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbr/cbrwps/wp221.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Influences Debates in Business Ethics? An Investigation into the Development of Corporate Governance in the UK since 1990

Author

Listed:
  • I Jones
  • M.G Pollitt

Abstract

We investigate the influences behind five major investigations into corporate governance in the UK since 1990: the Cadbury, Greenbury, Hampel and Turnbull Committees, and the Company Law Review. In each case we examine the roles of business, the authorities, public opinion and events in shaping the course of the investigation, its conclusions and its impact. We do this on the basis of interviews with members of the committees and analysis of newspaper coverage of the debates. The picture that emerges is one where the process of forming the investigating committee, its membership and its mode of operation strongly influence its recommendations and effectiveness. We draw conclusions that contrast the strong influence of the accountancy and legal professions in shaping the debate and the varied influence of the authorities, the media and events. Copyright Permission: Based on a chapter in Palgrave's forthcoming book: Jones, I & Pollitt, M (2002) Understanding How Issues in Business Ethics Develop. Reprinted with kind permission of the publisher.

Suggested Citation

  • I Jones & M.G Pollitt, 2001. "Who Influences Debates in Business Ethics? An Investigation into the Development of Corporate Governance in the UK since 1990," Working Papers wp221, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp221
    Note: PRO-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/cbrwp221/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shann Turnbull, 1997. "Corporate Governance: Its scope, concerns and theories," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(4), pages 180-205, October.
    2. Conyon, Martin J & Leech, Dennis, 1994. "Top Pay, Company Performance and Corporate Governance," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 56(3), pages 229-247, August.
    3. Sir Adrian Cadbury, 2000. "The Corporate Governance Agenda," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 7-15, January.
    4. Conyon, Martin J., 1997. "Corporate governance and executive compensation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 493-509, July.
    5. Robert Monks, 2000. "Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: the strategic framework," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 16-24, January.
    6. Ian Jones & Michael Pollitt (ed.), 1998. "The Role of Business Ethics in Economic Performance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-37979-4, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. RUGHOOBUR Soujata, 2018. "An Assessment Of Good Corporate Governance In State Owned Enterprises Of Mauritius," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 166-180, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    2. Rafel Crespí–Cladera & Carles Gispert, 2003. "Total Board Compensation, Governance and Performance of Spanish Listed Companies," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 17(1), pages 103-126, March.
    3. Agyei-Boapeah, Henry & Ntim, Collins G. & Fosu, Samuel, 2019. "Governance structures and the compensation of powerful corporate leaders in financial firms during M&As," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    4. Liu, Lisa Shifei & Stark, Andrew W., 2009. "Relative performance evaluation in board cash compensation: UK empirical evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 21-30.
    5. Paul Gregg & Sarah Jewell & Ian Tonks, 2005. "Executive Pay and Performance in the UK 1994-2002," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/122, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    6. Wright, Peter & Thompson, Steve & Girma, Sourafel, 2002. "Merger Activity and Executive Pay," CEPR Discussion Papers 3255, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Rafel Crespi-Cladera & Carles Gispert & Luc Renneboog, 2001. "Verringern Management-Entlohnungskosten die Agency-Kosten?: Empirische Evidenz von netzwerkorientierten und marktorientierten Unternehmenskontrollsystemen," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 70(2), pages 234-246.
    8. Hristos Doucouliagos & Janto Haman & T.D. Stanley, 2012. "Pay for Performance and Corporate Governance Reform," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 670-703, July.
    9. Firth, M. & Tam, M. & Tang, M., 1999. "The determinants of top management pay," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 617-635, December.
    10. M. Ali Choudhary & J. Michael Orszag, 2003. "Are Performance Conditions On Executive Options Driven By Fundamentals?," School of Economics Discussion Papers 1103, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
    11. Tahir Akhtar, 2024. "Blockchain Technology: the Beginning of a New Era in Reforming Corporate Governance Mechanisms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 3059-3084, March.
    12. Wu, Huiying & Li, Sihai & Ying, Sammy Xiaoyan & Chen, Xuan, 2018. "Politically connected CEOs, firm performance, and CEO pay," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 169-180.
    13. Unite, Angelo A. & Sullivan, Michael J. & Brookman, Jeffrey & Majadillas, Mary Anne & Taningco, Angelo, 2008. "Executive pay and firm performance in the Philippines," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 606-623, November.
    14. Wang, Qiong & Qiu, Muqing, 2023. "Strength in numbers: Minority shareholders' participation and executives' pay-performance sensitivity," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    15. Avalos, Marcos & Schatán, Claudia, 2004. "Condiciones de competencia en el contexto internacional: Cemento, azúcar y fertilizantes en Centroamérica," EGAP Working Papers 2004-08, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México.
    16. Dr. Abdullah Ahmed Aldaas & Dr. Suleiman Jamal Mohammad & Dr. Mohammad Yousef Abuhashesh, 2019. "Successful Implementation of Corporate Governance Mechanisms in Banks," Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS), , vol. 8(4), pages 692-710, October.
    17. Cate Watson & Gary Husband & Aileen Ireland, 2021. "Opening the ‘black box’: what does observational research reveal about processes and practices of governing?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(1), pages 189-221, March.
    18. Peter Heslam & Ian Jones & Michael Pollitt, 2009. "How a Social Capital Approach can help Multinationals show Ethical Leadership," Working Papers wp388, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    19. Titilope Esther Olorede & Segun Abogun & Johnson Kolawole Olowookere, 2022. "Executive Compensation, Corporate Governance and Financial Reporting Quality: Evidence from listed firms in Nigeria," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(93), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Mirjana Kuljak, 2014. "Phronetic research - Methodology that matters to corporate governance research," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 10(2), pages 79-88.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corporate governance; business ethics; influences; Cadbury Report; Greenbury Report; Hampel Report; Turnbull Report; Company Law Review;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.