03 Dec 2009
Companies’ stakeholders will have to engage more with the board and help influence its governance following the introduction of new corporate governance guidelines.
A stewardship code, suggested as part of the Walker Review of banking governance, will be implemented by The Financial Reporting Council across all business.
The code will encourage institutional investors to become more proactive in companies’ governance, while the FRC will also look to increase dialogue between a board and other investors.
Advisers welcomed the plan as important in helping boards put together a strong governance strategy.
“After all, the principle of comply or explain depends in large measure on shareholders taking notice of the extent to which their companies account for themselves if/when their governance differs from the code,” said Richard Wilson, Ernst & Young audit partner and leader of its independent director programme.
The recommendations were a highlight of its reform for the Combined Code on Corporate Governance, and comes as a direct response to issues that emerged during the credit crunch.
It is proposing much greater accountability to shareholders through the annual re-election of company chairman or the whole board.
Boards should also be externally evaluated at least every three years, according to the watchdog.
FRC chairman Sir Christopher Hogg said that the FRC had failed to find widespread failing in corporate governance outside the banking sector but believes the changes would benefit all businesses.
“The principal lesson of the financial crisis is that those on boards must think deeply about their individual and collective roles and responsibilities. The chairman has a vital role to play in ensuring that the executives have appropriate freedom to manage the business but also accept the importance of opening themselves to challenge and earning the trust of the whole board. For their part, the non-executives must have the skills, experience and courage to provide such challenge.”
Sir Christopher also stressed the need for shareholders to consider the actions of company boards “seriously”. The FRC will take on the management of the new code for shareholders on the invitation of government.
The code’s name will also change to the UK Corporate Governance Code.
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
All the King's Horses
Re stakeholder engagement - it's a huge and diverse group of non-hetrogenous interests that will need to be considered.
Specifically, apropos shareholders, should investors not just invest (better) and directors direct/manage? Discuss. Or am I neaanderthal?
But where is this great active/engaged investor dividend? How do we measure it? Hindsight?
If companies best people spend all their time "engaging" which bright sparks are running the business?
And please direct me to these very self-righteous people who intend to engage with boards. What is their experience and expertise? If directors are yet again to asked for greater appraisal will this apply to investors and fund managers too? If say they do not beat index benchmarks will they be fired and/or subjected to opprobrium?
And further (!) if boards are doing what investors demand then surely they will have to share the personal liabilities that directors face?
My best governance belly laugh comes from the time that a well known fund manager which is owned by a well known plc suggested to Tim Martin at Wetherspoon that the mix of owned and managed pubs was wrong and should be fixed. Mr Martin was able to prove what he was being asked to do was the diametric opposite of what WAS actually making money for shareholders.
Gosh what a rant - I feel so much better!
Posted by: Douglas McBean, 04 Dec 2009 | 00:00