Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Beyond shareholder primacy? Reflections on the trajectory of UK corporate governance.

By J. Armour, S. Deakin and Suzanne J. Konzelmann

Abstract

Core institutions of UK corporate governance, in particular the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, the Combined Code on Corporate Governance and the law on directors’ duties, are strongly orientated towards the norm of shareholder primacy. Beyond the core, however, stakeholder interests are better represented, in particular at the intersection of insolvency and employment law. This reflects the influence of European Community laws on information and consultation of employees. In addition, there are signs that some institutional shareholders are redirecting their investment strategies, under government encouragement, away from a focus on short-term returns, in such a way as to favour stakeholder-inclusive practices by firms. On this basis we suggest that the UK system is currently in a state of flux and that the debate over shareholder primacy has not been concluded

Topics: man
Publisher: Wiley
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.bbk.ac.uk.oai2:309

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. 000), ‘United We Stand: Corporate Monito r i n g by Shareho l d e r Coalit i o n s in the UK’, CentE R Worki n g Paper 2000- 1 8 , Tilburg Univers i t y .
  2. (2001). 19Company Law Review Steering Committee
  3. (1992). A Guide to Takeov e r s : Theory, Evidenc e , and Regulat i o n ’
  4. (1992). A Guide to Takeovers: Theory, Evidence,
  5. (1997). A Note on the Typolog y of Finan c i a l Syste ms ’ ,
  6. (1997). A Note on the Typology of Financial Systems’,
  7. (1997). A Survey of Corpora t e Govern a n c e ’
  8. (2003). Aft er Enron: An Age of Enlightenme nt? ’ forth c o mi n g , Organization .
  9. (2003). After Enron: An Age of Enlightenment?’ forthcoming, doi
  10. (1999). Analys i s and Data of Share Owner s h i p and Contr o l in UK’, paper prepar e d for DTI Company Law Review, availa b l e at www.dti.gov.uk T a k e o v e r Panel
  11. (1999). Analysis and Data of Share Ownership and Control in UK’, paper prepared for DTI Company Law Review, available at www.dti.gov.uk 22Takeover Panel
  12. (2001). and Kra a kma n
  13. (1988). Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers’, doi
  14. C o mp a n y Law Review Steeri n g Co mmit t e e (2001) Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy:
  15. (1992). Cadbury Commit t e e
  16. (2003). Chan g e s in the Corpor a t e Governan c e of Ger man Corporat i o n s : Conver g e n c e on the Anglo- A me r i c a n Model? ’ Centre for Busine s s Resear c h Workin g Paper No. 259, Universi t y of Ca mbridg e .
  17. (2003). Changes in the Corporate Governance of German Corporations: Convergence on the Anglo-American Model?’ Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. doi
  18. (1999). Compliance with the Combined Code: A Study Prepared for the Company Law Review’, available at www.dti.gov.uk Pye,
  19. (2002). Corpo r a t e Engage me n t by Social l y Respon s i b l e Invest o r s : A Practic a l Paradig m for Stakeho l d e r G overnance? ’ mi meo, Judge Institute of Manageme n t , Univers i t y of Ca mbrid g e . Availabl e at: www. j i ms . c a m. a c . u k
  20. (1995). Corpo r a t e Govern a n c e ’ National Institute Economic Review, doi
  21. (2003). Corpor a t e Ownersh i p Structu r e and the
  22. (1991). Corpora t e Gover na n c e in the Conte x t of Takeovers
  23. (2001). Corporate Boards, Invest o r s and Their Relati o n s h i p s : Accoun t s of Account a b i l i t y and Corpora t e Governi n g in Action’
  24. (2001). Corporate Boards, Investors and Their Relationships: Accounts of Accountability and Corporate Governing in Action’, Corporate Governance: doi
  25. (2002). Corporate Engagement by Socially Responsible Investors: A Practical Paradigm for Stakeholder Governance?’ mimeo,
  26. (1991). Corporate Governance in the Context of doi
  27. (1997). Defau l t and Renego t i a t i o n : a Dyna mi c Model of Debt’
  28. (1997). Default and Renegotiation: a Dynamic Model of Debt’ NBER Working Paper 5907, doi
  29. (1995). Directors’ Remuneration: Report of a Study Group Chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury doi
  30. (2001). End of the Road. BMW and Rover – A Brand Too Far (London : Prenti c e Hall).
  31. (2003). F inance, Corporate Governance and the Manage me n t of Labour : A Concep t u a l and Compar a t i v e Analys i s ’
  32. (2003). Finance, Corporate Governance and the Management of Labour: doi
  33. (2001). FSA (Financ i a l Service s Authori t y )
  34. (2001). Governance as a Source of Managerial Discipline’. doi
  35. (1995). Greenb u r y Commi t t e e
  36. (1997). H osti l e Takeov e r s , Corpor a t e Law, and the Theor y of the Firm’
  37. (1997). Hampe l Commi t t e e
  38. (2003). Herme s (200 2 ) The Hermes Principles (London: Hermes Asse t Manage me n t Ltd.) available at: http:// w w w . h e r me s . c o . u k / c o r p o r a t e - g o v e rnance/PDFs/Her mes_Principles.pdf Higgs,
  39. (1997). Hostile Takeovers, Corporate Law, and the Theory of the Firm’ doi
  40. (2003). Initial response s to the statutor y union recognit i o n procedur e s of the Employme nt Relations Act
  41. (2003). Initial responses to the statutory union recognition procedures of the Employment Relations Act doi
  42. (2003). Insolve n c y and Employme n t Pr ote c t i o n :
  43. (2003). Insolvency and Employment Protection: the Mixed Effects of the Acquired Rights Directive’ doi
  44. (1991). Insti t u t i o n a l Invest o r s in the United Kingdom’
  45. (1991). Institutional Investors in the United Kingdom’ doi
  46. (1996). Institutional Shareholders and Corporate Governance (Oxford: doi
  47. (1996). Institutional Shareholders and Corporate Governance (Oxford: Clare n d o n Press ) .
  48. (2002). Konzelma n n , S. a nd Wilkins o n
  49. (1999). Manag e r ial Ownership, Board Struc t u r e and Firm Value’, mi meo,
  50. (1999). Managerial Ownership, Board Structure and Firm Value’, mimeo, doi
  51. (2003). Models of the Co mpan y and the Employ me n t Relati o n s h i p ’
  52. (1999). n s & Investme n t Researc h C onsultants Ltd
  53. (1997). Paper prepar e d for the DTI Company Law Review, availa bl e at: http://ww w . d t i . g o v . u k / c l d / f r a n k s r e p o r t . p d f
  54. (1997). Paper prepared for the DTI Company Law Review, available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/franksreport.pdf
  55. (2002). Putti n g Britai n on the Roe Map: The Emergence of the BerleMe a n s Corporat i o n in the United Kingdom’ ,
  56. (2002). Putting Britain on the Roe Map: The Emergence of the BerleMeans Corporation in the United Kingdom’, doi
  57. (2002). R einventing the European Corporation? Corpo r a t e Gover n a n c e ,
  58. (2002). Reinventing the European Corporation? Corporate Governance, doi
  59. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance doi
  60. (2001). Rethi n ki n g Receiv e r s h i p’
  61. (2001). Rethinking Receivership’ doi
  62. (1999). Review Steeri n g Co mmit t e e
  63. Review Steeri n g Co mmit t e e (2000) Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Developing the Framework (London:
  64. (2000). Review Steering Committee doi
  65. (1992). Securi t y Intere s t s , Misbeh a v iour,
  66. (1992). Security Interests, Misbehaviour, doi
  67. (2001). Services Authority
  68. (2001). Shareholder Value: Co mpany Law and Securit i e s Markets Law – A British View’, mi me o, availab l e at: http:// w w w . s s r n . c o m
  69. (2001). Shareholder Value: Company Law and Securities Markets Law – A British View’, mimeo, available at: http://www.ssrn.com doi
  70. (2002). The Hermes Principles (London: Hermes Asset Management Ltd.) available at: http://www.hermes.co.uk/corporate-governance/PDFs/Hermes_Principles.pdf Higgs,
  71. (2001). The L ong-Run Performa n c e of Hostile Takeover s :
  72. (2001). The Long-Run Performance of Hostile Takeovers: UK Evidence’, CBR Working Paper No 215,
  73. (2000). The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism: How Institutional Investors Can Make Corporate America More Democratic doi
  74. (2000). The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism: How Institutional Investors Can Make Corporate America More Democratic (Philadelphia, PA: Univers i t y of Pennsyl v a n i a Press) . doi
  75. (2000). The Rove r Case 2: Bargai n i n g in the
  76. (2000). The Rover Case 2: Bargaining in the doi
  77. (1995). The State We’re In doi
  78. (1998). The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Compo s i t i on and Firm Perfo r ma n c e ’ , in Hopt, K. et al (eds), Corporate Governance: The State of the Art and Emerging Research
  79. (1998). The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Composition and Firm Performance’, doi
  80. (2000). The United Kingdo m’ , in Baums , T. and Wymee r s c h , E. (eds) , Shareholder Voting Rights and Practices in Europe and the United States (The Hague: Kluwer Law Interna t i o n a l ) ,
  81. (2000). The United Kingdom’, doi
  82. (2002). Top Executi v e Dismiss a l , Ownersh i p and Corpor a t e Perfo r ma n c e ’ ,
  83. (2002). Top Executive Dismissal, Ownership and Corporate Performance’, London Business School Working Paper doi
  84. (2001). UK IPO Board Stru ctures and Post-Issue Performa nce’ Aberdee n Papers in Account a n c y , Finance & Manageme n t , Working Paper 01-05.
  85. (2001). UK IPO Board Structures and Post-Issue Performance’ Aberdeen Papers in Accountancy, doi
  86. (2000). United We Stand: Corporate Monitoring by Shareholder Coalitions in the UK’, CentER Working Paper 2000-18, doi
  87. (2003). Unive r s a l Owner s h i p : Maximi s i n g Retur n s for the Long Term’, mime o, presen t e d to Centre for Business Research semi nar,
  88. (2003). Universal Ownership: Maximising Returns for the Long Term’, mimeo, presented to Centre for Business Research seminar,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.