Board Ethos and Institutional Work: Developing a Corporate Governance Identity through Developing the UK Code

• Autorzy: Donald Nordberg
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Codes of conduct seek to institutionalize certain practices and govern the actions of those who accept the regime. As they arise and seek to displace established ways of life in organizations, they provide examples of institutional development and change. This paper examines how the UK code of corporate governance arose and developed over time, and how it leads to a common understanding across various fields of social actors. Specifically, it examines the debate about what the ethos of the board for directors should be, as exhibited in consultations informing the 1992, 2003 and 2010 versions of the code. It shows social actors, as expected, taking stances aligned with their economic interests. But over time and through the institutional work involved in the debate, some of those actors identify increasingly with the process, and the collective understanding informs the identity of those participants. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Corporate governance; Board of directors; Supervisory board; Identity; Corporate identity (CI); Equal opportunity of developing

PL

Ład korporacyjny; Zarząd; Rada nadzorcza; Tożsamość; Całościowa identyfikacja (CI); Wyrównywanie różnic rozwojowych

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 3 (17)
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 73--96

Twórcy

autor

Donald Nordberg

• Bournemouth University Business School

Bibliografia

• Aguilera, R.V. (2005). Corporate Governance and Director Accountability: an Institutional Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Management, 16(S1), S39-S53.
• Aguilera, R.V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3), 415-443. doi: 10.1177/0170840604040669.
• Aguilera, R.V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2009). Codes of Good Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 376-387.
• Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organizations through Discourse Analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149.doi: 10.1177/0018726700539002.
• Barroso, C., Villegas, M.M., & Pérez-Calero, L. (2011). Board Influence on a Firm's Internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 351-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00859.x.
• Battilana, J., & D'Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 31-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bévort, F., & Suddaby, R. (2016). Scripting professional identities: how individuals make sense of contradictory institutional logics. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 17-38. doi: 10.1093/jpo/jov007.
• Cadbury Archive. (2010). The Cadbury Archive. Judge Business School, Cambridge University. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/cadbury/index.html.
• Chia, R. (2000). Discourse Analysis as Organizational Analysis. Organization, 7(3), 513-518. doi: 10.1177/135050840073009.
• Clegg, S.R. (2010). The State, Power, and Agency: Missing in Action in Institutional Theory? Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(1), 4-13. doi: 10.1177/1056492609347562.
• Creed, W.E. D., Dejordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336-1364.
• Czarniawska, B. (2007). Has Organization Theory a Tomorrow? Organization Studies, 28(1), 27-29. doi: 10.1177/0170840607073565.
• Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). The travel of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating Organizational Change (pp. 13-48). Berlin: de Gruyter.
• DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L.G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
• DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.
• Forbes, D.P., & Milliken, F.J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489-505. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2202133.
• FRC . (2004, February 10). 2003 Annual Review. UK Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://www.frc.org.uk/documents/pagemanager/frc/annualreview2003.pdf.
• FRC . (2010). The UK Corporate Governance Code. UK Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved May 29, 2010, from http://www.frc.org.uk/documents/pagemanager/Corporate_Governance/UK%20Corp%20Gov%20Code%20June%202010.pdf.
• Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071862.
• Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27-48.
• Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.
• Hal l, P.A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Higgs, D. (2003). Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors.Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/higgsreport.pdf.
• Holm, P. (1995). The Dynamics of Institutionalization: Transformation Processes in Norwegian Fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398-422.
• Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and Creating Accountability: a Framework for Exploring Behavioural Perspectives of Corporate Governance. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S65-S79.
• IFC . (2005). The Irresistible Case for Corporate Governance. International Finance Corp.Retrieved April 26, 2009, from http://ifcln1.ifc.org/ifcext/corporategovernance.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Th e_Irrisistible_Case_Text/$FILE/IrresistibleCase4CG.pdf.
• IFC . (2007). Corporate Governance Manual: Belgrade. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/cgf.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/CorporateGovernance_manual_Belgrade2007/$FILE/Corporate_Governance_Manual_New.pdf.
• Kim , B., Burns, M.L., & Prescott, J.E. (2009). The Strategic Role of the Board: The Impact of Board Structure on Top Management Team Strategic Action Capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(6), 728-743.
• Kraatz, M.S. (2011). Two Cheers for Institutional Work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 59-61. doi: 10.1177/1056492610387223.
• Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281-290.
• Lawrence, T.B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and Institutional Work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence & W.R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215-254). London: Sage.
• Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58. doi: 10.1177/1056492610387222.
• Lok , J. (2010). Institutional Logics as Identity Projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305-1335. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.57317866.
• Love, I. (2011). Corporate Governance and Performance around the World: What We Know and What We Don't. The World Bank Research Observer, 26(1), 42-70.doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkp030.
• Marnet, O. (2007). History repeats itself: Th e failure of rational choice models in corporate governance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(2), 191-210. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2005.11.010.
• McNulty, T., Roberts, J., & Stiles, P. (2003, January 13). Creating accountability within the board: The work of the effective non-executive director. A report for the Review of the Role and Effectiveness of the Non-Executive Director conducted by Mr Derek Higgs. Retrieved August 21, 2010, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/non_exec_review/pdfs/stilesreport.pdf/.
• Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
• Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• MORI. (2002). Non-Executive Directors Survey - The Higgs Review Topline Results. Retrieved September 2, 2011, from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/dti-higgs.pdf.
• Nicholson, B. (2008). The role of the regulator. In K. Rushton (Ed.), The Business Case for Corporate Governance (pp. 100-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nordberg, D., & McNulty, T. (2013). Creating better boards through codification: Possibilities and limitations in UK corporate governance, 1992-2010. Business History, 55(3), 348-374. doi: 10.1080/00076791.2012.712964.
• O'R ourke, D. (2003). Outsourcing Regulation: Analyzing Nongovernmental Systems of Labor Standards and Monitoring. Policy Studies Journal, 31(1), 1-29.
• OECD. (1999). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/principles_en.pdf.
• OECD. (2004). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, Revised. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf.
• Oliver, C. (1992). The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563.
• Paine, L., Deshpandé, R., Margolis, J.D., & Bettcher, K.E. (2005). Up to Code. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 122-133.
• Rao, H., & Giorgi, S. (2006). Code Breaking: How Entrepreneurs Exploit Cultural Logics to Generate Institutional Change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 269-304. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27007-2.
• Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond Agency Conceptions of the Work of the Non-Executive Director: Creating Accountability in the Boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16(S1), S5-S26.
• Seidl, D. (2007). Standard Setting and Following in Corporate Governance: An Observation-Theoretical Study of the Effectiveness of Governance Codes. Organization, 14(5), 705-727. doi: 10.1177/1350508407080316.
• Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W.E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-247.
• Smith, R. (2003). Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/ac_report.pdf.
• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
• Tyson, L. (2003). The Tyson Report on the Recruitment and Development of Non-Executive Directors, a report to the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://facultyresearch.london.edu/docs/TysonReport.pdf.
• van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Boards and Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307-319.
• Vandewaerde, M., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Bammens, Y. (2011). Board Team Leadership Revisited: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership in the Boardroom. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 403-420. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0918-6.
• Walker, D. (2009a, July 16). A review of corporate governance in UK banks and other financial industry entities. HM Treasury Independent Reviews. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/walker_review_consultation_160709.pdf.
• Walker, D. (2009b, November 26). A review of corporate governance in UK banks and other financial industry entities: Final recommendations. HM Treasury Independent Reviews. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/walker_review_consultation_160709.pdf.
• Zietsma, C., & McKnight, B. (2009). Building the iron cage: Institutional creation work in the context of competing proto-institutions. In T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 143-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the Black Box of Demography: board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 852-864. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00606.x.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2017.1.4