The UK Stewardship Code 2010-2020 from Saving the Company to Saving the Planet?

P. Davies
{"title":"The UK Stewardship Code 2010-2020 from Saving the Company to Saving the Planet?","authors":"P. Davies","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3553493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom introduced a Stewardship Code in 2010, followed by a slightly revised iteration in 2012 (the “first version” of the SC). It was premised upon the corporate governance advantages of engagement between institutional investors and corporate boards and was designed to redress what were perceived to be the weaknesses in the model of the monitoring board as revealed during the financial crisis. In short, the institutions were to monitor the monitor. The first version was officially branded as ineffective in a government appointed reviews at the end of 2018. It was recommended that the first version should either be abandoned or revised so as to focus more on the results of engagement. Surprisingly, the Financial Reporting Council chose not only to revise the SC in the hope of making it effective within the engagement framework, but also to expand the Code’s concept of stewardship so as to embrace environmental, social and governance matters (including climate change). This “second version” came into effect at the beginning of 2020. \n \nThe purpose of this paper is to assess the chances of the second version being more successful than the first. It begins by examining the most plausible reasons for the failure of the first version, by reference to the capacity and the incentives of institutional investors to discharge the engagement function which the first version cast upon them. It concludes that the incentives and capacities were weak. Turning to predictions for the second version, it concludes that, in relation to engagement as envisaged in the first version, the second version has not effectively addressed the causes of the weakness of the first version. However, in relation to ESG factors, especially climate change, there are reasons to expect a more positive impact from the second version, mainly because governmental policy has increased the reputational incentives for institutions to exercise stewardship in this area. These reputational incentives may also be supported by changes in investors’ preferences. Overall, the second version may turn out to operate along the same lines as other changes in society rather than as an isolated reform, as with the first version. However, this optimistic prediction is conditional upon the continuance of the governmental policy and social changes which support the second version of the SC.","PeriodicalId":336525,"journal":{"name":"WGSRN: Corporate Governance (Sub-Topic)","volume":"32 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WGSRN: Corporate Governance (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3553493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The United Kingdom introduced a Stewardship Code in 2010, followed by a slightly revised iteration in 2012 (the “first version” of the SC). It was premised upon the corporate governance advantages of engagement between institutional investors and corporate boards and was designed to redress what were perceived to be the weaknesses in the model of the monitoring board as revealed during the financial crisis. In short, the institutions were to monitor the monitor. The first version was officially branded as ineffective in a government appointed reviews at the end of 2018. It was recommended that the first version should either be abandoned or revised so as to focus more on the results of engagement. Surprisingly, the Financial Reporting Council chose not only to revise the SC in the hope of making it effective within the engagement framework, but also to expand the Code’s concept of stewardship so as to embrace environmental, social and governance matters (including climate change). This “second version” came into effect at the beginning of 2020. The purpose of this paper is to assess the chances of the second version being more successful than the first. It begins by examining the most plausible reasons for the failure of the first version, by reference to the capacity and the incentives of institutional investors to discharge the engagement function which the first version cast upon them. It concludes that the incentives and capacities were weak. Turning to predictions for the second version, it concludes that, in relation to engagement as envisaged in the first version, the second version has not effectively addressed the causes of the weakness of the first version. However, in relation to ESG factors, especially climate change, there are reasons to expect a more positive impact from the second version, mainly because governmental policy has increased the reputational incentives for institutions to exercise stewardship in this area. These reputational incentives may also be supported by changes in investors’ preferences. Overall, the second version may turn out to operate along the same lines as other changes in society rather than as an isolated reform, as with the first version. However, this optimistic prediction is conditional upon the continuance of the governmental policy and social changes which support the second version of the SC.
英国管理守则2010-2020从拯救公司到拯救地球?
英国于2010年推出了《管理守则》,随后在2012年进行了略微修订(《管理守则》的“第一版”)。它的前提是机构投资者和公司董事会之间的参与对公司治理有好处,其目的是纠正在金融危机期间被认为是监督委员会模式的弱点。简而言之,机构要监督监督者。2018年底,在政府指定的审查中,第一个版本被正式认定为无效。有人建议放弃或修订第一版,以便更加注重接触的结果。令人惊讶的是,财务报告局不仅选择修订《准则》,希望使其在社会参与框架内有效,而且还选择扩大《准则》的管理概念,以纳入环境、社会和管治事项(包括气候变化)。“第二版”于2020年初生效。本文的目的是评估第二个版本比第一个版本更成功的可能性。本文首先考察了第一个版本失败的最合理的原因,参考了机构投资者履行第一个版本赋予他们的参与职能的能力和动机。它的结论是,激励和能力都很弱。至于对第二版的预测,报告的结论是,就第一版所设想的参与情况而言,第二版没有有效地解决第一版不足的原因。然而,就ESG因素而言,特别是气候变化,我们有理由期待第二版会产生更积极的影响,主要是因为政府政策增加了对机构在这一领域行使管理职责的声誉激励。这些声誉激励也可能受到投资者偏好变化的支持。总的来说,第二个版本可能会像社会上的其他变化一样发挥作用,而不是像第一个版本那样作为一个孤立的改革。然而,这一乐观预测的前提是政府政策和社会变化的持续,这些都支持第二版SC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信