从伦敦到欧洲大陆:重新思考欧洲的公司治理准则

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Piergaetano Marchetti, Maria Lucia Passador
{"title":"从伦敦到欧洲大陆:重新思考欧洲的公司治理准则","authors":"Piergaetano Marchetti, Maria Lucia Passador","doi":"10.1515/ecfr-2024-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically evaluates the arguments proposed by Cheffins and Reddy in their recent article, advocating for the abolition of the UK Corporate Governance Code with the promise of substantial benefits to the market. The exploration primarily delves into the potential ramifications of such a proposal on other European jurisdictions, where Codes of corporate governance hold significant sway in the corporate domain, reflecting a spectrum of legal and cultural traditions. While the article under scrutiny is geographically confined to the United Kingdom, the ramifications of such a proposal extend far beyond, resonating deeply with the pervasive influence of the UK Code of Corporate Governance even within continental Europe, urging a comprehensive examination.The analysis begins by revisiting the arguments advanced by the authors and scrutinizing them in light of the Continental European context. This examination reveals several concerns that necessitate attention. We contend that despite geographic limitations, the Code serves as a valuable and adaptable instrument for fostering accountability, transparency, and innovation in markets transcending borders and jurisdictions. Its continued relevance is underscored by its utility in addressing emergent issues and governance challenges, particularly in the realm of ESG and auditing. Consequently, the proposition of its abolition carries significant drawbacks for both companies and investors alike. In conclusion, we assert that European jurisdictions should not dismiss Codes of corporate governance outright, but rather advocate for their refinement and adaptation to the evolving imperatives of the globalized <jats:target target-type=\"next-page\">130</jats:target>economy. Such an approach is deemed imperative to maintain and enhance corporate governance standards, thereby ensuring the continued integrity and efficiency of European markets.","PeriodicalId":54052,"journal":{"name":"European Company and Financial Law Review","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From London to the Continent: Rethinking Corporate Governance Codes in Europe\",\"authors\":\"Piergaetano Marchetti, Maria Lucia Passador\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ecfr-2024-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper critically evaluates the arguments proposed by Cheffins and Reddy in their recent article, advocating for the abolition of the UK Corporate Governance Code with the promise of substantial benefits to the market. The exploration primarily delves into the potential ramifications of such a proposal on other European jurisdictions, where Codes of corporate governance hold significant sway in the corporate domain, reflecting a spectrum of legal and cultural traditions. While the article under scrutiny is geographically confined to the United Kingdom, the ramifications of such a proposal extend far beyond, resonating deeply with the pervasive influence of the UK Code of Corporate Governance even within continental Europe, urging a comprehensive examination.The analysis begins by revisiting the arguments advanced by the authors and scrutinizing them in light of the Continental European context. This examination reveals several concerns that necessitate attention. We contend that despite geographic limitations, the Code serves as a valuable and adaptable instrument for fostering accountability, transparency, and innovation in markets transcending borders and jurisdictions. Its continued relevance is underscored by its utility in addressing emergent issues and governance challenges, particularly in the realm of ESG and auditing. Consequently, the proposition of its abolition carries significant drawbacks for both companies and investors alike. In conclusion, we assert that European jurisdictions should not dismiss Codes of corporate governance outright, but rather advocate for their refinement and adaptation to the evolving imperatives of the globalized <jats:target target-type=\\\"next-page\\\">130</jats:target>economy. Such an approach is deemed imperative to maintain and enhance corporate governance standards, thereby ensuring the continued integrity and efficiency of European markets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Company and Financial Law Review\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Company and Financial Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2024-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Company and Financial Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2024-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对 Cheffins 和 Reddy 在他们最近的文章中提出的论点进行了批判性评估,他们主张废除英国《公司治理准则》,并承诺为市场带来巨大利益。本文主要探讨了这一建议对其他欧洲司法管辖区的潜在影响,在这些司法管辖区,公司治理准则在公司领域具有重要影响力,反映了不同的法律和文化传统。虽然受审查的文章在地理上局限于英国,但这一建议的影响却远远超出了英国,甚至在欧洲大陆也与《英国公司治理准则》的普遍影响产生了深刻的共鸣,因此需要进行全面的审查。分析首先重温了作者提出的论点,并根据欧洲大陆的背景对其进行了审查。这一分析揭示了几个需要关注的问题。我们认为,尽管存在地域限制,但《准则》仍是促进跨国界和跨辖区市场的问责制、透明度和创新的重要工具,而且具有很强的适应性。它在应对新出现的问题和治理挑战,特别是在环境、社会和公司治理以及审计领域的挑战方面的作用,凸显了它的持续相关性。因此,废除该制度的主张对公司和投资者都有重大弊端。总之,我们认为欧洲司法管辖区不应完全否定《公司治理准则》,而应倡导对其进行完善和调整,以适应全球化 130 经济不断发展的需要。这种做法被认为是维持和提高公司治理标准的当务之急,从而确保欧洲市场的持续完整性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From London to the Continent: Rethinking Corporate Governance Codes in Europe
This paper critically evaluates the arguments proposed by Cheffins and Reddy in their recent article, advocating for the abolition of the UK Corporate Governance Code with the promise of substantial benefits to the market. The exploration primarily delves into the potential ramifications of such a proposal on other European jurisdictions, where Codes of corporate governance hold significant sway in the corporate domain, reflecting a spectrum of legal and cultural traditions. While the article under scrutiny is geographically confined to the United Kingdom, the ramifications of such a proposal extend far beyond, resonating deeply with the pervasive influence of the UK Code of Corporate Governance even within continental Europe, urging a comprehensive examination.The analysis begins by revisiting the arguments advanced by the authors and scrutinizing them in light of the Continental European context. This examination reveals several concerns that necessitate attention. We contend that despite geographic limitations, the Code serves as a valuable and adaptable instrument for fostering accountability, transparency, and innovation in markets transcending borders and jurisdictions. Its continued relevance is underscored by its utility in addressing emergent issues and governance challenges, particularly in the realm of ESG and auditing. Consequently, the proposition of its abolition carries significant drawbacks for both companies and investors alike. In conclusion, we assert that European jurisdictions should not dismiss Codes of corporate governance outright, but rather advocate for their refinement and adaptation to the evolving imperatives of the globalized 130economy. Such an approach is deemed imperative to maintain and enhance corporate governance standards, thereby ensuring the continued integrity and efficiency of European markets.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: In legislation and in case law, European law has become a steadily more dominant factor in determining national European company laws. The “European Company”, the forthcoming “European Private Company” as well as the Regulation on the Application of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS Regulation”) have accelerated this development even more. The discussion, however, is still mired in individual nations. This is true for the academic field and – even still – for many practitioners. The journal intends to overcome this handicap by sparking a debate across Europe on drafting and application of European company law. It integrates the European company law component previously published as part of the Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR), on of the leading German law reviews specialized in the field of company and capital market law. It aims at universities, law makers on both the European and national levels, courts, lawyers, banks and other financial service institutions, in house counsels, accountants and notaries who draft or work with European company law. The journal focuses on all areas of European company law and the financing of companies and business entities. This includes the law of capital markets as well as the law of accounting and auditing and company law related issues of insolvency law. Finally it serves as a platform for the discussion of theoretical questions such as the economic analysis of company law. It consists of articles and case notes on both decisions of the European courts as well as of national courts insofar as they have implications on European company law.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信