Tags

  • Published on

    EURAM: conference programme now available online

    Conferences Governance Management Phd Research
    The 15th European Academy of Management (EURAM) annual conference will be held in Warsaw, Poland on 17–20 June. The conference programme is now available online. Over 1200 delegates have registered to attend, to hear about the latest developments in management research and the implications for practice.
    I am looking forward to attending what promises to be a very interesting (and busy!) conference. EURAM is the third of three international conferences that I will be attending in June. In addition to listening to as many of the corporate governance papers as possible and meeting with colleagues, I have two formal commitments, as follows:
    • Chair the second corporate governance session, entitled Boards of Directors: Outside/Non-executive directors, on Thu 18 June.
    • Present my paper, entitled Boards, strategy and business performance: Observations from inside the boardroom, in the afternoon session on Thu 18 June.
    If you would like to receive more information about any of the papers, please let me know. I will do my best to attend the appropriate session and write a report.
  • Published on

    International Corporate Governance Network: Annual Conference

    Conferences Governance Performance Research
    The 2015 edition of the International Corporate Governance Network annual conference is just a week away (3–5 June). This year, ICGN will be celebrating 20 years of governance change and reform. Hosted by the City of London, the conference is being held at the historic Guildhall. The organisers have assembled a fantastic programme. Over 650 delegates have registered to hear 80 speakers discuss a wide range of topics:
    • Sustainable capital market reform: what needs to be done?
    • The board of the future: will it be fit for purpose?
    • Share ownership in a global context—is stewardship working?
    • Human rights: what are investors expected to know and do
    • Driving accountability across the voting chain
    I will be at the conference (as a delegate only this year). Summary reports will be posted here, so please check back next week for updates. If you want to meet up at the conference, contact me to make an arrangement.
    The ICGN annual conference is the first of three conferences that I'm attending in June. I will also be at the International Governance Workshop (11–12th, Barcelona, Spain) and the European Academy of Management conference (17–20th, Warsaw, Poland), to present the latest findings of my research and discuss implications for boards. Copies of my papers are now available.
  • Published on

    I stand corrected!

    Governance Language
    A muse that I wrote yesterday asked a series of questions about company ownership. It stimulated quite a bit of interest, albeit for reasons other than I expected. Having discussed the matter with several commentators, I now know why. It turns out that one of the underlying assumptions upon which the muse was based—that companies have owners—was wrong. 
    How often have you heard someone say they 'own a portion of <company name>' or that they are 'company owners'? These statements, while plausible, are actually incorrect. People (individuals, groups, other companies) own shares in a company, they don't own the company (or a portion of the company) directly. The company is an entity itself. It issues shares ('bundles of intangible rights') and these can be owned or traded, as is so ably explained here (see clause 2).
    Thank you to those people that contacted me to point out my error. The phrase 'company owner' has been removed from my vocabulary! However, the notion of 'ownership' remains. I hope this brief note goes some way to putting the record straight. Please contact me if you would like to know more.
  • Published on

    Apparently shareholders do not own corporations!

    Accountability Governance Management Performance
    Please excuse this rather sensationalist title—I have just picked myself up from the floor having read this clause in the recital section of a [draft] directive being prepared in the EU:
    "Although they do not own corporations, which are separate legal entities beyond their full control, shareholders play a relevant role in the governance of those corporations."
    The proposed directive, which encourages long-term engagement and gives voice to shareholders in listed companies and large companies, seems to be well intentioned. However, the statement that shareholders do not own the corporation left me flabbergasted. It raises all sorts of questions:
    • If the shareholders (collectively) do not own the corporation, who does?
    • To whom is the board accountable—the shareholders (who don't own the asset the board is charged with operating); or, the [now unknown] owners; or, some other group?
    • Who benefits from the wealth created by the corporation, the shareholder, the owner or some other party?
    Why anyone would buy an asset if they knew that a condition of purchase was that they did not own what they had just paid for is beyond me. Is this sloppy drafting, or have I missed something in the semantics? Can someone with a legal mind and expertise in this area please elucidate?
  • Published on

    Three conferences in three weeks, starting in 13 days

    Conferences Governance Leadership Performance Phd Research
    Here's the trip schedule:
    In just under two week's time (June 1), I embark on another trip to England and Europe. The main purpose of this trip is to attend three important corporate governance conferences, to contribute to the emerging conversation. Many of the world's leading advisors, company directors and academics will be at the conferences. I am honoured to be speaking at two of them. 
    June 2
    June 3–5

    June 8–9
    June 11–12
    June 15
    June 17–20
    June 20
    Arrive in London
    International Corporate Governance Network Conference, London
    (click to set up meeting at conference)
    Available in London or nearby (Want to meet? Get in touch)
    International Governance Workshop, Barcelona (my paper abstract)
    Limited availability in London (Want to meet? Get in touch)
    European Academy of Management, Warsaw (my paper abstract)
    Return to New Zealand
    If you are interested in a specific conference presentation but cannot attend, please let me know. I'll try to attend for you and post a report. Conference updates will be posted here and on Twitter during the conferences, so check back if you are interested.
    I'm looking forward to reconnecting with #corpgov friends and associates, making some new connections and testing some of the ideas that have emerged from my research work. Much coffee will be drunk, no doubt! If you'd like to meet up, at a conference or separately, please get in touch.
  • Published on

    Selling a major company asset to a director, and doing so properly

    Accountability Ethics Governance Leadership
    Is it ever OK to sell a major company asset to one of the company's directors? One must be careful, very careful. The safe answer is probably 'no', because the proximity of conflict is ever-present and the question of whether the transaction satisfies the director's duties provisions (to act in the best interests of the company) sets a very high bar to clear.
    However, a recent case in New Zealand suggests that such transactions can be completed, and well, if certain provisions are satisfied. In this case, Dorchester Property Trust (DPT) wanted to sell one of its properties the Goldridge Resort Queenstown (GRQ). A DPT director wanted to acquire the asset. The DPT board acted cautiously. The director took no part in determining whether the asset should be offered for sale, and was excluded from the process of assessing acquisition offers. As such the board's handling of the matter satisfied the related party transaction requirements.
    While some investors were a bit scratchy over some some matters (see the article), few if any concerns over the GRQ transaction have been raised. This suggests that the board handled the matter well, in both a legal and a moral–ethical sense. Well done to the DPT board.