Corporate governance codes in Australia and New Zealand: Propriety and prosperity

Overview of the central features of corporate governance codes, 'Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations' (released by the ASX Corporate Governance Council) and 'Corporate Governance in New Zealand, Principles and Guidelines' (released by New Zealand Securities Commission) - whether the codes address the right problem - are the solutions of independence and disclosure conceptually and practically viable - whether codes pay sufficient attention to wealth creation.

Corporate governance options for the local subsidiaries of multinational enterprises

While the corporate governance literature generally focuses on the parent legal entity, many organisations are now multinational enterprises (MNEs) with subsidiaries that are most often legal entities in their host countries. Despite the strengthening of corporate governance regimes internationally, the boards of these subsidiaries are in many instances perfunctory. This paper examines the question of whether developments in corporate governance theory and practice can add value for the local subsidiaries of MNEs. This paper provides a theoretical basis for evaluating governance models in MNEs. The paper commences with a review of the key concepts from the MNE and conglomerates literature with respect to core MNE strategies. The paper then discusses what the "governance roles" are that must be performed in MNE subsidiaries. We propose four governance frameworks for subsidiary corporations. These frameworks are: (1) Direct Control; (2) Dual Reporting; (3) Advisory Board; (4) Local Board. We consider the strengths and weaknesses of each model in relation to international strategy theory. We conclude with recommendations for the conditions under which the various models may be appropriate and practical guidelines for the utilisation of corporate governance theory to improve MNE performance.

Multiple directorships and corporate performance in Australian listed companies

How many directorships are too many? Globally, normative advice emphasises the importance of limiting the number of directorships any individual should hold due to the workloads they entail. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this view. Rather, there is a strong tradition of supporting multiple directorships as a mechanism for the firm to co-opt external resources. To explore the issue of director workloads and multiple directorships, we first consider the issues related to multiple directorships and outline the conclusions of extant international and Australian studies into multiple directorships. We then detail our objectives in undertaking this research and our approach to data collection. Our findings indicate that the incidence of multiple directorships in Australian listed companies is low. We also find that many of the apparent examples of multiple directorships are due to related entities, which share common directors and, due to the nature of these entities, have much lower workload requirements. Further, there does not appear to be any relationship between holding multiple directorships and firm financial performance. Finally, we discuss the implications for boards and those interested in governance, particularly the need to ensure governance recommendations and guidelines reflect empirical findings. We offer one solution to address the concerns of boards, investors, other stakeholders and the community regarding multiple directorships: board and individual director evaluations.

A framework for diagnosing board effectiveness

Pressure on boards to improve corporate performance and management oversight has led to a series of inquiries and reports advocating governance reform. These reports largely reflect an agency perspective of governance and seek to ensure greater board independence from and control of management. While board independence is important to good governance, we contend that frameworks, models and advice centred on one element of governance ignore the complexity of how boards work. We develop a holistic board framework based upon the concept of board intellectual capital to address this concern. Our framework proposes a series of inputs (e.g. company history, company constitution, legal environment) that lead to a particular mix of board intellectual capital. We contend that the balance of the different elements of board intellectual capital will lead to a series of board behaviours. Further, the board needs to mobilise its intellectual capital to carry out a series of roles. The exact nature of these roles will depend on the company's requirements. Thus, the governance outputs of organisational performance, board effectiveness and director effectiveness will depend on the match between the board's intellectual capital and the roles required of it. We conclude by demonstrating the benefits of this framework as a diagnostic tool. We outline how boards wishing to improve their governance systems can diagnose common governance problems by evaluating their own board's capabilities in relation to the different components of the framework.

Evaluating boards and directors

The challenge for boards is to prevent crises in the organisations they govern. Performance evaluation is a key means by which boards can recognise and correct corporate governance problems and add real value to their organisations. Our paper provides a practical introduction to board and director evaluations. We discuss the reasons for governance failures and how board evaluations can help prevent them from occurring. We then review the performance pressures facing boards and the benefits of board evaluations in meeting these pressures. Finally, we introduce our framework for a successful board and/or individual director evaluation, whatever the company type. In this framework, we suggest there are seven key questions to consider when planning a board evaluation and discuss each of these seven decision areas.

Disclosure of proxy voting information by Australian managed investment schemes

The US Securities and Exchange Commission requires registered management investment companies to disclose how they vote proxies relating to portfolio securities they hold. The primary purpose of this rule is to enable fund investors to monitor the role of institutional shareholders in the corporate governance practices of public companies. In Australia, despite reform proposals, there are no regulations requiring institutional investors to report proxy voting procedures and practices. There is little evidence of voluntary disclosure of proxy voting by Australian managed investment schemes in equities, indicating that there are costs involved in such disclosure.

The use of internal audit by Australian companies

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the voluntary use of internal audit by Australian publicly listed companies and to identify factors that lead listed companies to have an internal audit function. Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the Institute of Internal Auditors' definition of internal auditing, the paper predicts that internal audit use is associated with factors related to risk management, strong internal controls and strong corporate governance. To test the predictions, the study combines data from a survey of listed companies with information from corporate annual reports. The paper also provides descriptive information on the use of internal audit. Findings – The results indicate that only one-third of the sample companies use internal audit. While size appears to be the dominant driver, there is also a strong association between internal audit and the level of commitment to risk management. However, the study finds only weak support for an association between the use of internal audit and strong corporate governance. Research limitations/implications – A limitation of our study is that some of the variables in the model may not be good proxies for the factors being measured. Refinement of the model and the variables used provides an opportunity for future research. Practical implications – The limited use of internal audit by Australian companies has important implications for sound corporate governance. Originality/value – This is the first study that identifies factors associated with the use of internal audit by Australian listed companies.