The abandoned mandatory OFR: a lost opportunity for SER?

Purpose – An important outcome of the UK Company Law Review (CLR) involved draft regulations for a mandatory operating and financial review (OFR). The unprecedented abandonment of this mandatory OFR in November 2005 threw debate about the genuine motivations underlying the CLR into disarray. This paper seeks to reinterpret the abandonment of a mandatory OFR using interview research. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a series of 24 interviews with companies from the FTSE100 between May and August 2004, prior to the abandonment. Findings – The interviews showed that the OFR was perceived as an appropriate vehicle for social and environmental reporting (SER). The interviewees considered that a mandatory OFR would provide a means of forcing SER into the mainstream and making it mandatory at a basic level. The interviews revealed that processes for the identification of material SER differ widely between organisations, ranging from embryonic to highly structured. Further, interviewees believed that directors had the final veto on inclusion of information. Despite directors' inclination to hide behind materiality as a means of avoiding SER, interviewees did not view the proposed mandatory OFR as “greenwash” but as a vehicle that would increase stakeholder confidence, as processes underlying the proposed OFR would be audited. Practical implications – The research implies that abandoning the mandatory OFR represented a lost opportunity for SER. Originality/value – The paper provides new evidence on the processes of materiality decision making in the SER area as well as strong endorsement of the mandatory OFR, contrary to the government turn-around.

Construction management contracts: law and practice

The context of construction management (CM) reveals that this method of procurement is as much a management philosophy as a contract structure. It is important to consider legal and contractual issues in this context. The interplay between management and law is complex and often misunderstood. Before considering specific issues, the use of contractual remedies in business agreements is discussed. In addition, the extent to which standardising a form of contract detracts or contributes to the success of projects is also considered. The dearth of judicial decisions, and the lack of a standard form, render it difficult to be specific about legal issues. Therefore, the main discussion of legal issues is centred around a recently completed research project which involved eliciting the views of a cross-section of experienced construction management clients, consultants and trade contractors. These interviews are used as the basis for highlighting some of the most important legal points to consider when setting up CM projects. The interviews revealed that the advantage of CM is the proximity of the client to the trade contractors and the disadvantage is that it depends on a high degree of professionalism and experience; qualities which are unfortunately difficult to find in the UK construction industry.

Achieving satisfactory contractual terms for the engineer's role

An international survey of clients, consultants and contractors produced wide-ranging data on the views of users of the FIDIC form of contract. The purpose of the survey was to elicit views on a range of issues, prior to revising the model form, to ensure that the contract drafters produce a form that is satisfactory for its users. Those questions that focus upon the role of the engineer have been subjected to detailed statistical analysis. The analysis shows that, contrary to popular belief, the views of contract users from common law jurisdictions do not differ from those in civil code jurisdictions. The engineer’s role is not generally perceived as neutral in the contractual relationships between clients and contractors. Contractors would prefer someone other than the engineer to be the first-line settler of disputes in contracts.