IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v9y2001i3p196-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a “Mutual Understanding of Objectives”? Attitudes of institutional investors and listed companies to corporate governance reform

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Jackson

Abstract

The Combined Code looked to companies and institutional investors “to enter into a dialogue ... based on a mutual understanding of objectives.” This paper summarises findings from a survey looking into attitudes of each of these groups towards governance reform. It finds significant differences of opinion between them. The paper notes that there are few differences of opinion amongst the various different sized investors, suggesting that size, of itself, is not an important determinant of investor opinion. Larger companies are found to be more sympathetic towards the reforms of the past decade, whilst smaller companies appear to place less emphasis on governance structure as a determinant of success and seem to have less favourable experience of institutional investors.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Jackson, 2001. "Towards a “Mutual Understanding of Objectives”? Attitudes of institutional investors and listed companies to corporate governance reform," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 196-205, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:3:p:196-205
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8683.00247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:3:p:196-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.