IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/africa/k4cj3.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparative analysis of strengths and weaknesses of corporate governance practices between two jurisdictions; UK and South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Costa, King

    (Global Centre for Academic Research)

  • Ngcetane-Vika, Thelela

Abstract

This paper is an exploration of theoretical aspects underpinning the practice of Corporate Governance (CG) in the United Kingdom and South Africa. Because of several corporate scandals and failures in the twenty and twenty first siècles, Corporate Governance has been a significant and crucial subject and field of study in business schools in recent years. Leadership and Management of business entities and alignment to prescripts that are statutory formulated for prevention of corporate decline and enhancement of sound business principles continue to be highly contentious issues. A theoretical and exploratory narrative synthesis was conducted to unearth the strengths and weaknesses of contextual explication, practice and legal application of Corporate Governance in both the United Kingdom and South Africa. In terms of the UK, the study found out that the CG is designed and benchmarked on international best practice, seamlessly fitting within all the Codes on Key Aspects of Corporate Governance. Secondly, another major element of strengths determination were found to be inherent in the practice of voluntary compliance. However, the greatest criticisms of Corporate Governance theories in the UK was the fact that their focus is largely on public corporations, especially those listed in London stock exchange and thus, leave behind small and medium enterprises. The cultural diversity is also found to be a cause for concern in terms of practice and legal application. On the other hand, in South Africa, the study found out that consideration for diversity is one of the greatest strengths in CG practice and legal application, which is likely to contribute effectively to good and sound decision-making, reflective of all people. Weaknesses continue to be the delay in realisation of board equity in terms of gender while on the other hand, corruption and lack of adherence to retributive prescripts remain problematic.

Suggested Citation

  • Costa, King & Ngcetane-Vika, Thelela, 2021. "A comparative analysis of strengths and weaknesses of corporate governance practices between two jurisdictions; UK and South Africa," AfricArxiv k4cj3, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:africa:k4cj3
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/k4cj3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60b01f47f099fd00f88c6caa/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/k4cj3?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melissa B. Frye & Edward Nelling & Elizabeth Webb, 2006. "Executive Compensation in Socially Responsible Firms," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 446-455, September.
    2. Ann B. Gillette & Thomas H. Noe & Michael J. Rebello, 2008. "Board Structures Around the World: an Experimental Investigation," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-140.
    3. Ann B. Gillette & Thomas H. Noe & Michael J. Rebello, 2008. "Board structures around the world: An experimental investigation," Economics Series Working Papers 2008fe15, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. Subrata Sarkar, 2015. "The Comply-or-Explain approach for enforcing governance norms," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2015-022, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berger, Allen N. & Kick, Thomas & Schaeck, Klaus, 2014. "Executive board composition and bank risk taking," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 48-65.
    2. Esther B. Brio & Rosa M. Hernández-Maestro & Toru Yoshikawa, 2018. "How does interpersonal justice affect outside directors’ governance behavior? A cross-cultural comparison," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 683-709, July.
    3. Audretsch, David B. & Hülsbeck, Marcel & Lehmann, Erik E., 2013. "Families as active monitors of firm performance," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 118-130.
    4. Wagner, Alexander F. & Gibson Brandon, Rajna & Sohn, Matthias & Tanner, Carmen, 2018. "Earnings Management and Managerial Honesty: The Investors’ Perspectives," CEPR Discussion Papers 13207, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Ginglinger, Edith & Megginson, William & Waxin, Timothée, 2011. "Employee ownership, board representation, and corporate financial policies," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 868-887, September.
    6. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Bermig, Andreas & Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Corporate governance and employee power in the boardroom: An applied game theoretic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 51-74.
    7. Xile Yin & Siyu Chen & Dahui Li & Feng Zhang, 2021. "Social norms for fairness and board voting behavior: An experimental investigation," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 110-133, March.
    8. Bodeutsch, D.S. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2015. "Risk attitudes in company boardrooms in a developing country," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2015-04, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    9. Wagner, Alexander F., 2011. "Board independence and competence," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 71-93, January.
    10. Carlo Bellavite Pellegrini & Emiliano Sironi, 2017. "Does a one-tier board affect firms’ performances? Evidences from Italian unlisted enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 213-224, January.
    11. Yoo, Taeyoung & Sung, Taeyoon, 2015. "How outside directors facilitate corporate R&D investment? Evidence from large Korean firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1251-1260.
    12. Naz Sayari & Bill Marcum, 2022. "Board systems, employee representation, and neo‐institutional theory: The moderating effect of economic freedom on corporate boards and financial performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(8), pages 3931-3952, December.
    13. Kamil K. Nazliben & Luc Renneboog & Emil Uduwalage, 2024. "Corporate governance from colonial Ceylon to post-civil war Sri Lanka," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(1), pages 265-335, March.
    14. Mavrakana, Christina & Psillaki, Maria, 2019. "Do board structure and compensation matter for bank stability and bank performance? Evidence from European banks," MPRA Paper 95776, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Jacob LaRiviere & Matthew McMahon & William Neilson, 2018. "Shareholder Protection and Agency Costs: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3108-3128, July.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3864 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Douglas A. Adu & Antoinette Flynn & Colette Grey, 2022. "Executive compensation and sustainable business practices: The moderating role of sustainability‐based compensation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 698-736, March.
    18. Forest L. Reinhardt & Robert N. Stavins & Richard H. K. Vietor, 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Economic Lens," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 219-239, Summer.
    19. Boubaker, Sabri & Chebbi, Kaouther & Grira, Jocelyn, 2020. "Top management inside debt and corporate social responsibility? Evidence from the US," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-115.
    20. Kopel, Michael & Brand, Björn, 2012. "Socially responsible firms and endogenous choice of strategic incentives," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 982-989.
    21. Michael Kopel & Marco Marini, 2014. "Strategic delegation in consumer cooperatives under mixed oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 275-296, November.

    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:osf:africa:k4cj3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/africarxiv/discover .

    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.