Catalysts for Change in Board Governance Practices: The Case of the Introduction of National Policy 58 - 201 in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION On April 15, 2005, members of the Canadian Securities Administrators issued National Policy 58-201 Corporate Governance Guidelines which provides guidance on best governance practices to Canadian issuers. The National Policy 58--201's objectives were to achieve a balance between providing protection to investors and fostering fair and efficient capital markets and confidence in capital markets; be sensitive to the realities of the greater numbers of small companies and controlled companies in the Canadian corporate landscape; take into account the impact of corporate governance developments in the U.S. and around the world; and recognize that corporate governance is evolving. The guidelines in National Policy 58--201 were not intended to be prescriptive. Their objective was to encourage issuers to consider the guidelines in developing their own corporate governance practices regarding board independence, mandate, position descriptions, orientation and education, code of business conduct and ethics, as well as nomination. The goal of this paper is to explain the voluntary adoption of National Policy 58-201's governance guidelines. This topic has received little attention in the literature. The non-binding nature of National Policy 58-201 is consistent with the Canadian tradition of suggesting change at first. It is also interesting in that it differs from the American context where similar changes were mandated. We assess how Canadian TSX 300 issuers had adopted National Policy 58-201's best practices by 2004 and by 2006 to understand how issuers adopt board governance best practices. LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES Boards of directors have multiple responsibilities and may be in conflict of interest while discharging them (Fama and French, 1983; Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Jensen, 1993). They approve the strategic direction of the company, establish a system of internal control and ensure the integrity of financial reporting (Naciri, 2010) and ensure that managers act in the interest of the shareholders (Shleifer & Vishny 1997). Regulators often take action to mitigate boards' conflicts of interest (Hail and Leuz, 2006) which are influenced by local legal frameworks (LaPorta et al., 2000, Udayasankar et al., 2008). Regulators and investors have common interest in good governance mechanisms since they help to maximize the value of the firm (Agrawal and Knoeber, 1996) and to mitigate risks (Finet, 2005) for all investors, including the numerous participants in savings and pension plans. In Canada, following calls from governance activists, investor protection groups and the public, financial market regulations have undergone important changes from the year 2000 (Carnaghan and Gunz, 2007), which were by and large localized adaptations of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley law (Rousseau and Talbot, 2007). The call for voluntary improvement in board of director governance practices with the adoption of National Policy 58--201 in 2005 leads to the following hypothesis: H1. Canadian issuers improved their board of director governance practices following the adoption of National Policy 58--201. Several Canadian issuers are cross-listed in Canada and in the U.S. Consequently, the boards of cross-listed issuers had to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements before deciding whether or not to comply with the very similar National Policy 58--201 on a voluntary basis. Because this required very little additional work while making regulators and observers satisfied, one would expect that boards of cross-listed issuers would be more prone to conforming with National Policy 58--201 than boards of other issuers would be, leading to: H2. A Canadian issuer's obligation to conform to the Sarbanes-Oxley law increases the likelihood of conforming voluntarily to National Policy 58--201. Corporate accounting scandals have led various stakeholders to expect the adoption of best governance practices by issuers (Kang, Cheng and Gray, 2007). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».