The Conversation https://theconversation.com/au/charter...

The Conversation https://theconversation.com/au/charter

Republishing guidelines: We believe in the free flow of information and so publish under a Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives license. This means you can republish our articles online or in print for free, provided you follow these guidelines: https://theconversation.com/au/republishing-guidelines

Link to the Full Version of the Article:
https://theconversation.com/word-ga...-reworks-its-corporate-governance-code-112768

Word games and virtue signalling as disallowed reworks its corporate governance code
March 5, 2019 3.44pm AEDT

The authors:

• Warren Staples
  Senior Lecturer in Management, RMIT University
• Andrew Linden
  Sessional Lecturer, PhD (Management) Candidate, School of Management, RMIT University

EXCERPTS BELOW - ASX changes to their corporate governance principles as a result of a Hayne recommendation.

Direct quote ["]The words are a little different, but the requirements are as good as unchanged. The new Australian Securities Exchange corporate governance principles adopted last week have shuffled more words than they have altered.
When the ASX first published its governance principles in 2003 it was a decade late to the global governance party and playing catch up after the A$5.3 billion collapse of HIH Insurance.

In 2003 it modelled its new code on the British 1992 Cadbury Report.
A decade and a half on it is still playing catch-up, tweaking and reheating its code a fourth time in the wake of the banking royal commission.

The 2019 reheat is straight out of the 1992 playbook.
In 1992 City of London grandee Sir Adrian Cadbury was given the job of pulling British corporate high fliers into line after a string of scandals and collapses.
While his “restoring trust” strategy worked, it was never a rigorous, evidence-driven exercise. It was instead a cobbling together of “best practice” ideas with the aim of warding off tougher legislation.

Some 25 years on, that self regulatory approach remains deeply flawed.

Australia’s 2003 code didn’t stop the company collapses during the global financial crisis or the systemic misconduct revealed in the royal commission.

The latest revisions have variously been reported as a “potent mix of new and increased recommendations for company directors” and worthy of applause, but the commentary glosses over some fairly obvious problems with self-regulation.

The changes are minor.



"" [end excerpts]

_____

My note:
I hope someone in Australia is considering a PhD research project which focuses on the ASX and ASIC post the Hayne enquiry. Certainly would be worthy of personal and/or corporate and/or governmental sponsorship IMO.