Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 167–182 | Cite as

Ethics and corporate governance: The issues raised by the Cadbury report in the United Kingdom

  • Colin Boyd
Article

Abstract

In the late 1980s there was a series of sensational business scandals in the United Kingdom. There was particular public outrage at the plundering of pension funds by Robert Maxwell, at the failure of auditors to expose the impending bankruptcy of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and at the apparently undeserved high pay raises received by senior business executives. The City of London responded by creating a special committee to examine the financial aspects of corporate governance. This paper describes the resulting Code of Best Practice produced by the Cadbury Committee. To reduce the power of executive directors in the boardroom the Code recommends a greater role for non-executive directors, changes in board operations, and a more active role for auditors. The paper reviews the various published reactions to the Cadbury Report, and concludes that the Code is unlikely to halt the incidence of business scandals in the United Kingdom.

Keywords

Corporate Governance Active Role Executive Director Great Role Pension Fund 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auditing Practices Board: 1992,The Future Development of Auditing (CCAB Ltd, London: ISBN 1 85355 387 5).Google Scholar
  2. Bain, N.: 1992, ‘In the Wake of the Cadbury Report on Corporate Governance, Boardroom Shake-ups are Long Overdue’,The Observer, May 31, 30.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd C. W.: 1992a, ‘The Irresponsible Management of Risk’, in J. Ansell and F. Wharton (eds.),Risk: Analysis, Assessment, Management (J. Wiley and Sons, London).Google Scholar
  4. Boyd C. W.: 1992b, ‘Ethical Issues Arising From the London Underground King's Cross Fire’, in J. Mahoney and B. Harvey (eds.),Business Ethics in a New Europe (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands).Google Scholar
  5. Boyd C. W.: 1992c, ‘The Zeebrugge Car Ferry Disaster’, in W. C. Frederick, K. Davies and J. E. Post,Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics (McGraw Hill, New York, 7th Ed.).Google Scholar
  6. Brummer, A.: 1993a, ‘Sweeping Away an Insidious Culture of Self-Regulation’,The Guardian, May 8, 36.Google Scholar
  7. Brummer, A.: 1993b, ‘The Boardroom Watchdogs Who Failed to Bark’,The Guardian Oct. 30, 38.Google Scholar
  8. Brummer, A.: 1993c, ‘The Cold Wind of Corporate Change’,The Guardian Sept. 4, 36.Google Scholar
  9. Cadbury Report: 1992,The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (Gee and Co. Ltd., London: ISBN 0 85258 915 8).Google Scholar
  10. Collier, P.: 1993, ‘Factors Affecting the Formation of Audit Committees in Major UK Listed Companies’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 421–430.Google Scholar
  11. Corrin, J.: 1993, ‘The Cadbury Report — A Blatant Slur on Executive Directors' Integrity’,Accountancy (UK)111(1196), 81–82.Google Scholar
  12. Cowe, R.: 1992, ‘UK Scandals Beg Question — What Is A Company?’,The Guardian, Nov. 26, 12.Google Scholar
  13. The Economist: 1992a, ‘Editorial — In Search Of Better Boardrooms — Corporate Governance’, May 30.Google Scholar
  14. The Economist: 1992b, ‘Cadbury on Corporate Governance’, Dec. 5, 78.Google Scholar
  15. Finch, V.: 1992, ‘Board Performance and Cadbury on Corporate Governance’,Journal of Business Law, Nov., 581–595.Google Scholar
  16. Forbes, W. and R. Watson: 1993, ‘Management Remuneration and Corporate Governance: A Review of the Issues, Evidence and Cadbury Committee Proposals’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 331–338.Google Scholar
  17. Gillies, J.: 1992,Boardroom Renaissance: Power, Morality and Performance in the Modern Corporation (McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Toronto).Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey, C., P. Mozier and S. Turley: 1993, ‘The Audit Expectations Gap in Britain: An Empirical Investigation’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 395–411.Google Scholar
  19. Jack, A.: 1992, ‘Accountancy Column — Profession has a New and Sympathetic Friend’,Financial Times, Nov. 26, 12.Google Scholar
  20. Keasey K., and M. Wright: 1993, ‘Issues in Corporate Accountability and Governance: An Editorial’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 291–303.Google Scholar
  21. Laurance, B.: 1992, ‘Publication of the Draft Report of the Cadbury Committee’,The Guardian, May 27, 12.Google Scholar
  22. Leppard, D. and N. Rufford: 1993, ‘British Airways Board Forced To Sign Denial Of Dirty Tricks’,Sunday Times, Feb. 7.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, B.: 1993, ‘British Airways — Flying into the Ground’,The Times, Jan. 26.Google Scholar
  24. Lorsch, J. W. and E. MacIver: 1989,Pawns or Potentates: The Reality of America's Corporate Boards (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass).Google Scholar
  25. Main, B. G. M. and J. Johnston: 1993, ‘Remuneration Committees and Corporate Governance’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 351–362.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, P.: 1992, ‘Taming the Overmighty Boss — The Cadbury Report’,Financial Times, Dec. 2 1992, 20.Google Scholar
  27. Osman, C.: 1992, ‘Boardroom Accountability: In Search of a Workable Formula’,International Financial Law Review 11(7), 24–25.Google Scholar
  28. O'Sullivan, N.: 1993, ‘Auditors' Liability: It's Role in the Corporate Governance Debate’,Accounting and Business Research 23(91A), 412–420.Google Scholar
  29. Park, M.: 1992, ‘Cadbury Committee — A Code to put Firms to Shame’,Sunday Times, May 31.Google Scholar
  30. Phillips, I.: 1992, ‘The Wrath of Maxwell’, A Letter to the Editor ofThe Guardian, reprinted inThe Guardian Weekly, March 22, 2.Google Scholar
  31. Salbu, S. R.: 1993, ‘Corporate Social Responsiveness: Choosing between Hierarchical and Contractual Control’,Journal of Business Ethics 12(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  32. Snyder, M. and E. Woolf: 1993, ‘The McFarlane Report — Reflections on a Failed Mission’,Accountancy (UK)111(1196), April, 80–81.Google Scholar
  33. Sunday Times: 1993, ‘Business comment — Non-Executives Fail Queens Moat’, Oct. 31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Boyd
    • 1
  1. 1.College of CommerceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations