Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 499–532 | Cite as

Self-regulation of corporate governance in Russian firms: translating the national standard into internal policies



We consider how firms develop internal corporate governance policies based on external nation-wide standards. Flexibility in interpreting external standards allows firms to develop internal regulations focused on governance procedures that are only loosely coupled with expected governance outcomes. Our results demonstrate that firms tend to adopt less restrictive policies than what is recommended by the national standard and are more willing to adopt policies regulating governance procedures than policies regulating governance decisions. We also argue that the process of translating external standards into internal guidelines is affected by firm-specific characteristics and explore factors that determine to what extent firms switch the focus of internal policies from regulating governance decisions to regulating governance procedures.


Corporate governance Self-regulation Translation Loose coupling Symbolic compliance 



Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Academy of Management 2013 meeting and at the Academy of International Business 2013 special conference in Moscow. I would like to thank the scholars attending these presentations as well as the editor and the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. I also would like to thank Andrei Zaikov and Alexandra Myagkova for superb research assistantship. This research project was supported by grants received from Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Societe et la Culture and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


  1. Aguilera, R. V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). The spread of codes of good governance worldwide: What’s the trigger? Organization Studies, 25, 415–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., & Desender, K. A. (2012). Challenges in the measuring of comparative corporate governance: A review of the main indices. In C. L. Wang, D. J. Ketchen, & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 289–322). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R. V., Goyer, M., & Kabbach de Castro, L. R. (2013). Regulation and comparative corporate governance. In M. Wright, D. S. Siegel, K. Keasey, & I. Filatotchev (Eds.), Handbook of corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ansari, S., Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 297–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Neal, T. L. (2010). Fraudulent financial reporting: 1998–2007. An analysis of U.S. public companies. Published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), New York, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Belikov, I. V. (2004). Implementation of the Russian code of corporate conduct: Achievements and Problems. Moscow: Russian Institute of Directors. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, D., Pistor, K., & Richard, J.-F. (2003). The transplant effect. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 51, 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion, and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 78–98). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 483–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). A world of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Buck, T., & Shahrim, A. (2005). The translation of corporate governance changes across national cultures: The case of Germany. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bushee, B. J., Carter, M. E., & Gerakos, J. (2010). Institutional investor preferences for corporate governance mechanisms, SSRN Working Paper.
  14. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc’s Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Carruthers, B. G., & Halliday, T. C. (2006). Negotiating globalization: Global scripts and intermediation in the construction of Asian insolvency regimes. Law & Social Inquiry, 31, 521–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chatterji, A. K., & Levine, D. I. (2006). Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 917–945.Google Scholar
  18. Coffee, J. C. J. (2006). Gatekeepers: The professions and corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, L., Frazzini, A., & Malloy, C. (2012). Hiring cheerleaders: Board appointments of “independent” directors. Management Science, 58, 1039–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (2005). Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Malmo: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  22. Daines, R., Gow, I., & Larcker, D. (2010). Rating the ratings: How good are commercial governance ratings? Journal of Financial Economics, 98, 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Integration of micro and macro studies in governance research: CEO duality, board composition, and financial performance. Journal of Management, 37, 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delmas, M., & Montiel, I. (2009). Greening the supply chain: When is customer pressure effective? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1027–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dobbin, F. (2009). Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2009). Global organization: Rationalization and actorhood as dominant scripts. In R. E. Meyer, K. Sahlin, M. J. Ventresca, & P. Walgenbach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  28. Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edelman, L. B., Erlanger, H. S., & Lande, J. (1993). Internal dispute resolution: The transformation of civil rights in the workplace. Law and Society Review, 27, 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edelman, L. B., Fuller, S. R., & Mara-Drita, I. (2001). Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1589–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edelman, L., & Suchman, M. (1997). The legal environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 479–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C., & Erlanger, H. S. (1999). The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 406–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Enrione, A., Mazza, C., & Zerboni, F. (2006). Institutionalizing codes of governance. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 961–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Filatotchev, I., Jackson, G., Gospel, H., & Allcock, D. (2007). Drivers of “good” corporate governance and the appropriateness of policy responses in the UK. London: DTI.Google Scholar
  36. Fiss, P., Kennedy, M., & Davis, G. F. (2012). How golden parachutes unfolded: Diffusion and variation of a controversial practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 1077–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frenkel, M. (2005). The politics of translation: How state-level political relations affect the cross-national travel of management ideas. Organization, 12, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gillespie, N., Hurley, R., Dietz, G., & Bachmann, R. (2012). Restoring institutional trust after the global financial crisis: A systemic approach. In R. M. Kramer & T. L. Pittinsky (Eds.), Restoring trust in organizations and leaders: Enduring challenges and emerging answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gondo, M., & Amis, J. (2013). Patterns of discourse in the diffusion of practices. Academy of Management Review, 38, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guriev, S., & Rachinsky, A. (2005). The role of oligarchs in Russian capitalism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haxhi, I., & van Ees, H. (2010). Explaining diversity in the worldwide diffusion of codes of good governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 710–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Helin, S., & Sandström, J. (2010). Resisting a corporate code of ethics and the reinforcement of management control. Organization Studies, 31, 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hermes, N., Postma, T. J. B. M., & Zivkov, O. (2007). Corporate governance codes and their contents: An analysis of Eastern European codes. Journal for East European Management Studies, 12, 53–74.Google Scholar
  45. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Otten, J. A. (2007). Beyond the dichotomous worlds hypothesis: Towards a plurality of corporate governance logics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1288–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hironaka, A., & Schofer, E. (2002). Decoupling in the environmental arena: The case of environmental impact assessments. In A. J. Hoffman & M. J. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy, and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives (pp. 214–231). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hooghiemstra, R., & van Ees, H. (2011). Uniformity as response to soft law: Evidence from compliance and non-compliance with the Dutch corporate governance code. Regulation & Governance, 5, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. King, A. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Self-regulatory institutions for solving environmental problems: Perspectives and contributions from the management literature. In M. Delmas & O. Young (Eds.), Governance for the environment: New perspectives (pp. 98–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krawiec, K. D. (2003). Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance. Washington Unviversity Law Quarterly, 81, 487–544.Google Scholar
  53. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, LIV, 471–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Larcker, D. F., & Tayan, B. (2011). Corporate governance matters: A closer look at organizational choices and their consequences. New York, NY: FT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, belief (pp. 264–280). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  57. Leipziger, D. (2010). The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  58. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2003). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  59. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  60. Martin, R. (2010). Transferring corporate governance codes: Form or substance? Corporate governance in Hungary. Europe-Asia Studies, 62, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mazza, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Strandgaard Pedersen, J. (2005). European constructions of an American model: Developments of four MBA programmes. Management Learning, 36, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McNulty, T., & Stewart, A. (2015). Developing the governance space: A study of the role and potential of the company secretary in and around the board of directors. Organization Studies, 36, 513–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. (2006). Translating management ideas. Organization Studies, 27, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Okhmatovskiy, I., & David, R. J. (2012). Setting your own standards: Internal corporate governance codes as a response to institutional pressure. Organization Science, 23, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.Google Scholar
  67. Parker, C. (2002). The open corporation: Effective self-regulation and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pistor, K., & Xu, C. (2003). Incomplete law. International Law and Politics, 35, 931–1013.Google Scholar
  69. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rao, H., & Sivakumar, K. (1999). Institutional sources of boundary-spanning structures: The establishment of investor relations departments in the Fortune 500 industrials. Organization Science, 10, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ratnikov, K. (2002). Interview: How the Russian code of corporate conduct was developed. IPACorporate Governance News, January 3.Google Scholar
  72. Roberts, G. H. (2004). Convergent capitalisms? The internationalisation of financial markets and the 2002 Russian corporate governance code. Europe-Asia Studies, 56, 1235–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Sandholtz, K. W. (2012). Making standards stick: A theory of coupled vs. decoupled compliance. Organization Studies, 33, 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schneiberg, M., & Bartley, T. (2008). Organizations, regulation, and economic behavior: Regulatory dynamics and forms from the nineteenth to twenty-first century. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Seidl, D. (2007). Standard setting and following in corporate governance: An observation-theoretical study of the effectiveness of governance codes. Organization, 14, 705–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Seidl, D., Sanderson, P., & Roberts, J. (2013). Applying the “comply-or-explain” principle: Discursive legitimacy tactics with regard to codes of corporate governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 791–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Serres, M. (1982). Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In S. J. Latsis (Ed.), Method and appraisal in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic Review, 68, 1–16.Google Scholar
  83. Slager, C., Gond, J.-P., & Moon, J. (2010). What gets measured gets managed? The impact of SRI indices on responsible corporate behavior. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management annual meeting, Montreal.Google Scholar
  84. Sonnenfeld, J. (2004). Good governance and the misleading myths of bad metrics. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sutton, J., Dobbin, F., Meyer, J., & Scott, R. (1994). The legalization of the workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 944–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Terlaak, A. (2007). Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 32, 968–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. Business and Society, 49, 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weil Gotshal & Manges. (2002). Comparative study of corporate governance codes relevant to the European Union and its member states. European Commision.Google Scholar
  91. Werder, A. V., Talaulicar, T., & Kolat, G. L. (2005). Compliance with the German corporate governance code: An empirical analysis of the compliance statements by German listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 178–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yoshikawa, T., Tsui-Auch, L. S., & McGuire, J. (2007). Corporate governance reform as institutional innovation: The case of Japan. Organization Science, 18, 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of institutional and efficiency perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOVA School of Business and EconomicsUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations