Journal of Management and Governance

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 173–186 | Cite as

Executive Stock Options in Germany: The Diffusion or Translation of US-Style Corporate Governance?

  • Trevor Buck
  • Azura Shahrim
  • Stefan Winter


Equity-based pay in the form of executive shareoptions (ESOs) is a controversial part of thetypical, US-style governance package, and ESOsin Germany are the focus of this paper. Aconventional view would see ESOs as a US-styleorganizational innovation diffusingglobally in general, and to Germany inparticular.

As an alternative to innovation diffusion,however, a translation perspective wouldsuggest that the diffusion of apparentlysimilar governance devices around the worldhides the actual adoption of differentpractices.

US/German comparative case studies arepresented as an empirical contribution thatgenerally shows a pattern so far consistentwith this translation view. In addition,intriguing and contrasting results are shownfor UK/German comparisons in the sense thatactual UK ESO plans are discovered to be moredistant from the US standard than German ones.

corporate governance executive pay translation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, M.: 1998, “Cross Holdings in Germany”, Paper Presented to the 16th International Seminar on the New Institutional Economics, June 17–19. Wallerfangen/Saar.Google Scholar
  2. Bebchuk, L.A., J.M. Fried and D.I. Walker: 2002, “Managerial Power and Rent Extraction in the Design of Executive Compensation”, University of Chicago Law Review 69: 751-846.Google Scholar
  3. Berndt, C.: 1998, “Corporate Germany at the Crossroads? Americanisation, Competitiveness and Place Dependence', Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Business Research Working Paper #98. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Buck, T, A. Bruce, B. Main and H. Udueni: 2003, “Long-Term Incentive Plans, Executive Pay and UK Company Performance”, Journal of Management Studies 40: 1709-1727.Google Scholar
  5. Combs, J.G. and M.S. Skill: 2003, “Managerialist and Human Capital Explanations for Key Executive Pay Premiums: A Contingency Perspective”, Academy of Management Journal 46: 63-73.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, C. and G. Thompson: 2002, “Corporate Governance and Democracy: The Stakeholder Debate Revisited”, Journal of Management and Governance 6: 111-130.Google Scholar
  7. Fortune: 2001, “Fortune 2001 Global 500”, Fortune, 23 July: F1-F43.Google Scholar
  8. Hall, P.A. and D.W. Gingerich: 2001, “Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Macroeconomy: An Empirical Analysis”, Paper Presented at the American Political Science Association Conference. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  9. Hofstede, G.: 1997, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills: Sage).Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B.: 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  11. Latour, B.: 1996, Aramis or the Love of Technology (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Megginson, W.L.: 2000, “Corporate Governance in Publicly-Quoted Companies”, Paper Presented at OECD Conference on Corporate Governance and State-Owned Enterprises in China, Jan 18–19. OECD, Beijing.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy, K.J.: 1999, “Executive Compensation”, in O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3. (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar
  14. Murphy, K.J.: 2000, “Performance Standards in Incentive Contracts”, Journal of Accounting and Economics 30: 245-278.Google Scholar
  15. New Bridge Street: 1996, Paying for Performance: Long-Term Incentives in the Top 500 Listed UK Companies. (London: New Bridge Street).Google Scholar
  16. Newman, K. and S.D. Nollen: 1997, “Culture and Congruence: The Fit between Management Structures and National Culture”, Journal of International Business Studies 27: 753-779.Google Scholar
  17. Rogers, E.M.: 1995, The Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
  18. Rottenburg, R.: 1996, “When Organization Travels: On Intercultural Translation”, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds.), Translating Organizational Change (New York: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar
  19. Schilling, F.: 2001, “Corporate Governance in Germany: The Move to Shareholder Value”, Corporate Governance: an International Review 9: 148-151.Google Scholar
  20. publications/Google Scholar
  21. Westphal, J.D., R. Gulati and S.M. Shortell: 1997, “Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 385-391.Google Scholar
  22. Wright, P. and M. Kroll: 2002, “Executive Discretion and Corporate Performance as Determinants of CEO Compensation, Contingent on External Monitoring Activities”, Journal of Management and Governance 6: 189-214.Google Scholar
  23. Yin, R.K.: 1995, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (London: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  24. Zeitz, G., V. Mittal and B. McAulay: 1999, “Distinguishing Adoption and Entrenchment of Management Practices: A Framework for Analysis”, Organization Studies 20: 741-776.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trevor Buck
    • 1
  • Azura Shahrim
    • 1
  • Stefan Winter
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Business, Bede IslandLeicester De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations