Abstract
Emerging market companies are increasingly undertaking dual registrations on local and foreign stock exchanges to access global finance, and consequently are becoming exposed to wider concerns with corporate governance. These wider concerns are fostered by globalization as emerging economies increasingly develop ties with other countries, either regionally or with more distant economies in the developed world. Aguilera and CuervoCazurra (2004) postulate that this convergence of economies leads to the diffusion of organizational practices, such as corporate governance practices, and potentially creates both a greater efficiency of these processes and greater external legitimation. The challenge for corporate governance acceptance lies in the type of convergence that corporate governance measures can take, which can be either in form or in function (Palepu et al., 2002; Gilson, 2000). While formal convergence implies the coalescing of legal rules and institutions, functional convergence implies adaptations within different existing institutions to perform the functions of good governance. Although formal convergence may not be in evidence in an emerging market, de facto convergence may well be encouraged by the requirements that increasing numbers of dual listed companies face. Coffee (1999) also adds contractual convergence, where foreign companies submit to United States stock exchange governance rules and stock exchange regulation in order to expand their organization for potential growth opportunities. Thus this chapter explores the impact of dual registration on corporate governance and the potential for changing the nature of emerging market governance conditions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Aguilera, R. V. and Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). ‘Codes of good governance worldwide: what is the trigger?’ Organization Studies, 25 (3): 415–43.
Aldrighi, D. M. (2003). ‘The mechanisms of corporate governance in the United States: an assessment’. Revista Brasiliera de Epidemologia, 57 (3): 469–513.
Armstrong, P. (1995). ‘The King report on corporate governance’. Boardroom, 1: 16–25.
Berle, A. A. and Means, G. C. (1967). The modern corporation and private property. Revised edition (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc).
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman ( New York: Harper and Brothers).
Coffee, J. C. (1999). ‘The future as history: the prospects for global convergence in corporate governance and its implications’. Columbia Law School, Center for Law and Economic Studies, Working Paper no. 144. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=142833
Coffee, J. C. (2002). ‘Racing towards the top: the impact of cross-listings and stock market competition on international corporate governance’. Columbia Law Review, 102 (7): 1757–1831.
Congress of the United States of America (2002). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. H.R. 3763–3. Available from: http://www.soxlaw.com
Coustan, H., Leinicke, L. M., Rexroad, W. M., Ostrosky, J. A. and Thomas, A. (2004). ‘Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX): what it means to the marketplace’. Journal of Accountancy [online] (New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). Available at: http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/feb2004/coustan.htm
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. Second edition (Sage Publications).
Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of South Africa (2007). Website at: http://www.eusa.org.za
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research ( Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).
Dispute Settlement Body (2002). ‘Tax treatment for foreign sales corporation’. Available at: http://www.wto.org
Fama, E. and Jensen, M. (1983). ‘Separation of ownership and control’. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–25.
Gilson, R. J. (2000). ‘Globalizing corporate governance: convergence of form or function’. Columbia Law School, Center for Law and Economic Studies, Working Paper no. 174; Stanford Law School, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper no. 192. Available at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/lawec/
Guardian (2002). ‘Uncle Sam’s scandals at a glance’. The Guardian (29 July): 1–2.
Henning, E., van Rensburg, W. and Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research ( Pretoria: Van Schaik).
Holmström, B. R. and Kaplan, S. N. (2003). ‘The state of US corporate governance: what’s right and what’s wrong’. ECGI—Finance Working Paper no. 23/2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=441100
Jesover, F. and Kirkpatrick, G. (2005). ‘The revised OECD principles of corporate governance and their relevance to non-OECD countries’. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/38/33977036.pdf
Kaplan, S. N. (1994a). ‘Top executive rewards and firm performance: a comparison of Japan and the US’. Journal of Political Economy, 102 (3): 510–46.
Kaplan, S. N. (1994b). ‘Top executives, turnover, and firm performance in Germany’. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 10 (1): 142–59.
Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (2006). ‘Emerging giants: building world-class companies in developing countries’. Harvard Business Review, 84 (10): 60–9.
Kouwenberg, R. R. P. (2006). ‘Does voluntary corporate governance code adoption increase firm value in emerging markets? Evidence from Thailand’. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics, Working Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=958580
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (2002). ‘Investor protection and corporate valuation’. Journal ofFinance, 57 (3): 1147–70.
Li, X. (2007). ‘The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and cross-listed foreign private issuers’. University of Miami, School of Business Administration, Working Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=952433
Palepu, K., Khanna, T. and Kogan, J. (2002). ‘Globalization and similarities in corporate governance: a cross-country analysis’. Harvard Business School, Working Paper no. 02–041. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=32362
Price-Waterhouse-Coopers (2003). A comparison of the King Report 2002 and the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 ( Johannesburg: Institute of Directors).
Reed, D. (2002). ‘Corporate governance reforms in developing countries’. Journal of Business Ethics, 37 (3): 223–47.
Rueda-Sabater, E. J. (2000). ‘Corporate governance and the bargaining power of developing countries to attract foreign investment’. Corporate Governance, 8 (2): 117–24.
Ryan, C. (1995). ‘The King Report: an outline’. People Dynamics, 13 (7): 15–18.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques ( Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications).
The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa (1994). The King Report on corporate governance ( Johannesburg: The Institute of Directors of Southern Africa).
The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa (2002). The King Report on corporate govern-ance for South Africa—2002 (King II Report) ( Johannesburg: The Institute of Directors of Southern Africa).
The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation (2005). Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404: looking at the benefits ( Altamonte Springs, FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Viola Makin, Ruth Clarke and Mark G. Albon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Makin, V., Clarke, R., Albon, M.G. (2008). Corporate Governance Challenges for Dual-Registered Companies from Emerging Markets: Focus on South Africa. In: Strange, R., Jackson, G. (eds) Corporate Governance and International Business. The Academy of International Business. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285743_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285743_16
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-30122-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28574-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)