Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Chapter 10
Corporate Governance
KNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Define corporate governance and explain why it is used to monitor and control managers strategic
decisions.
Explain why ownership has been largely separated from managerial control in the modern corporation.
Define an agency relationship and managerial opportunism and describe their strategic implications.
Explain how three internal governance mechanismsownership concentration, the board of directors, and
executive compensationare used to monitor and control managerial decisions.
Discuss the types of compensation executives receive and their effects on strategic decisions.
Describe how the external corporate governance mechanismthe market for corporate controlacts as a
restraint on top-level managers strategic decisions.
Discuss the use of corporate governance in international settings, especially in Germany and Japan.
Describe how corporate governance fosters ethical strategic decisions and the importance of such behaviors
on the part of top-level executives.

CHAPTER OUTLINE
Opening Case How Has Increasingly Intensive Corporate Governance Affected the Lives of CEOs?
SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGERIAL CONTROL
Agency Relationships
Product Diversification as an Example of an Agency Problem
Agency Costs and Governance Mechanisms
OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION
The Growing Influence of Institutional Owners
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Board of Directors
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Strategic Focus Executive Compensation Is Increasingly Becoming a Target for Media, Activist
Shareholders, and Government Regulators
The Effectiveness of Executive Compensation
MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL
Managerial Defense Tactics
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Corporate Governance in Germany
Corporate Governance in Japan
Strategic Focus Shareholder Activists Invade Japans Large Firms Traditionally Focused on
Shareholder Capitalism
Global Corporate Governance
GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
SUMMARY
REVIEW QUESTIONS
EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES
NOTES

10-1

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

LECTURE NOTES
Chapter Introduction: The purpose of this chapter is to present and discuss how
shareholders (owners) can ensure that managers develop and implement strategic decisions
in the best interests of the shareholders (owners) and not be primarily self-serving (working
for the best interests of managers only, to the detriment of shareholders). In the absence of
effective internal governance mechanisms, the market for corporate controlan external
governance mechanismmay be activated. While it is a subject most frequently associated
with firms in the U.S. and the U.K., the effectiveness of governance is gaining attention
throughout the world. The chapter begins by describing the relationship that provides the
foundation on which the modern corporation is builti.e., the relationship between owners
and managers. However, the majority of this chapter is devoted to an explanation of various
mechanisms owners use to govern managers and ensure maximization of shareholder value.

OPENING FOCUS
How Has Increasingly Intensive Corporate Governance Affected the Lives of CEOs?
Although corporate governance is a necessity, it is also important to make sure it's executed properly to
avoid the problems and pitfalls associated with expectations of CEO behavior and performance that have
evolved as a result of greater scrutiny. In 2006, a record number of CEOs left their jobs. This exodus is
due in part to increasing scrutiny by boards, governance activists, and increased pressure from the market
for corporate control as board members are pressured to challenge the views of the CEO if they appear to
be headed in a direction that will not benefit all stakeholders.
The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (passed in 2002) caused U.S. corporate governance policies to be more
intense. This scrutiny translates into a zero tolerance for any form of corruption, conflict of interest, or
other forms of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior. But this scrutiny may have a price. The average
tenure for CEOs is now down to 18-24 months because so many new CEO are in place. If this trend
continues, Harvard Business Review reports that nearly half of the largest U.S. firms will have a new CEO
in the next four years. Because of the high turnover and shorter tenures, CEOs are focusing more and more
on short-term turnaround corporate strategies and contractually looking to their inevitable departure.
Ironically, the increases in governance controls have led to an increase in CEO pay and severance perks,
including golden parachutes that often pay three years of annual salary if a CEO exits before his/her
contract expires because the firm is taken over. If the SEC sets a limit on exit pay, CEOs will likely arrange
more pay upfront to compensate for the risks they are taking, given the shorter CEO tenures in most firms.
Author Jim Collins found that inside CEOs have been able to provide leadership that allows firms to realize
longer-term profitability and above average returns, but it takes about seven years in place to affect
profitability. But the abbreviating of average CEO tenure will not accommodate this window since they are
leaving their jobs before that are reaching their maximum effectiveness. Thus, corporate governance is a
double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is necessary to put an end to scandals such as the Enron disaster,
which led to a significant loss for all stakeholders involved, including employees. Also, CEO compensation
is quite excessive relative to other managers and employees. On the other hand, governance that is overly
restrictive can reduce managerial risk taking and increase governance costs excessively, as well as
constrain the CEOs decision-making authority. Ironically, it inadvertently leads to increased pay for
CEOs, which many governance activists rail against. Although corporate governance is a necessity, it is
also important to make sure that it is executed properly to avoid the problems noted here.
Give your students a chance to do their thing with this opening case. This case can best be
described as a paradox. Is it a case of be careful what you ask for? Or maybe its an example
of ready, fire, aim! Allow students to voice their opinions; allow others to rebut. You may end
up with a food fight.

10-2

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Define corporate governance and explain why it is used to

monitor and control managers strategic decisions.

Corporate governance is a relationship among stakeholders that is used to determine and control the direction
and performance of organizations. At its core, corporate governance is concerned with identifying ways to
ensure that strategic decisions are made effectively.
Corporate governance has been emphasized in recent years because, as the Opening Case illustrates, corporate
governance mechanisms increasingly affect all stakeholders and the firm's future.
Effective corporate governance is also of interest to nations. Governments want firms operating within their
countries to grow and provide employment, wealth, and satisfaction. This raises standards of living and
enhances social cohesion.
Three internal governance mechanisms examined here are (1) ownership concentration, as represented by types
of shareholders and their different incentives to monitor managers, (2) the board of directors, and (3) executive
compensation. The external governance mechanism is the market for corporate control.

Teaching Note: In the chapter, corporate governance is discussed from two perspectives:
The primary purpose of governance mechanisms is to prevent severe problems that may
occur because of the separation of ownership and control in large firms by positively
influencing managerial behavior.
The ability of governance mechanisms to direct top mangers actions toward shareholder
objectives is dependent on the correct combination of mechanisms being used.

Explain why ownership has been largely separated from

managerial control in the modern corporation.

SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGERIAL CONTROL

The growth of the large, modern public corporation is based primarily on the efficient separation of ownership
and managerial control.
Shareholders make investments by purchasing stock (representing ownership), which entitles them to a share of
the firms residual income (or profits) that remain after all expenses have been paid.
The right to share in residual income also means that shareholders also must accept the risk that no residual
profits will remain if the firms expenses exceed its income.
Shareholders can manage investment risk by investing in a diversified portfolio of firms.
In small firms, managers and owners are often one in the sameless separation of ownership and control.
As family-controlled firms grow, the owners generally do not have sufficient capital or managerial skills to
grow the business and seek other sources of capital and skills to support this expansion.

Teaching Note: It is helpful to provide a story that would illustrate what the separation of
ownership and managerial control is all about, and how it came to be. For example, it is easy
for students to see that Henry Ford was involved in both the ownership and the operation of
Ford Motor Company in the early days. They can see in their minds the old footage of Model
Ts coming off a very crude assembly line, by todays standards, and understand how much
simpler operations were at the time. That has all changed with the advent of the modern,

10-3

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

complex corporation. Today there is almost no way to bring ownership and managerial
control back together again in a workable model.

Define an agency relationship and managerial opportunism

and describe their strategic implications.

Agency Relationships
While the efficient separation of ownership and control enables specialization both by owners and managers, it
also results in some potential costs (and risks) for owners by creating an agency relationship.
An agency relationship exists when one party (the principal[s]) delegates decision making to another party (the
agent[s]) in return for compensation as a decision-making specialist who performs a service. This relationship
can be broader than just owners and managerse.g., consultants and clients or insured and insurer.

Figure Note: Figure 10.1 illustrates how separation of ownership from control results in an
agency relationship and is very helpful in getting students to understand the issues involved.

FIGURE 10.1
An Agency Relationship
Note the following in the figure (Figure 10.1):
Shareholders (principals) hire managers (agents) as decision makers.
The hiring act creates an agency relationship wherein a risk-bearing specialist (principal) compensates
a managerial decision-making specialist (agent).

The potential for conflicts of interests between owners and managers is created by the delegation of the
responsibilities of decision making to managers. Therefore, managers may take actions that are not in the best
interests of owners by selecting strategic alternatives that serve managerial interests rather than shareholder or
owner interests.
An agency relationship enables the possibility of managerial opportunism, the seeking of self-interest with
guile (i.e., with cunning or deceit), where opportunism is represented by an attitude or inclination and a set of
behaviors.
Before observing the results of decisions, it is impossible to know which agents will behave opportunistically
and which ones will not because a managers reputation is an imperfect guide to future behavior. As a result,
principals establish governance and control mechanisms because the opportunity for opportunistic behavior and
conflicts of interest exists.

Product Diversification As an Example of an Agency Problem

Product diversificationdiscussed in Chapter 6can be beneficial to both shareholders and managers, but it
also is a potential source of agency problems.
Managers may pursue higher levels of product diversification than are desired by shareholders to capture the
value of opportunities that are available to managers, but not to owners.

10-4

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Increased diversification generally drives the growth of the firm and firm growth is positively related to
managerial compensation. Thus, by diversifying to a greater extent than may be desired by shareholders,
managers may enjoy the higher levels of compensation that accompany managing larger firms.
Increased diversification also can reduce managerial employment risk (the risk of job loss, loss of
compensation, or loss of managerial reputation). Increased diversification reduces managerial employment
risk because the firm (and the manager) is less affected by a reduction in demand for (or failure of) a single
product line when the firm produces and sells multiple products.
Increased diversification also may provide managers with access to increased levels of slack resources or
free cash flows, resources that are generated after investment in all internal projects that have positive net
present values within the firms current product lines. Managers may choose to invest excess funds in
products or activities that are not related to the firms existing core businesses and products if they perceive
attractive (positive net present value) investment opportunities.

Figure Note: Figure 10.2 illustrates the variance between the risk profiles of shareholders
and managers based on the level or type of firm diversification. It shows that owners may
benefit from managers decisions to diversify the firms products, but only to the point where
investment returns at the margin are no longer positive. That is, diversification is valuable to
(and preferred by) owners as long as it has a positive effect on firm value. However, some
firms may be overdiversified, despite the lack of profitability in their dominant business.
Owners also may prefer that excess funds be returned to them in the form of dividends so
they can control reinvestment decisions.

FIGURE 10.2
Manager and Shareholder Risk and Diversification
Curve S represents the business or investment risk profile for shareholders (owners). It spans a diversification
scope from dominant business (which would be to the left of related-constrained) to a point between relatedconstrained and related-linked diversification. The optimum risk level is at point A, between dominant business
and related-constrained diversification.
Curve M represents the managerial employment risk profile. It spans a diversification profile from relatedconstrained to unrelated diversification. The optimum diversification level for managers is point B, between
related-linked and unrelated businesses.

As illustrated by the S-curve (owner business risk preference) and M-curve (managerial employment risk
preference), there is a conflict between owners and managers regarding the desired levels of firm diversification
and risk.
Owners prefer that the scope be greater than a dominant business but less than related-linked diversification.
Owners optimum level of diversification is where the S curve turns up, a point between dominant business
and related-constrained diversification.
Managers prefer a greater scope of diversification than owners. As can be seen from the M curve in Figure
10.2, managers prefer that the firms diversification be between related-linked and unrelated diversification.
However, as the curve indicates, there is a point at which managerial employment risk increases as the firm
overdiversifies (as discussed in Chapter 6).
The optimum level of firm diversification from a managerial risk perspective is at point B on the M curve,
somewhere between related-linked and unrelated businesses.

Agency Costs and Governance Mechanisms

10-5

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

The potential conflict illustrated by Figure 10.2, coupled with the fact that principals do not know which
managers might act opportunistically, demonstrates why principals establish governance mechanisms.
For firm diversification to approach the shareholder optimum (point A on curve S in Figure 10.2), managerial
autonomy must be controlled by the firms board of directors or by other governance mechanisms that
encourage managers to make strategic decisions that are in the best interests of shareholders.
Agency costs are the sum of incentive, monitoring, and enforcement costs as well as any residual losses
incurred by principals because it is not possible for principals to guarantee 100 percent compliance through
monitoring arrangements.
Research suggests that more intensive application of governance mechanisms may produce significant changes
in strategies. Corporate America needs more intense governance in order for continued investment in the stock
market to facilitate growth. However, others argue that the indirect costs are even more telling in regard to the
impact on strategy formulation and implementation. That is, because of more intense governance, firms may
make decisions that are much less risky and thus decrease potential shareholder wealth significantly due to the
implementation of SOX.

Explain how three internal governance mechanismsownership

concentration, the board of directors, and executive compensation
are used to monitor and control managerial decisions.

OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION
Ownership concentration is defined both by the number of large-block owners and by the total percentage of
the firms shares that they own.
Large-block shareholders are investors who typically own at least five percent (5 percent) of the firms shares.
Diffuse ownership (a large number of shareholders with small holdings and few/no large-block shareholders)
produces weak monitoring of managerial decisions
makes it difficult for owners to coordinate their actions effectively
may result in levels of diversification that are beyond the optimum level desired by shareholders (especially
when this condition is combined with weak monitoring)

The Growing Influence of Institutional Owners

In recent years, large block ownership by individuals has declined, but they have been replaced by significant
positions held by institutional owners.
Institutional owners are large block shareholder positions controlled by financial institutions, such as stock
mutual funds and pension funds.
The importance of institutional owners is indicated by the fact that these shareholders now controls over 50
percent of the stock in large U.S. corporations and approximately 56 percent of the stock of the 1,000 largest
U.S. corporations. These ownership percentages suggest that as investors, institutional owners have both the
size and the incentive to discipline ineffective top-level managers and can significantly influence a firms
choice of strategies and overall strategic decisions. Initially, these shareholder activists and institutional
investors concentrated on the performance and accountability of CEOs and contributed to the ouster of a
number of them. They are now targeting what they believe are ineffective boards of directors.
The rising tide of shareholder pressure also is evidenced by actions taken by CalPERS.
CalPERS provides retirement and health coverage to over 1.3 million current and retired public employees.

10-6

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

CalPERS is generally thought to act aggressively to promote decisions and actions that it believes will
enhance shareholder value in companies in which it invests.
Institutions activism may not have a direct effect on firm performance, but its influence may be indirect
through its effects on important strategic decisions.

Teaching Note: The students should know about a few of the more common anti-takeover
provisions. For example, a golden parachute is a type of managerial protection that pays a
guaranteed salary for a specified period of time in the event of a takeover and the loss of
ones job. A golden goodbye provides automatic payments to top executives if their contracts
are not renewed, regardless of the reason for nonrenewal. In the case of acquisitions,
managers may receive this compensation even if they voluntarily decide to quit. Still other
defense strategies are described in greater detail in Table 10.2.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Even though institutional ownership has increased, the majority of firms still enjoy the benefits or advantages
of diffuse ownership (i.e., limited monitoring of managers by individual shareholders). Furthermore, large
financial institution shareholderssuch as banksare effectively prevented from having direct ownership of
firms and are prohibited from placing a representative on the boards of directors. These conditions highlight the
importance of boards of directors to corporate governance.

Teaching Note: Legally, the board of directors has broad powers, including:
directing the affairs of the organization
punishing (disciplining) and rewarding (compensating) managers
protecting the rights and interests of shareholders (owners)

Boards are experiencing increasing pressure from shareholders, lawmakers, and regulators to become more
forceful in their oversight role and thereby forestall inappropriate actions by top executives.
The board of directors is a group of elected individuals whose primary responsibility is to act in the owners
interests by formally monitoring and controlling the corporations top-level executives. If the board of directors
is appropriately structured and operates effectively, it can protect owners from managerial opportunism.

Table Note: Table 10.1 provides characteristics of three classifications of members of the
board of directors: insiders, related outsiders, and outsiders. These will be useful for students
as you discuss board effectiveness.

TABLE 10.1
Classifications of Board of Director Members
Insiders are represented by the firms CEO and other top-level managers.
Related outsiders are individuals who are not involved in the firms day-to-day operations, but may have a
relationship with the company. Examples might include the firms legal counsel, a large customer or supplier,
or a close relative of one of the firms top-level managers.
Outsiders are individuals who are independent of the firm. They are neither involved in the firms day-to-day
operations, nor do they have other relationships with the firm. An example of an outsider might be the
president of a university or a community volunteer.

10-7

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Because the primary role of the board of directors is to monitor and ratify major managerial actions to protect
the interests of owners, there is a call by advocates of board reform that outsiders should represent a significant
majority of a boards membership.

Teaching Note: Outside directors (and boards) are perceived as ineffective because:
insiders dominate the board by limiting the flow of information to outside directors.
outside directors are nominated for board membership by insiders (primarily by the CEO)
and thus are indebted to insiders.

The drawbacks of outside boards:

Because outside directors do not have day-to-day contact with the ongoing operations of the firm, they must
obtain detailed, in-depth information about the quality of management decisions. Generally this information
is obtained through frequent interactions, often developed over time, with inside directors (generally, at
board meetings).
In the absence of rich information, boards may be forced to emphasize financial rather than strategic
controls. Potentially, this means that outsider-dominated boardsbecause they lack sufficient information
will evaluate managers, not on the basis of the appropriateness of their actions (which the board ratified) but
based on the financial outcomes of those actions.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Board of Directors

Because of the boards importance, the performance of individual board members as well as that of entire
boards is being evaluated more formally and intensely.
Many boards have voluntarily initiated changes, including:
increasing the diversity of board members backgrounds
strengthening internal management and accounting control systems
establishing and consistently using formal processes to evaluate the boards performance
the creation of a lead director role that has strong powers with regard to the board agenda and oversight of
nonmanagement board member activities
changes in the director compensation, especially reducing or eliminating stock options as part of the package

Teaching Note: The following comments can be used to expand the class discussion of
whether a more active board is a more effective board. The findings from research regarding
the effectiveness of board involvement in the strategic decision-making process are mixed,
indicating the following:
Board involvement in the strategic decision-making process may improve firm
performance because it provides the firms managers with access to outside opinions, and
outside directors should be more objective and interested in protecting owner interests.
Boards are more likely to be involved in strategic decisions when the firm is smaller and
less diversified, since information regarding strategic actions is more readily available and
both the scope and size of the firm are manageable.
Boards are less active in large, diversified firms.
The boards access to sufficiently rich information on appropriateness of strategic actions
in large diversified firms is limited.
Board may be limited to evaluating financial outcomes (instead of action appropriateness).

10-8

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Teaching Note: McKinsey & Co. research found that institutional shareholders were willing
to pay an 11 percent premium for the shares of companies when outsiders constitute a
majority of the board, own significant amounts of stock, are not personally tied to top
management, and when management is subjected to formal evaluation.

Research shows that boards working collaboratively with management:

make higher quality strategic decisions
make decisions faster
become more involved in the strategic decision-making process
Because of the increased pressure from owners and the potential conflict among board members, procedures are
necessary to help boards function effectively in facilitating the strategic decision-making process.
Increasingly, outside directors are being required to own significant equity stakes as a prerequisite to holding a
board seat. In fact, some research suggests that firms perform better if outside directors have such a stake.
One activist concludes that boards need three foundational characteristics to be effective: director stock
ownership, executive meetings to discuss important strategic issues, and a serious nominating committee that
truly controls the nomination process to strongly influence the selection of new members.

Discuss the types of compensation executives receive and

their effects on strategic decisions.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
As illustrated in the Opening Case and Strategic Focus, the compensation of top-level managers generates great
interest and strongly held opinions. One reason for this widespread interest can be traced to a natural curiosity
about extremes and excesses. But furthermore, CEO pay is an indirect but tangible way to assess governance
processes in large corporations.
Executive compensation is a governance mechanism that seeks to align managers and owners interests
through salary, bonus, and long-term incentive compensation such as stock options.
Sometimes the use of a long-term incentive plan prevents major stockholders (e.g., institutional investors) from
pressing for changes in the composition of the board of directors, because they assume that long-term incentives
ensure that top executives will act in shareholders best interests. Alternatively, stockholders largely assume that
top-executive pay and the performance of a firm are more closely aligned when firms have boards that are
dominated by outside members.
Using executive compensation as a governance mechanism is more challenging in international firms. Evidence
suggests that the interests of owners of multinational corporations may be served best when the firms foreign
subsidiary compensation plans are customized to local conditions. Though unique compensation plans require
additional monitoring and increase the firms agency costs, it is important to adjust pay levels to match those of
the region of the world (e.g., higher in the U.S. and lower in Asia).
Teaching Note: When DaimlerBenz acquired Chrysler, it highlighted the fact that top
executives at Chrysler made much more than the executives at DaimlerBenzbut higherpaid Chrysler executives report to lower-paid Daimler bosses. This example is one that
students seem to be able to grasp.
Developing and implementing an effective incentive compensation program is quite challenging because:
Strategic decisions made by top managers are complex and non-routine. Due to difficulties in judging
decision quality, compensation is often linked to more measurable outcomes such as financial performance.

10-9

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Decisions made by top-level managers are likely to affect firm performance over an extended period of time.
As a result, it is difficult to assess the effect of current decisions using current period performance.
Many variables (or outside factors) intervene between management behavior and firm performance (e.g.,
uncontrollable shifts in the environment).
Although incentive compensation plans may increase the value of a firm in line with shareholder expectations,
such plans are subject to managerial manipulation.
Although long-term performance-based incentives may reduce temptations to under-invest in the short run, they
increase executive exposure to risks associated with uncontrollable eventse.g., market shifts, industry decline.

STRATEGIC FOCUS
Executive Compensation Is Increasingly Becoming a Target for Media, Activist Shareholders, and
Government Regulators
Amid growing outrage over excessive executive compensation, a number of outside entities, including the
media, shareholder activists, and government regulators, are seeking to reduce the increases in CEO
executive compensation pay packages. The reason for this outrage can be illustrated by the compensation
package for former Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli. Home Depot awarded Mr. Nardelli $245 million
over his five-year stint. Shareholders felt betrayed that Home Depots stock prices dropped 12 percent
during Nardellis tenure while, during the same period, Home Depots most important competitor, Lowes,
increased 173 percent.
Nardelli negotiated his compensation package relative to what his compensation would have been had he
stayed with his previous employer (General Electric). As such, he was awarded $25 million in vested
shares on his start date. Additionally, he received a new car every three years (similar price to a MercedesBenz S series), the opportunity to use the company jet for personal trips, as well as a $10 million loan at an
annual interest of 5.8 percent that would be forgiven over five years. The board of directors that approved
the hiring of Nardelli was pleased that it could attract and hire such a high-profile candidate.
Were there other factors that played into the boards decision to approve such a pricey package? A New
York Times article suggested that the six-member compensation board was composed of other CEOs, one
of whom had an even higher salary than Nardelli. Others were suggested to have had associations with
Nardelli, directly or indirectly, through his previous employer GE. As such, it would be hard for his
associates to lower Nardellis pay, especially when one board member was making more than he was.
Increased information disclosure as well as the number of scandals associated with backdating options have
made board executive compensation committees (and boards in general) a focus of activist investors and
increased government scrutiny. Certainly Home Depot was a target for much of this scrutiny, which forced
the board to oust Nardelli from his position when he refused to accept a lower pay package.
The new Home Depot CEO, Frank Blake, has a pay package that is significantly less than his predecessor
(around one-third of Nardellis annual compensation). Interestingly, Blake rejected the retailers first offer
because it included too much pay. He refused compensation in the form of restricted stock that retains
value even if the share price declines. In other words, he wanted to make sure that his pay package was in
line with the desires of Home Depot shareholders. At least in the case of Home Depot, it appears that
increased scrutiny, activist shareholder monitoring, and executive pay disclosure rules had a significant
effect in bringing CEO pay in line.
Who really owns this problem? How much is too much? Why are shareholders not reacting by
replacing the board members who approve executive compensation packages deemed
excessive? Students should be made aware that directors are being held accountable for their

10-10

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

actions through an increasing frequency of civil law-suits. Many companies are furnishing malpractice insurance to directors in order to obtain their services on their boards.

The Effectiveness of Executive Compensation

The compensation received by top-level managers, especially by CEOs, is often a subject of controversy.
Large CEO compensation packages result mostly from the inclusion of stock options and stock in the total pay
packages. This is intended to entice executives to keep the stock price high, thus aligning manager and owner
interests.
Research has shown that managers owning more than one percent of the firms stock are less likely to be forced
out of their jobs, even when the firm is performing poorly
Furthermore, a review of the research suggests that over time, firm size has accounted for more than 50 percent
of the variance in total CEO pay, while firm performance has accounted for less than 5 percent of the variance.

Teaching Note: One way that boards have found to compensate executives is through giving
them loans with favorable, or no, interest for the purpose of buying company stock. If done
correctly, this can be a governance tool, since it aligns executives priorities with those of the
shareholders because the executives hold stock, not just options on the stock. They gain or
lose money along with the shareholders.

It is important to consider that annual bonuses may provide incentives to pursue short-run objectives at the
expense of the firms long-term interests.
While some stock optionbased compensation plans are well designed with option strike prices substantially
higher than current stock prices, too many have been designed simply to give executives more wealth that will
not immediately show up on the balance sheet. Research of stock option repricing where the strike price value
of the option has been lowered from its original position suggests that action is taken more frequently in highrisk situations. However, it also happens when firm performance was poor to restore the incentive effect for the
option. Often, organizational politics play a role in this.
Repricing stock options does not appear to be a function of management entrenchment or ineffective
governance. These firms often have had sudden and negative changes to their growth and profitability. They
also frequently lose their top managers.
Interestingly, institutional investors prefer compensation schemes that link pay with performance, including the
use of stock options. Again, this evidence shows that no internal governance mechanism is perfect.
Option awards became a means of providing large compensation packages, and the options awarded did not
relate to the firms performance, particularly when boards showed a propensity to reprice options at a lower
strike price when stock prices fell precipitously. Option awards are becoming increasingly controversial.

Teaching Note: Board directors also receive compensation. Some recent figures follow:
Median base compensation for directors in telecommunications was almost $90,000.
Directors at Microsystem Inc. received average compensation of about $410,000 a year,
while directors at Compaq earned over $360,000 and directors at Pfizer received almost
$260,000.
On average, directors at the largest 200 firms received about $134,000.

10-11

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Similar to executives in the firm, there is a move by large institutional investors such as
CalPERS to pay directors at least partially in stock (some estimating that some 50 percent
of director pay will be in company stock).

Describe how the external corporate governance

mechanismthe market for corporate controlacts as a
restraint on top-level managers strategic decisions.

MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL

The market for corporate control generally comes into use as an external governance mechanism only after
internal governance mechanisms have failed.

A Brief History of the Market for Corporate Control

The market for corporate control has been active for some time. The 1980s were known as a time of
merger mania, with around 55,000 acquisitions valued at approximately $1.3 trillion. However, there
were many more acquisitions in the 1990s, and the value of mergers and acquisitions in that decade was
more than $10 trillion. The major reduction in the stock market resulted in a significant drop in
acquisition activity in the first part of the twenty-first century. However, the number of merger and
acquisitions began to increase in 2003, and the market for corporate control has become increasingly
international with over 40 percent of the merger and acquisition activity involving two firms from
different countries.
While some acquisition attempts are intended to obtain resources important to the acquiring firm, most of
the hostile takeover attempts are due to the target firms poor performance. Therefore, target firm
managers and members of the boards of directors are highly sensitive about hostile takeover bids. It often
means that they have not done an effective job in managing the company because of the performance
level inviting the bid. If they accept the offer, they are likely to lose their jobs; the acquiring firm will
insert its own management. If they reject the offer and fend off the takeover attempt, they must improve
the performance of the firm or risk losing their jobs as well.

The market for corporate control is composed of individuals and firms who buy ownership positions in (or take
over) potentially undervalued firms. They do this in order to form a new division in an established diversified
firm, merge two previously separate firms, and usually replace the target firms management team to revamp
the strategy that caused low firm performance.
The market for corporate control governance mechanism should be triggered by a firms poor performance
relative to industry competitors. A firms poor performance, often demonstrated by the firms earning belowaverage returns, is an indicator that internal governance mechanisms have failed; that is, their use did not result
in managerial decisions that maximized shareholder value.

Managerial Defense Tactics

Because of the threat of dismissal, managers have devised a number of defensive tactics designed to both ward
off takeovers and buffer or protect managers from external governance mechanisms. These tactics include:
managerial pay interventions, such as golden parachutes
asset restructuring, such as divesting a business unit or division
financial restructuringe.g., stock repurchases, paying out a firms free cash flows as a dividend
changing the state of incorporation

10-12

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

making targeted shareholder repurchases (known as greenmail)

TABLE 10.2
Hostile Takeover Defense Strategies
This table presents a number of defense strategies and identifies them according to category (preventive,
reactive), popularity (high, medium, low, very low), effectiveness (high, medium, low, very low), and
stockholder wealth effects (positive, negative, inconclusive). The defense strategies mentioned are poison pill,
corporate charter amendment, golden parachute, litigation, greenmail, standstill agreement, and capital structure
change.

Most institutional investors oppose the use of defense tactics. For example, TIAA-CREF and CalPERS have
taken actions to have several firms poison pills eliminated.
The market for corporate control also can be plagued by inefficiency. In the 1980s, roughly 50 percent of all
takeovers targeted firms that were high performers. As a result,
acquisition prices were excessive
expensive defensive strategies were often implemented to protect the firm
Despite its inefficiency, the threat of acquisition by corporate raiders can serve as an effective constraint on the
managerial growth motive and result in strategies that are in the best interests of the firms owners.

Teaching Note: As mentioned throughout the chapter, internal and external governance
mechanisms, while they may restrain managerial actions, are imperfect means of controlling
managerial opportunism. This means that some combination of both internal and external
mechanisms is necessary.

Discuss the use of corporate governance in international

settings, in particular in Germany and Japan.

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Our discussion of internal and external governance mechanismsand their effectiveness in controlling
managerial behaviorhas been centered on the U.S. and the U.K. But this does not necessarily apply to the
systems of corporate governance used elsewhere in the world e.g., German and Japanese firms.
While the stability that has been associated with the German and Japanese systems has been perceived as a
strength, it is possible, given the dynamic and uncertain nature of the new competitive landscape, that stability
may be a potential source of weakness.

Corporate Governance in Germany

The owner-manager relationship in Germany differs from that described for the U.S. For example:
In many private German firms, the owner and manager are the same person.
In publicly traded firms there often is a dominant shareholder.
Banks historically have occupied a central position in German governance structure.

10-13

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Banks became major shareholders when companies that they financed either sought new capital in the stock
market or defaulted on loans.
Banks generally hold less than 10 percent of a firms stock.
Bank ownership of a single firms stock is limited to 15 percent of the banks capital.
Three large banksDeutsche, Dresdner, and Commerzbankhold majority positions in large German firms
through their own holdings and proxy votes for shareholders who retain shares with the banks.
German firms with more than 2,000 employees must have a two-tiered board structure, with supervision of
management being separated from other board duties and all of the functions of direction and management
being placed in the hands of the Vorstand or management board.
Appointment to the management board is the responsibility of the Aufsichtsrat or supervisory board.
Despite the ability of major owners and banks to monitor and control the managers of large German firms,
maximizing shareholder value has not been an historical focus. However, this is changing.
Teaching Note: A shift is taking place in German firms historic lack of focus on maximizing
shareholder value. For example, SGL Carbon AG lost more than $71 million in the early
1990s and was later restructured to turn the corporation around. In particular the firms
governance structure was changed, transparent accounting practices were adopted, and the
firm set a goal of enhancing shareholder value. The firms performance has since improved,
and many attribute this to the new governance structure.

Corporate Governance in Japan

Corporate governance in Japan is affected by the concepts of obligation, family, and consensus.
In Japan, obligation goes beyond principles but is more a product of specific causes, events, and relationships.
It can mean returning a service for one that has been rendered.
The concept of family goes beyond the American concept to include the firmindividuals see themselves as
members of a company family. And the family concept is extended to include members of the firms keiretsu, a
group of firms that are tied together by cross-shareholdings, interrelationships, and interdependencies.
Consensus represents one of the most important influences on governance structure in Japan. This requires that
managersamong othersexpend significant amounts of energy to win the hearts and minds of people rather
than proceed by the edicts of top-level managers.
As in Germany, banks also play an important role in financing and monitoring large public firms in Japan.
The bank owning the largest share of stocks and the largest amount of debtthe main bankhas the closest
relationship with the companys top executives.
Banks occupy an important position in the governance system, both financing and monitoring firms.
The main bankthe bank holding the largest share of a firms debtprovides financial advice and assumes
primary responsibility for monitoring the firms management.
Japanese banks can hold up to five percent of a firms stock.
Groups of banks can hold up to 40 percent of a firms stock.
In many cases, bank relations are an integral part of the Japanese firms keiretsu (an industrial group of
firms that interact with the same bank).

Teaching Note: Keiretsus are both diversified and vertically integrated to the extent that they
generally include one or more firms in almost all important industrial sectors.

10-14

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

As in Germany, Japans corporate governance structure is changing. For example, the role of banks in the
monitoring and control of managerial behavior and firm outcomes has become less significant.

STRATEGIC FOCUS
Shareholder Activists Invade Japans Large Firms Traditionally Focused on Stakeholder
Capitalism
Japan has traditionally applied relationship-capitalism, which is based on the premise that firms help each
other when they are weak and facilitate and encourage each other as they become strong. This system has
been a very effective method of protection in order to keep Japanese firms Japanese. This relationshipcapitalism created a system for protection against outside owners by having a close-knit group of insiders
who manage the firm as well as a larger set of interlocking shareholders who are mutually bonded by
owning each others stock. In the 1980s, these cross-shareholdings accounted for 50 percent of the equity
in Japanese firms. Recently, relationship-capitalism accounts for only 20 percent of total equity.
Foreign ownership of Japanese firms has increased from approximately 4.7 percent in 1990 to 28 percent in
2007. A parallel trend is the increase in activist foreign shareholders making proposals in governing the
firms differently. Japanese managers are facing an increasing level of activism, especially by foreign
shareholders. Interestingly, in Japan, shareholders can vote directly on dividends and executive pay. Thus,
on the surface it would appear that Japanese stock market policies are more shareholder-friendly than those
in the United States or the United Kingdom. Furthermore, shareholders can vote to dismiss the entire board
without cause. However, Japanese investors do not take up this power readily and most often defer to
executive proposals. Since 28 percent of Japanese shares are now held by foreign institutional investors,
these practices have begun to change. Shareholder activity is becoming more common. In June 2007,
firms holding their shareholders meetings faced 30 shareholder resolutions which were twice as many as
there were one year earlier. Japanese managers who are determined to maintain a tightly-knit business
culture feel threatened. Some of the issues raised by shareholders included the accumulation of heavy cash
reserves that could be used to pay dividends that are inline with those paid by U.S. and U.K. firms and
reorganizations that would result in employee layoffs.
Japanese managers have fought back through use of the Japanese media to paint non-Japanese shareholders
as short-sighted financial criminals. In fact, the long-term health of Japanese firms might be improved
given that Japanese firms hold cash and securities equivalent to 16 percent of GDP, whereas American
firms long-term average of cash and securities is about 5 percent. Although these slack resources in Japan
may facilitate a longer-term view, from the eyes of the Japanese firms have recently begun experiencing
activist shareholders who seek to increase returns through improved dividend policy.

Were not the symptoms of change anticipated in this case? This is a clash of cultures. Japanese
business culture has valued relationships and consensus which calls for the expenditure of
significant amounts of energy to win the hearts and minds of people whenever possible, as
opposed to top executives issuing edicts. Consensus is highly valued, even when it results in a
slow and cumbersome decision-making process. Do students feel that compromise is a realistic
strategy in addressing this apparent conundrum?

Global Corporate Governance

As discussed in this section, the changes in governance that are taking place in Germany and Japan are
representative of the twenty-first century competitive landscape, where customer demands are becoming more

10-15

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

similar and shareholder value is becoming a more significant focus of managerial agents. This will result in
more uniform governance structures.

Teaching Note: Examples of differences and changes in international governance follow:

In France, anger has been growing over the lack of information on top executive
compensation. A recent report recommended that the positions of CEO and chairman of
the board be held by two different individuals. It also recommended reducing the tenure of
board members and to disclose their pay.
In South Korea, principles of corporate governance are being adopted to provide proper
board and management incentives to pursue the interests of both the company and the
shareholders and to facilitate effective monitoring.
Changes in corporate governance are occurring even in transitional economies, such as
China and Russia, though implemented more gradually. The use of stock-based
compensation plans has influenced foreign companies to invest (particularly in China).

Describe how corporate governance can foster ethical

strategic decisions and the importance of such behaviors on
the part of top-level executives.

GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Governance mechanisms discussed in this chapter are focused on ensuring that managers work effectively
toward meeting their obligation to maximize shareholder wealth. However, shareholders are only one group of
the firms stakeholders (as discussed in Chapter 1).
Over the long-term, the demands of other key stakeholderssuch as employees, customers, suppliers, and the
communityalso must be satisfied in order to maximize shareholder wealth.
For that reason, and others, governance mechanisms must be carefully designed and implemented so that
managers attention is not focused on maximizing short-term returns and to ensure that they consider the
interests of all stakeholders.
Teaching Note: John Smales (outside director of the board at GM) has commented that the
most fundamental obligation of management is to perpetuate the organization, taking priority
even over stockholder interests. His comments may provide a good opportunity to engage
students in a discussion about the purpose of the firm and its obligations to all stakeholders.

ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What is corporate governance? What factors account for the considerable amount of attention
corporate governance receives from several parties, including shareholder activists, business press
writers, and academic scholars? Why is governance necessary to control managers decisions? (pp. 276278)
Corporate governance is a relationship among stakeholders that is used to determine and control the direction
and performance of organizations.
Corporate governance receives a great deal of attention because governance mechanisms sometimes fail to
adequately monitor and control top-level managers strategic decisions. If the behavior of top-level mangers is
not monitored and controlled effectively, this could mean that the firm will not be strategically competitive.

10-16

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Effective corporate governance is also of interest to nations. A country prospers as its firms grow and provide
employment, wealth, and satisfactionthus improving standards of living. These aspirations are met when
firms are competitive internationally in a sustained way. Corporate governance reflects the standards of the
company, which collectively reflect societal standards. Thus, in many corporations, shareholders attempt to
hold top-level managers more accountable for their decisions and the results they generate. As with individual
firms and their boards, nations that govern their corporations effectively may gain a competitive advantage over
rival countries.
As owners delegate strategy development and decision making to managers, conflicts of interest emerge
managers may select strategic alternatives that serve their own best interests, not those of the owners.
Governance mechanisms help owners (shareholders) to ensure that managers make strategic decision that are in
the best interests of the former. If internal governance mechanisms are ineffective, the market for corporate
control (an external governance mechanism) may be activated.
2. What does it mean to say that ownership is separated from managerial control in the modern
corporation? Why does this separation exist? (p. 278)
Historically, U.S. firms were managed by the founders/owners and their descendants. In these cases, corporate
ownership and control resided in the same person(s). As firms grew larger, ownership and control were
separated in most large corporations so that control of the firm shifted to professional managers while
ownership was dispersed among unorganized stockholders who were removed from day-to-day management.
These changes created the modern public corporation, which is based on the efficient separation of ownership
and managerial control. Supporting the separation is a basic legal premise suggesting that the primary objective
of a firms activities is to increase the corporations profit and thereby the financial gains of the owners (or
shareholders). However, this right also requires that they accept the financial risk of the firm and its operation.
As shareholders diversify their investments over a number of corporations, their risk declines (the poor
performance or failure of any one firm in which they invest has less overall effect). Shareholders thus
specialize in managing their investment risk while managers focus on decision making. Without management
specialization in decision making and owner specialization in risk bearing, a firm probably would be limited by
the abilities of its owners to manage and make effective strategic decisions. Therefore, in concept, the
separation and specialization of ownership (risk bearing) and managerial control (decision making) should
produce the highest returns.
3. What is an agency relationship? What is managerial opportunism? What assumptions do owners of
modern corporations make about managers as agents? (pp. 279-282)
Despite its advantages, the separation of ownership and control may result in some potential costs (and risks)
for owners by creating an agency relationship. An agency relationship exists when one or more persons (the
principal or principals) hires another person or persons (the agent or agents) as a decision-making specialist to
perform a service. In other words, the agency relationship exists when one party delegates decision making to
another party in return for compensation.
The owner-agent relationship enables the possibility of managerial opportunism, the seeking of self-interest
with guile (i.e., cunning or deceit) where opportunism is represented by an inclination toward self-seeking
behaviors. However, before observing the results of decisions, it is impossible to know which agents will
behave opportunistically and which ones will not. A managers reputation is an imperfect guide to future
behavior and opportunistic behavior cannot be observed until after it has occurred.
4. How is each of the three internal governance mechanismsownership concentration, boards of
directors, and executive compensationused to align the interests of managerial agents with those of the
firms owners? (pp. 283-290)
Ownership concentration is an effective governance mechanism because owners of large blocks of stock
(representing a higher percentage of ownership) have a greater financial interest in monitoring managerial

10-17

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

decisions than do small shareholders (characterized as diffuse ownership). Increasingly, institutional investors
such as stock mutual funds and public-pension funds hold large blocks of stock, and these shareholders
aggressively monitor and take action against managers who receive excessive compensation and perks but
achieve only poor firm performance.
Monitoring and controlling managerial decisions are supposed to be accomplished through the firms board of
directors, members of which are elected by shareholders to oversee managers and ensure that the firm is
operated in the best interests of owners. Members can be classified into three categoriesinsiders (the CEO
and other top-level managers), related outsiders (member who are not involved in day-to-day operations but
have some relationship with the firm), and outsiders (members who are independent from the firm and its
operations).
Executive compensation can be used to help align the interests of managers and owners by tying managerial pay
to firm performance through salaries, bonuses, and long-term incentives based on stock options. However,
given the complexity and long-term nature of strategic decisions, it may be difficult to perfectly align
compensation with firm performance. First, the strategic decisions made by top-level managers are typically
complex and nonroutine, so direct supervision of executives is inappropriate for judging the quality of their
decisions. Thus, compensation of top-level managers is usually determined by the firms financial
performance. Second, the impact of an executives decisions is not immediate, making it difficult to assess the
effect of decisions on the corporations performance. Third, a number of variables (unpredictable economic,
social, or legal changes) intervene between top-level managerial behavior and firm performance, making it
difficult to discern the effects of strategic decisions.
5. What trends exist regarding executive compensation? What is the effect of the increased use of longterm incentives on executives strategic decisions? (pp. 287-290)
In recent times, many stakeholders, including shareholders, have been angered by what they consider the
excessive compensation received by some top-level managers, especially CEOs. The primary reason for such
large compensation packages is the inclusion of stock options and stock in the total pay packages. The primary
reasons for compensating executives with stock is that it provides incentives to keep the stock price high, thus
aligning manager and owner interests. However, there may be some unintended consequences. Research has
shown that managers who own more than one percent of the firms stock are less likely to be forced out of their
jobs, even when the firm is performing poorly.
Increasingly, long-term incentive plans are becoming a critical part of compensation packages in U.S. firms.
The use of longer-term pay helps firms cope with or avoid potential agency problems. Because of this, the stock
market generally reacts positively to the introduction of a long-range incentive plan for top executives.
While some stock option-based compensation plans are well designed with option strike prices substantially
higher than current stock prices, too many have been designed simply to give executives more wealth that will
not immediately show up on the balance sheet. Research of stock option repricing where the strike price value
of the option has been changed to be lower than it was originally set suggests that step is taken more frequently
in high-risk situations. However, it also happens when firm performance was poor to restore the incentive effect
for the option. But evidence also suggests that organizational politics are often involved. Additionally, research
has found that repricing stock options does not appear to be a function of management entrenchment or
ineffective governance; these firms often have had sudden and negative changes to their growth and
profitability. They also frequently lose their top managers. Interestingly, institutional investors prefer
compensation schemes that link pay with performance, including the use of stock options. Again, this evidence
shows that no internal governance mechanism is perfect.
While stock options became highly popular as a means of compensating top executives and linking pay to
performance, they also have become controversial of late. It seems that option awards became a means of
providing large compensation packages and the options awarded did not relate to the firms performance,
particularly when boards showed a propensity to reprice options at a lower strike price when stock prices fell
precipitously. Because of the large number of options granted in recent years and the increasingly common
practice of repricing them, some have called for expensing the options by the firm at the time they are awarded.

10-18

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

This action could be quite costly to many firms stated profits. Thus, some firms have begun to move away
from granting stock options.
6. What is the market for corporate control? What conditions generally cause this external governance
mechanism to become active? How does the mechanism constrain top executives decisions and actions?
(pp. 290-292)
The market for corporate control is an external governance mechanism that becomes active when a firms
internal controls fail. The market for corporate control is composed of individuals and firms that buy
ownership positions in (or take over) potentially undervalued corporations so they can form new divisions in
established diversified companies or merge two previously separate firms. Because they are assumed to be the
party responsible for formulating and implementing the strategy that led to poor performance, the top
management team of the acquired company is usually replaced. Thus, the market for corporate control
disciplines managers that are ineffective or act opportunistically. A firms poor performance is an indication
that internal governance mechanisms have failed (that is, their use did not result in managerial decisions that
maximized shareholder value), opening the door to the involvement of the market for corporate control. Indeed,
hostile takeovers are the major activity in the market for corporate control.
7.

What is the nature of corporate governance in Germany and Japan? (pp. 294-295)

In many private German firms, owner and manager may be the same individual and thus no agency problem
will exist. Even in publicly traded corporations, there is often a dominant shareholder, so the problem is
minimized. Thus, ownership concentration is an important means of corporate governance in Germany, just as
it is in the U.S.
Historically, banks have been at the center of the German corporate governance structure, which is the case in
many continental European countries such as Italy and France. As lenders, banks become major shareholders
when companies they had financed earlier seek funding on the stock market or default on loans. Although
stakes are usually under 10 percent, there is no legal limit on how much of a firms stock banks can hold (except
that a single ownership position cannot exceed 15 percent of the banks capital). Shareholders can tell the
banks how to vote their ownership position, but they generally elect not to do so. Banks monitor and control
managers both as lenders and as shareholders by electing representatives to supervisory boards.
German firms with more than 2,000 employees are required to have a two-tier board structure. Through this
structure, the supervision of management is separated from other duties normally assigned to a board of
directors, especially the nomination of new board members. Thus, Germanys two-tiered system places the
responsibility to monitor and control managerial (or supervisory) decisions and actions in the hands of a
separate group. While all the functions of direction and management are the responsibility of the management
board, appointment to this body is the responsibility of the supervisory tier. Employees, union members, and
shareholders appoint members to the latter.
Historically, German executives have not been dedicated to the maximization of shareholder value. However,
corporate governance in Germany is changing. Due at least partially to the increasing globalization of business,
many governance systems are beginning to gravitate toward the U.S. system.
Attitudes toward corporate governance in Japan are affected by the concepts of obligation, family, and
consensus. As part of a corporate family, individuals are members of a unit that envelops their liveseven the
keiretsu is a family, and certainly more than an economic concept. Consensus, an important influence in
Japanese corporate governance, calls for the expenditure of significant amounts of energy to win the hearts and
minds of people whenever possible, as opposed to depending on edicts from top executives. Consensus is
highly valued, even when it results in a slow and cumbersome decision-making process.
As in Germany, banks play an important role in financing and monitoring large public firms in Japan. The bank
owning the largest share of stocks and the largest amount of debt (the main bank) has the closest relationship
with the companys top executives. The main bank provides financial advice to the firm and also closely

10-19

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

monitors managers. Thus, Japan has a bank-based financial and corporate governance structure compared to
the United States market-based financial and governance structure.
Aside from lending money (debt), a Japanese bank can hold up to five percent of a firms total stock; a group of
related financial institutions can hold up to 40 percent. In many cases, main-bank relationships are part of a
horizontal keiretsu (a group of firms tied together by cross-shareholdings). A keiretsu firm usually owns less
than 2 percent of any other member firm; however, each company typically has a stake of that size in every firm
in the keiretsu. As a result, somewhere between 30 percent and 90 percent of a typical firm is owned by other
members of the keiretsu. Thus, a keiretsu is a system of relationship investments.
As is the case in Germany, Japans corporate governance structure is changing. For example, because of their
continuing development as economic organizations, the role of banks in the monitoring and control of
managerial behavior and firm outcomes is less significant than it has been. The Asian economic crisis in the
later part of the 1990s substantially harmed Japanese firms, making transparent the governance problems in the
system.
8. How can corporate governance foster ethical strategic decisions and behaviors on the part of
managers as agents? (pp. 298-299)
In the United States, the focus of governance mechanisms is on the control of managerial decisions to ensure
that shareholders interests will be served, but product market stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers, and host
communities) and organizational stakeholders (e.g., managerial and nonmanagerial employees) are important as
well. Therefore, at least the minimal interests or needs of all stakeholders must be satisfied by outcomes from
the firms actions. Otherwise, dissatisfied stakeholders will decide to withdraw their support to one firm and
provide it to another (e.g., customers will purchase products from a supplier offering an acceptable substitute).

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES
Exercise 1: International Governance Codes
As described in the chapter, passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 has drawn attention to the
importance of corporate governance. Similar legislation is pending in other nations as well. However,
interest in improved governance predated SOX by a decade in the form of governance codes or guidelines.
These codes established sets of best practices for both board composition and processes. The first such
code was developed by the Cadbury Committee for the London Stock Exchange in 1992. The Australian
Stock Exchange developed its guidelines in the Hilmer Report, released in 1993. The Toronto Stock
Exchange developed its guidelines the following year in the Dey Report. Today, most major stock
exchanges have governance codes.
Working in small groups, find the governance codes of two stock exchanges. Prepare a short (two to three
pages, single-spaced) bullet point comparison of the similarities and differences between the two codes. Be
sure to include the following topics in your analysis:
How are the guidelines structured? Do they consist of rules (i.e., required) or recommendations
(i.e., suggestions)? What mechanism is included to monitor or enforce the guidelines?

What board roles are addressed in the guidelines? For example, some codes may place most or all
of their emphasis on functions derived from the importance of the agency relationship illustrated
in Figure 10.1, such as monitoring, oversight, and reporting. Codes might also mention the boards
role in supporting strategy, or their contribution to firm performance and shareholder wealth.

What aspects of board composition and structure are covered in the guidelines? For instance, items
included in different codes include the balance of insiders and outsiders, committees, whether the

10-20

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

CEO also serves as board chair, director education and/or evaluation, compensation of officers and
directors, and ownership by board members.
Exercise 2: Governance and Personal Investments
Governance mechanisms are considered to be effective if they meet the needs of all stakeholders, including
shareholders. As an investor, how much weight, if at all, do you place on a firms corporate governance? If
you currently own any stocks, select a firm that you have invested in. If you do not own any stocks, select a
publicly traded company that you consider an attractive potential investment. Working individually,
complete the following research on your target firm:
Find a copy of the companys most recent proxy statement. Proxy statements are mailed to
shareholders prior to each years annual meeting and contain detailed information about the
companys governance and presents issues on which a shareholder vote might be held. Proxy
statements are typically available from a firms Web site (look for an Investors submenu). You
can also access proxy statements and other government filings such as the 10-K from the SECs
EDGAR database (http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml).

Conduct a search for news articles that address the governance of your target company. Using
different keywords (e.g., governance, directors, or board of directors) in combination with the
company name may be helpful.

Some of the topics that you should examine include:

Compensation plans (for both the CEO and board members)

Board composition (e.g., board size, insiders and outsiders)

Committees

Stock ownership by officers and directors

Whether the CEO holds both CEO and board chairperson positions

Is there a lead director who is not an officer of the company?

Board seats held by blockholders or institutional investors

Activities by activist shareholders regarding corporate governance issues of concern

Prepare a one page, single-spaced memo summarizing the results of your findings. Your memo should
include the following topics:
Summarize what you consider to be the key aspects of the firms governance mechanisms.

Based on your review of the firms governance, did you change your opinion of the firms
desirability as an investment? Why or why not?

INSTRUCTOR'S NOTES FOR

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES

Exercise 1: International Governance Codes

The goals of this exercise are two-fold: first, the exercise helps to illustrate the stock exchanges use codes
of best practice as an alternative to regulation (e.g., SOX). If the exercise is discussed in class, it can be

10-21

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

helpful to ask students their opinions of the relative merits of self-policing via exchange requirements
versus government intervention. A second goal of the exercise is to highlight the global aspect of corporate
governance.
The European Corporate Governance Institute maintains a list of governance codes for a number of
countries, including nations outside the EU. Their database includes historical listings, so that both the
most recent and older codes are often available for a given region. For example, the Australia section
includes both the current Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) guidelines, as well as the Bosch Report from
1995. If the instructor is looking for a more advanced project on this topic, students could be required to
compare the evolution of governance codes over time for a particular region. The ECGI website is:
http://www.ecgi.org
Additionally, the Corporate Governance Network is a useful resource for other materials relating to
governance issues:
http://www.corpgov.net
The following practitioner articles may also be helpful for framing a discussion of good governance
guidelines:
Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A.C. 2003. Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards
better. The Academy of Management Executive. May 2003. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; p. 101
Norburn, D., Boyd, B.K., Fox, M., & Muth, M. 2000. International corporate governance reform.
European Business Journal. Vol. 12, Issue 3, p. 116-133.

Exercise 2: Governance and Personal Investments

For this exercise, students are asked to evaluate the governance of a firm they currently invest in, or a firm
they might consider investing in. The main purpose of the exercise is to help make a connection between
different governance elements (e.g., board composition, equity holdings by directors, executive
compensation) and a firms financial performance. Students are asked to prepare a single page memo that
answers the following questions:

Summarize what you consider to be the key aspects of the firms governance mechanisms.

Based on your review of the firms governance, did you change your opinion of the firms
desirability as an investment? Why, or why not?

A secondary goal of the exercise is to familiarize students with proxy statements as a resource for analyzing
corporate governance. A related benefit is the use of the Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR
database (http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml).
Because this exercise is completed individually, it can be helpful to spend some time in class debriefing the
assignment. An easy way to do this is to restate the question Based on your review of the firms
governance, did you change your opinion of the firms desirability as an investment? Ask for a show of
hands for those that did change their opinion, and those that did not. Starting with the former group, ask:

What prompted the change in opinion?

Were there both positive and negative opinion changes?

How strong was the change relatively minor, moderate, or substantial?

10-22

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

Next, follow up with the no change group, and ask several students for the basis for their assessment.
Finally, ask students how much weight they will play on corporate governance when considering future
investments.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

The following questions and exercises can be presented for in-class discussion or assigned as homework.
Application Discussion Questions
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

The roles and responsibilities of top executives and members of a corporations board of directors are
different. Traditionally, executives have been responsible for determining the firms strategic direction and
implementing strategies to achieve it, whereas the board of directors has been responsible for monitoring
and controlling managerial decisions and actions. Some argue that boards should become more involved
with the formulation of a firms strategies. How would the boards increased involvement in the selection
of strategies affect a firms strategic competitiveness? What evidence can the students offer to support their
position?
Ask the students if they believe that large U.S. firms have been overgoverned by some corporate
governance mechanisms and undergoverned by others; provide an example of each.
How can corporate governance mechanisms create conditions that allow top executives to develop a
competitive advantage and focus on long-term performance? Have the students use the Internet to search
the business press and give an example of a firm in which this occurred.
Some believe that the market for corporate control is not an effective governance mechanism. What factors
might account for the ineffectiveness of this method of monitoring and controlling managerial decisions?
Present the following comment to the class: As a top executive, the only agency relationship I am
concerned about is the one between myself and the firms owners. I think that it would be a waste of my
time and energy to worry about any other agency relationships. What are these other agency relationships?
How would the students respond to this person? Do they accept or reject this view? Have them support
their position.

Ethics Questions
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

As explained in this chapter, using corporate governance mechanisms should establish order between
parties whose interests may be in conflict. Do owners of a firm have any ethical responsibilities to
managers in a firm that uses governance mechanisms to establish order? If so, what are those
responsibilities?
Is it ethical for a firms owner to assume that agents (managers hired to make decisions in the owners best
interests) are averse to risk? Why or why not?
What are the responsibilities of the board of directors to stakeholders other than shareholders?
What ethical issues surround executive compensation? How can we determine whether top executives are
paid too much?
Is it ethical for firms involved in the market for corporate control to target companies performing at levels
exceeding the industry average? Why or why not?
What ethical issues, if any, do top executives face when asking their firm to provide them with a golden
parachute?
How can governance mechanisms be designed to ensure against managerial opportunism, ineffectiveness,
and unethical behaviors?

Internet Exercise

10-23

Chapter 10: Corporate Governance

The use of the Internet for buying and selling stocks has opened up markets to an unprecedented number of
people. With the click of a mouse, one can buy shares of the hottest stocks. Not always so, though, warns the
chairman of the SEC. Orders are not necessarily processed at the moment they are sent, and by the time the
stock is purchased, the price may have risen ten-fold. Read more about investing through the Internet and the
SECs efforts to combat growing Internet-based investment fraud at http://www.sec.gov.
*e-project: Visit two on-line trading venues: the more traditional Merrill Lynch at www.merrill-lynch.com and
the newer E*Trade at www.etrade.com. How well do these companies communicate the risks of a volatile
market to their customers? Looking at the SECs recommendations, how does each company rate?

10-24