Corporate Governance in the UK

Question: Discuss about the Case Study for Corporate Governance in the UK? Answer: Introduction Corporate Governance is defined as a close relationship among the entities involved in the governance process. This relationship eventually leads to determine the direction, performance and potentialities of the corporations. Expanding this definition only, this term could be explained in simpler words as a system that combines all the prevailing laws and procedures to work with an ultimate aim to regulate the interactions between the providers of capitals and the ones involved in the decision making process of the company and simultaneously has an effect of the companys activities and disposition over them (Mendez, 2003). The elements of Corporate Governance play a pivotal role in allocating the defined roles and responsibilities to these participants and also define their influence on the organizations routine work and the quality of work they deliver. After a detailed discussion and an intensive research on this topic, the researchers suggested that corporate governance can never occur in a vacuum and it reflects the economic, historical, legal and cultural characteristics of a company during its operation. It is also shaped and reshaped majorly by the ownership structures and economic patterns and in a minor manner by the financing options available to the business(Yulei Hu, 2008). The global economic leaders have some notable differences in their models of corporate governance and these differences have evolved due to the variations in the available financial options. A deep comparison has been made between the responses of the UK and US over the various corporate scandals (Aguilera Jackson, 2003). The US had a great revolution from flexible form of corporate governance system to more complicated and more legally-bound form. On the other hand, the UK, as a part of its response, conducted a way of evolving with steady steps which included the introduction of a wide range of influence groups. In response to the scandals, the US adopted the stringent Sarban es-Oxley Act. (Polk Wardwell, 2011). The UK, on the other hand, followed a more enhanced and innovative way of introducing a voluntary code of corporate governance which was far better from the statutory code prevailing in the US and hence succeeded in establishing the best practices in the country (Monks, 2011). The UK government, instead of passing any ineffective laws, uses a comply or explain approach to combat the prevailing issues. This approach was introduced for the first time in 1992 by the Cadbury Report. The newly introduced and the existing conventions and rules entirely followed the approach of self regulation but simultaneously had a substantial support from the prevailing legislative forces. The Comply or explain approach overpowered the one-size-fit-all approach because the former approach gave the flexibility of incorporating innovations in the companies (Faure-Grimaud, et al., 2005). As mentioned that, in 1992, UK introduced its first code which had the potential to set out the best practice in corporate governance and was aliased as the Cadbury code. This introduction involved a new concept of comply or explain approach, under which the companies had an option either to adopt and follow the best possible practices that are available at that time or to explain their respective shareholders that why their services are not needed by the company at the present situation. Sir Christopher Hogg (Former Chairman of the Financial reporting council, London, UK), in his article The Comply or Explain Approach to improving Standards of Corporate Governance, has clearly stated that when market conditions are favorable, such as that of United Kingdom, the comply or explain approach has been constantly working in reforming the current landscape of corporate governance in the UK(Zattoni Cuomo, 2008). He also revealed a statistic that showed that the current practices of this ap proach has been adopted and implemented so well that the compliance rate of these practices has increased to more than 90%. While keeping in mind the current progress of Corporate sector in the UK , he stated that the With the introduction of this soft law approach, the marketers have felt a secured sense of participation in various marketing activities and hence wants this approach to flourish for a long-term (Davis, 2001). Also, when compared to the earlier times, the present corporate governance practices have the abilities to respond in a better manner to the prevailing developments in the best practices (ICAEW Team, 2016). This is possible because these practices have got myriads of elements that are specially tailored to fit according to changing circumstances of the company and hence eventually sets higher standards of competition for all the other existing companies of the same breed. Antoinette Bozac, in another article, stated that the current corporate governance model be ing followed in the UK is the preferred action for evolution towards better gender representation. It is because, this model allows organizations to strategically and meaningfully develop their policies and targets towards broader diversity overall (Solomon, 2013). According to the author, this kind of approach has a tendency to develop more champions to influence change, foster transparency and promote inclusiveness. Antoine Faure-Grimaud, Sridhar Arcot and Valentina Bruno, in their published journal titled Corporate Governance in the UK: is the Comply or Explain Approach working?Has clearly mentioned in their paper that the market along with all its marketers have readily adopted the compliance as its strategic approach to combat various evolving issues. The Combined Code in the UK, under this approach, simply asks the companies to follow what it provides or to explain why they do not desire such provisions (The Financial Reporting Council Limited, 2010). When the present situatio ns in the UK are compared to the statutory system, as prevails in the US, the flexible system of the UK, when combined with the current corporate governance code of the country, paves an easy way for those companies which do not have a reason for accepting the provisions of the Combined Code. Authors like Thomas Clarke and Bob Tricker believes that the main motive of all the Corporate Governance Code is to evolve and promote good governance and propose such rules that are acceptable by all (Financial Times, 2015). But while talking specifically about this system, they said that comply or explain provision promotes innovations in all its forms and this is entirely due to a fact that this code can accommodate a number of new ideas (Tricker, 2015). This system also allows companies to have an ample of time dedicated to introduction of innovations that would foster the process of success attained and would lately set up an example for all the other competitors. In addition to this, fro m the time the UK has adopted this approach in their corporate governance system, theres an establishment of a process that includes learning that lasts for a long-term (Aras D Crowther, 2008). There are a number of companies that have followed the recommendations of the governance code to create a sound-base for the governance. There is a belief that only the public or the large and established companies with myriads of shareholders need to incorporate Corporate Governance practices in their working strategies. The right-sized governance practices definitely forms a sound base for the enhancement in the performance and long-term viability of the firm. The best Corporate Governance practices are followed by Microsoft, which is a leading USA, based company. The company, to effectively include the practices of Corporate Governance, has involved effective conversations with the shareholders. A precise corporate governance cycle is created with different activities in different season. The annual governance cycle begins in the Spring Season by evaluating the best practices of the governance with regulatory developments and companys own policies and practices. This helps the firm to evaluate the annual update of the governance framework. In the summer season, the company communicates the updates and reformations to the significant shareholders. In the autumn season, the company publishes its annual communications to the shareholders and the stakeholders. During this season, the company communicates crucial information to the major investors and gathers their feedbacks on the important topics that are to be addressed in the next season. In the winter season, the Corporate Governance Cycle concluded with the self assessment session in which the setbacks and the major wins are critically analyzed. In this season, the panel considers all sorts of feedbacks received from the shareholders in the preceding year and work accordingly to rectify the errors. The elements of the Corporate Governance practices are specifically designed keeping in mind the long term interests of the shareholders. The practices focus on the maintenance of the internal checks and balances and foster an ambience of responsible decision making within the firm. The inclusion of such practices strengthens to company to take wise and profitable decisions for its firm in times of financial crisis or when the accountability of the companys decisions and strategies are questioned. For the same reasons, the corporate governance practices are adopted in companies in the UK too. In this country the companies amalgamate this element with the other general business practices to ensure that the Board members of the firm have a right to review and evaluate all possible business operations independent of the management body. For an example, HSBC, the worlds largest banking and financial services organization, is highly committed to the specific principles of Corporate Governance. For implementing this concept in all the spheres of the bank, the company has created a comprehensive range of systems and policies that are communicated well to all the working members of the firm. According to the companys executives, a bank could be well managed only when the governance policies provide a greater oversight to the future strategies as well as the tools to exert a proper control over the working strategies of the firm. The companys code is created to be in compliance with th e applicable code provisions of the UK Financial Reporting Council and even with the Stock exchange of the Hong Kong. This is basically done to avoid any kind of potential issues related to governance. Rolls Royce, another leading firm providing the highly integrated power and propulsion solutions is also a great example of the UK based company whos Board attaches a highest priority to the corporate governance practices. The companys executives think that the concept of Corporate governance has effectively helped the firm to enhance its corporate values, to create and retain a good reputation for the firm in the local and global markets and even provide the firm with a number of innovative measures to attain its pre-decided goals and objectives on time and in a proposed budget. When a company decides to adopt the practices of corporate governance, it eventually sets out various standards for its internal workings and then proceeds to work out in that direction and this process becomes more effective when they are allowed to set their standards, rules and procedures on their own instead of working as a mere puppet in the hands of the other leading powers (Davis, et al., 1997). Van de Berghe, in the journal titled Beyond Corporate Governance, has stated that the prevailing corporate governance practices in the UK are undoubtedly the best ones and there are chances of a company to retain their effectiveness and accountability to the same level, only if it applies these practices in a right manner(EY, 2012). Although under this approach, no one can legally bind any company to follow their provisions, but yes, they have an ultimate right to evaluate their provisions on the basis of the explanations provided by the company for not accepting their provisions. The UK Corporate Governance code is effectively used in all the companies, but there are a number of companies in which this concept is not applied. These companies include the ones which shares are traded on AIM and the markets which are not covered by the listing rules. This concept is also not applied in a listed company with a standard listing on the London Stock Exchange. But it is the choice of these companies to comply with the codes if they wish so. Sometimes the pressure exerted by the major shareholders and the wish of the company to adopt the best conduction practices may also exempt the companies to follow the Corporate Governance Code. The US corporate governance has recently been heavily criticized due to failure of a number of renowned companies like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc. These failures subsequently led to the introduction of a strict legal change in the form of a Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanying this was a regulatory change which took the form of introduction of new governance guidelines. In the US, the shareholders hold the ultimate powers and the principles of the corporate governance of the country are designed to fit to the requirements of these people. Hence, the countrymen have developed reluctance towards the adoption of such system (Jensen Murphy, 1989). According to people, the US society works to gain attention of the capitalist and the medium and low-level creditors and stakeholders eventually have not much say in the corporate workings of the companies and leading organizations(Jackson, 2010). This is entirely due to a fact that in the US, unlike the UK, there is no independent sys tem of working and one has to work under the influential powers of others. And as expected, the shareholders suitably take care of their own interests only overlooking the prime benefits of the organization and of the people associated with it. When people look towards the corporate governance model of the US in comparison to that of the UK, it is clearly visible that in the US model there is no separation of ownership and management. There is no one above the level of the mangers and these managers work according to their will to take any sort of decisions for the organization. In this model, theres no involvement of any non-executive director, who can keep an eye over the works of the managers(WLG, 2010). For example, the US based Ford Motor Company it is the Board of Directors that have adopted a precise framework for the Corporate Governance practices to promote the effective functioning of the board. The board is comprised of the highly skilled managers, elected by a specific a nd complex process, are only responsible to take decisions for the firm and no panel is considered above it. This model is highly discarded and regarded as the failure of the leading companies because there is not a definite ownership pattern for an organization and the extra capital required by the organizations are taken from the people who are not even indirectly involved in the various processes and losses of the company. Instead, the large institutional investors have the maximum stake in these organizations and hence have a chance to say and operate the working of these companies (Tafara, 2007). When observed closely, it was observed that the corporate governance in the US has traditionally been designed to focus on the crucial people of an organization who are directly involved in the profits and losses of the company. These important people generally include the shareholders and the Board of Directors. The practices have never focused on the needs of the other participants o f the organization and hence have always failed to evaluate the actual critical situations the companies have been facing (Essen J Otten, 2015). Davis Polk and Wardwell in their journal titled, The corporate governance landscape in the United states has clearly mentioned that Although, due to occurrence of a number of corporate scandals led the government to introduce the strict Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but this never changed the basic structure of the corporate governance practices in the US (Chen Roberts, 2010). According to this article, although the managers are appointed to look over the activities of the organization and take decisions, but still they are headed by the Board of Directors which are independently elected by the concerned Shareholders of the Company. In an article titled, Failure of Corporate Governance by James Kwak, it has been correctly written by the author that, From the past twenty years, there has not been a demonstration of a beneficial governance as the reg ulatory activities imposed by the government restricted the thinking of the companies and they have lag behind in terms of innovations and thing-big ideas (Gray Manson, 2011). At the same viewpoint, John Gillespie and David Zweig, in their book, Money for Nothing: How the failure of Corporate boards is ruining American Business and costing us Trillions, have written that, The Companies have eventually become more like a private club, as there is no regulatory authority over the CEOs to whom they can report there issues and seek solutions to the emerging problems. Although the corporate governance framework of the US has been criticized by most of the Authors and has been considered as a basic reason for failure of many leading companies, yet, the part of the corporate governance system which was indirectly under the control of the public and had some governmental influence, has reacted and still has the potential to react to the quickly to address the emerging problems (Bhattachary a Sen, 2004). The evidence to this fact is that, there has been a dramatic increase in the equity-based pay and the institutionalization of the US shareholders. This expansion has appeared to have an overall positive impact on the corporate sector of US as well as on its declining economy (Yekini K Jallow, 2012). Although the weal corporate governance structure had a bad influence on the working structures of organizations, but if the overregulation element of this model is minimized then there are chances of the US system to become a better one (Waddock Stuart, 2003). Now, having a look over the arguments and opinions of the authors on the corporate governance systems of both the UK and the US, it is crucial to draw the conclusion over the thinking and viewpoints of the employees or directors of the organization to which this framework is being applied. Many UK-based companies think that Comply-or-Explain Approach is quite better than the One-Size-Fits-All Approach. In other simpler words, the corporate governance code being precisely followed in the UK is far better than all the other countries (especially US). According to the directors and the employees of all the leading organizations in the UK, the current corporate governance practices have succeeded so far, only because of the Flexibility element; it possesses which allows the companies to reform the practices according to their requirements (Aguilera Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004). According to European Commission 2013, A Comply-or-Explain Approach allows an organization to tailor the corporate g overnance practices in compliance with their size, ownership structure and sectorial specificities. While using this approach, a company can have broad tools for investor attracting as well as for ownership protection. The next advantage that the companies are enjoying over the other global competitors is attaining the highest level of Market Sensibility (Holmstrom Kaplan, 2003). According to Gibson and Smith, companies that belongs to a country that effectively follows this approach under its general corporate governance system, tends to attract more investors due to adoption of new innovative ideas. This lowers the burden of capital on the people who are not even involved in the processes of the company. The self regulation principle of the approach, allows the directors to satisfy both the shareholders and the public at the same time by quickly attending to their needs. When these companies are compared to the others of the same breed, then they have the potential to bear the ec onomic crisis in a more mature manner and combat them with their innovative ideas. According to European Commission 2006, the Comply or explain approach is beneficial for both the companies and its regulatory authorities. It gives an ample of opportunities to both of them to perform in an efficient manner (Bebchuk Fried, 2003). The approach has set an efficient trend of adoption of the bottom-up policy that forces the regulators to carry out reformations in their structures and divide the responsibilities among the different levels of regulatory authorities(Cohan, 2009). This policy acts like a mirror to the market and hence justifies the transparent nature of this approach that minimizes the occurrence of any faults within the working structures of organizations. The corporate governance approach being followed in the UK-based companies is far greater than the corporate governance approach of the US-based companies because while following the One-Size-Fits-All Approach, a proporti onal policy is applied over the companies. The restructuring of the companies is wholly solely done by the regulatory authorities who do not take into account that who owns what and hence eventually discourage the investors(Sternberg, 1997). Hence, as the companies in the UK were being encouraged to adopt a number of innovations under the comply or explain approach, here these companies are demotivated for innovations and lag behind the global leaders in the generation and implementation of innovative ideas. The leading banks viz. HSBC, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, all favors the Comply or explain approach. The FRC claims that the corporate governance code in the UK has a proven track record in changing behavior. Once the codes with the underlying approach are readily accepted and implemented, changes can be made relatively quickly. For an example, when the code was launched in 1992, there was a recommendation of separation of the chairman and chief executive functions(Arcot, et al., 2005). By the year 1995, only 47.4% of the companies followed this, but now, at present, this percent has risen to a numerical value of 95%. In the UK, as the financial markets are in a dynamic state, the codes, if adopted precisely and effectively, are easier and quicker to change when compared to the laws. These codes are designed in such a way that they respond effectively to the market developments with many innovative ideas and suggestions. As they are tailor-made, hence can be re-drafted and implemented without necessitating legislative change. Hence, the corporate governance code of the UK is said to be in a constant state of evolution (Iwasaki, 2014). The strict-rule based regulatory environment, prevailing in the US, is often perceived to promote practices that never allow the companies to think beyond their imagination powers. The versatile code, on the other hand, adopted in the UK, allows the companies to suggest and work over the good governance practices. This eventually encourages the companies to pay more heed towards the prevailing governance issues within and outside the company. Under the working of the corporate governance approach prevailing in the UK, the companies ultimately have the freedom to think beyond their imagination and adapt those practices which would definitely have a potential to yield lucrative results for a long-term (Leon, 2001). Conclusion Having all the discussions based on the contrast to the UK and the US corporate governance structure, it has been made clear that in order to have a strong and productive capital markets, a country should have a sound and flexible corporate governance system. The European Commission, being of the same mind, in a launched consultation discussed its views on improving the corporate governance within European companies. The Comply or explain approach being followed under the corporate governance practices of the UK is considered, and also has been proven here, as the best among all the other approaches available (Doh, et al., 2003). This is entirely due to the competitive advantages, it renders to its followers, over the other global competitors. The UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has said that the corporate governance approach, being followed in the UK, has been a trademark of corporate governance in the UK. This approach, being one of the backbones of the corporate governance co de, when used effectively, provides effective market-based solutions. These solutions are merely a result of a direct communication between the company and its shareholders and there is not any sort of interventions from regulatory authorities. This approach, though easy in implementation and yields a number of effective outcomes, is not simply all about not having any requirements. Instead, the researchers have defined this approach if the governance practices are good, then the companies could readily respond even to the alternatives of the provision. The comply or explain approach has been sustained so far in the UK because the people have developed a trust within the workings of the companies and in demonstration of genuine commitment of the company towards good governance. In return, the companies have to trust the people that there given explanation will be given a proper consideration. The UK-based companies have considered this corporate governance system to be the best one because it has given them a number of chances to innovate their thinking and various company-related procedures. As mentioned above, the code being followed in the UK is quite flexible and hence, the companies can make myriads of changes in accord to make it fit into their current working strategies. Although, this approach is being widely accepted in a number of countries, still it has numerous drawbacks which are needed to be rectified prior to the adoption of the approach(GRAY, 1988). Doubts about Comply or explain approach mainly arises when it fails in delivering its associated advantages to the companies. In order to have a wider application of this concept, the companies need to address or understand these concerns as soon as possible. Although this approach can work independently, but when this approach co-exists with basic code principles of a country, then it can be applied to a number of circumstances with few reformations in each case. The overall discussion drives to a conclusion that the comply or explain approach has three prime reasons to be the best among all the other available approaches. Firstly, this approach considers the benefit of both the shareholders and of the public at the same time. Secondly, this approach encourages the companies to follow best practices which have the capability to yield lucrative outcomes and keep a pace with the ever-changing corporate culture. Lastly, this approach minimizes the intervention of unnecessary regulatory authorities and also minimizes their participation in the imposition of minimum standards. Hence, when compared on various contrasting scales, the corporate governance practices of the UK, which has an underlying approach of the comply or explain, is considered as the best one and should be frequently adopted by the remaining UK-based companies and all the other global leaders. Bibliography Aguilera, R. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., 2004. Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger? Available at: https://business.illinois.edu/aguilera/pdf/Aguilera_Cuervo-Cazurra_OS_2003.pdf Aguilera, R. Jackson, G., 2003. The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance. Dimensions and Determinants, 28(03), p. 44765. Available at: https://amr.aom.org/content/28/3/447.abstract Aras, G. D Crowther, 2008. The social obligation of corporations. Journal of Knowledge Globalisation, 1(1), pp. 43-59.Available at: https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/2086/2050 Arcot, S., Bruno, V. Grimaud, A. F., 2005. Corporate Governance in the UK: is the Comply-or-Explain Approach Working? Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24673/1/dp581_Corporate_Governance_at_LSE_001.pdf Bebchuk, L. Fried, J. M., 2003. Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(03), pp. 71-92. Available at: https://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/2003.Bebchuk-Fried.Executive.Compensation.pdf Bhattacharya, C. Sen, S., 2004. Doing Better at Doing Good: when, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives, Available at: https://www.davideacrowther.com/csrmodule/csrreading4b.pdf?bcsi_scan_f5761508bdf24bd5=4ZZwS8E/zLZLbrBUoem4nGwRqUoXAAAAU13BsA==bcsi_scan_filename=csrreading4b.pdf Chen, J. Roberts, R. W., 2010. Toward a More Coherent Understanding of the OrganizationSociety Relationship: A Theoretical Consideration for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. Journal of Business Ethics, December, 97(04), pp. 651-665. Cohan, P., 2009. Why American Corporate Governance Is a Bust. Why American Corporate Governance Is a Bust, 28 December. Available at: https://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/12/28/why-american-corporate-governance-is-a-bust/ Davis, J., FD Schoorman L Donaldson, 1997. Toward stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(01), pp. 20-47. Davis, P., 2001. The Governance of Co-operatives Under Competitive Conditions: Issues, Processes and Culture; Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance, 01(04), p. 2839. Doh, J., Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K. Collins, J., 2003. Coping with corruption in foreign markets, EY, 2012. Enlightened co-operative governance. Available at: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Enlightened_co-operative_governance/$FILE/Enlightened%20co-operative%20governance_EN.pdf?bcsi_scan_f5761508bdf24bd5=0bcsi_scan_filename=Enlightened%20co-operative%20governance_EN.pdf Essen, M. v. J Otten, 2015. Assessing Managerial Power Theory. Journal of Management, Janaury, 41(1), pp. 164-202 . Faure-Grimaud, A., Arcot, S. Bruno, V., 2005. Corporate Governance in the UK: is the Comply-or-Explain Approach Working?: LSE. Financial Times, 2015. Define of cpmply or explain. [Online] Available at: https://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=comply-or-explain Gray, I. Manson, S., 2011. The Audit Process, China: RR Donnelley. GRAY, S. J., 1988. Towards a Theory of Cultural Influence on the Development of Accounting Systems Internationally, Scotland Holmstrom, B. Kaplan, S., 2003. The state of U.S.corporate Governance: What's right and what's wrong?, Cambridge: NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH. ICAEW Team, 2016. When is comply or explain the right approach?. [Online] Available at: https://www.icaew.com/en/technical/corporate-governance/dialogue-in-corporate-governance/when-is-comply-or-explain-the-right-approach Iwasaki, J., 2014. Comply or Explain - is it sustainable?. Comply or Explain, 06 January. Jackson, G., 2010. Understanding Corporate Governance in the United States. Available at: https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_arbp_223.pdf Jensen, M. Murphy, K. J., 1989. Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives*, Leon, P., 2001. Four pillars of Financial Sustainability, Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy. Mendez, M. A., 2003. Corporate Governance. Available at: https://www.forumpartnerships.zsi.at/attach/MiguelMendezFinal.pdf Monks, R., 2011. Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance, July.Available at: https://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470972599.html Polk, D. Wardwell, 2011. The corporate governance landscape in the United States. Update on developments in corporate governance. Solomon, J., 2013. Corporate Governance and Accountability. Corporate Governance and Accountability, November.Available at: https://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP003186.html Sternberg, E., 1997. The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.3-10 Tafara, E., 2007. Speech by SEC Staff: Remarks on UK and US Approaches to Corporate Governance and on the Market for Corporate Control. Speech by SEC Staff, 8-9 February. The Financial Reporting Council Limited, 2010. The UK Approach to Corporate Governance. Available at: https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/The-UK-Approach-to-Corporate-Governance.pdf Tricker, B., 2015. Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and Practices. Corporate Governance, February, Issue 2nd Edition, p. 544. Waddock, S. Stuart, J., 2003. the journal of Corporate Citizenship. Available at: https://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/content/jccsampl.pdf WLG, G., 2010. Corporate governance in the UK and US. Corporate governance, 26 July. Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e47e3794-47ca-45b2-ad32-e147ca915380 Yekini, K. K Jallow, 2012. Corporate Community Involvement Disclosures in Annual Report: A Measure of Corporate Community Development or a Signal of CSR Observance?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 03(1), p. 732. Yulei, R. Hu, S., 2008. China, A Comparative Survey of Corporate Governance Between the UK the US: What Lessons Should China Learn? p. 1-7 Zattoni, A. Cuomo, F., 2008. Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives. Journal compilation, January.16(01).