A Case for Global Governance Theory: Practitioners Avoid It, Academics Narrow It, the World Needs It

摘要

Manuscript Type: PerspectivernResearch Question/Issue: This paper promotes the furtherance of global governance theory with sufficient universalrnapplicability to open up an entirely new area of corporate governance research, both in theoretical effectiveness and inrncompeting practices stimulated by theory.rnResearch Findings/Insights: This paper does not arise from a research study, but from the argument that board governancernsuffers from lack of a theoretical base despite its crucial instruction and accountability function between owners andrnoperators. Therefore, this paper is not to report research results, but to introduce a perspective on the need for conceptualrncoherence in the board's role, practices, and relationships - a perspective worthy of being called a global theory ofrngovernance.rnTheoretical/Academic Implications: The central theme of this paper is that a global theory of corporate governance isrnneeded, can be highly practical, and has already begun. The case is made that global governance theory will not arise fromrnresearch into the elements of current board practices, but by studied attention to: (1) the purpose of boards; (2) thernirreducible minimum elements of accountability among varied governance venues; and (3) the concepts and principles thatrnwould enable those universal characteristics to be optimized. The case is made that isolating the relatively few essentialrncomponents of responsible governance yields a foundation that enables all other elements to vary based on cultural, legal,rnand idiosyncratic variables for each board.rnPractitioner/Policy Implications: Any development of governance theory necessarily changes the light in which practicesrnare viewed: board relationships with shareholders and with management; director discipline and training required to fulfillrntheory-based obligations; roles of chair and committees; advisability of combination directors/executives; distinction ofrndirectly board-controlled decisions versus those allowed to vary as management sees fit; nature and content of reporting andrnCEO evaluation; and a host of other issues of board practices and expressions of leadership.