The Government as Institutional Entrepreneur in Corporate Governance Reform



Abstract Views
150

Downloads
218

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Aug 31, 2022
Published Oct 13, 2022
10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.5.1657

Abstract viewed = 150 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Governments around the world have become prolific issuers of soft law regulation in the form of corporate governance codes. However, the strategies that governments pursue to ensure the diffusion of the codes have remained unexplored in the literature. Drawing from institutional and sociopolitical perspectives, I hypothesize that governments pursue a combination of different intervention strategies to bring the corporate governance arrangements of firms in line with the issued code. These strategies focus on the mobilization of material resources, the dissemination of rationales and legitimating accounts for corporate governance change, interventions in social structure and the establishment of new social relations. I test my hypotheses in the context of the issuance of the national corporate governance code in Germany and find general support for my hypotheses.

Keywords: Code of Good Governance, Corporate Governance Regulation, Institutional Change.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2004. Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3): 415-443.
     Google Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2009. Codes of good governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 376-387.
     Google Scholar
  3. Aguilera, R., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Kim, S. 2009. Taking stock of research on codes of good governance. In F. J. Iturriaga (Ed.), Codes of good governance worldwide: Edward Elgar.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bebchuk, L., & Roe, M. J. 2004. A theory of path dependence in corporate ownership and governance. In J. N. Gordon, & M. J. Roe (Eds.), Convergence and persistence in corporate governance: 23-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  5. Chey, H. K. 2007. Do markets enhance convergence on international standards? The case of financial regulation. Regulation and Governance, 1: 295-311.
     Google Scholar
  6. Cicon, J. E., Ferris, S. P., Kammel, A. J., & Noronha, G. 2012. European corporate governance: A thematic analysis of national codes of governance. European Financial Management, 18(4): 620-648.
     Google Scholar
  7. Coffee, J. C. 2002. Racing towards the top? The impact of cross-listings and stock market competition on international corporate governance. Columbia Law Review, 102(7): 1757-1831.
     Google Scholar
  8. Coglianese, C., Healey, T. J., Keating, E. K., & Michael, M. L. 2004. The role of government in corporate governance, Regulatory Policy Program Report RPP-08: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
     Google Scholar
  9. Delios, A., Wu, Z. J., & Zhou, N. 2006. A new perspective on ownership identities in China's listed companies. Management and Organization Review, 2: 319-343.
     Google Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
     Google Scholar
  11. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomporphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 46: 147-160.
     Google Scholar
  12. Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3): 385-314.
     Google Scholar
  13. Faccio, M. 2006. Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96: 369-386.
     Google Scholar
  14. Fiss, P. C. 2008. Institutions and corporate governance. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 389-410. London: Sage Publications.
     Google Scholar
  15. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4): 501-534.
     Google Scholar
  16. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054.
     Google Scholar
  17. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80.
     Google Scholar
  18. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Vol. 1: 198-217. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
     Google Scholar
  19. Hillman, A. J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of Management, 31: 464-481.
     Google Scholar
  20. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance, 58: 3-27.
     Google Scholar
  21. LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6): 1113-1155.
     Google Scholar
  22. Lawrence, T. B. 1999. Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25(2): 161-188.
     Google Scholar
  23. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. B. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies, 2 ed.: 215-254. London: Sage Publications.
     Google Scholar
  24. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, Texas: StataCorp LP.
     Google Scholar
  25. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545-564.
     Google Scholar
  26. Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. 2001. From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39: 321-389.
     Google Scholar
  27. Nee, V., Opper, S., & Wong, S. 2007. Developmental state and corporate governance in China. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 19-53.
     Google Scholar
  28. Mees, B., & Smith, S. A. (2019). Corporate Governance Reform in Australia: A New Institutional Approach. British Journal of Management, 30(1), 75–89.
     Google Scholar
  29. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     Google Scholar
  30. Okhmatovskiy, I. 2010. Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: A political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1020-1047.
     Google Scholar
  31. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Journal, 16(1): 145-179.
     Google Scholar
  32. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455-476.
     Google Scholar
  33. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
     Google Scholar
  34. Phan, P. H., Lee, S. H., & Lau, S. C. 2003. The performance impact of interlocking directorates: The case of Singapore. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15(3): 338-352.
     Google Scholar
  35. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 635-652.
     Google Scholar
  36. Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108: 795-843.
     Google Scholar
  37. Russo, M. V. 2001. Institutions, exchange relationships, and the emergence of new fields: Regulatory policies and independent power production in America, 1978-1992. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 57-86.
     Google Scholar
  38. Sanders, G., & Tuschke, A. 2007. The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 33-56.
     Google Scholar
  39. Seidl, D. 2006. Regulating organizations through codes of corporate governance. Working paper 338/2006, Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
     Google Scholar
  40. Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22: 487-512.
     Google Scholar
  41. Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610.
     Google Scholar
  42. Teng, D., Fuller, D. B., & Li, C. (2018). Institutional change and corporate governance diversity in China’s SOEs. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(3), 273–293.
     Google Scholar
  43. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22-39.
     Google Scholar
  44. Toninelli, P. A. 2000. The Rise and Fall of State-Owned Enterprises in the Western-World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  45. Yoshikawa, T., & McGuire, J. 2008. Change and continuity in Japanese corporate governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25: 5-24.
     Google Scholar
  46. Yoshikawa, T., & Rasheed, A. A. 2010. Family control and ownership monitoring in family-controlled firms in Japan. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 274-295.
     Google Scholar
  47. Yoshikawa, T., Tsui-Auch, L. S., & McGuire, J. 2007. Corporate governance reform as institutional innovation: The case of Japan. Organization Science, 18(6): 973-988.
     Google Scholar
  48. Xie, X., Shen, W., & Zajac, E. J. (2021). When Is a Governmental Mandate not a Mandate? Predicting Organizational Compliance Under Semicoercive Conditions. Journal of Management, 47(8), 2169–2197.
     Google Scholar