Inside the Corporate Governance Complex
In an article titled
What Berle and Means have wrought in the May 17 issue of
The Deal magazine and available on thedeal.com,
my colleague Michael Rudnick and I map the well-funded, sprawling and
interlocking set of institutions that have grown up around corporate
governance over the past 30 years or so. This governance complex, with
major outposts across the country at research universities, law firms, the
federal government, institutions, activist hedge funds and even blogs like
this one, generates considerable intellectual and financial firepower. We
lay out some of its fissures, schism and alliances, and talk to movers and
shakers including legal icons Ira Millstein and Martin Lipton, Harvard’s
Lucian Bebchuk, Stanford’s Joe Grundfest, Relational Investors’ Ralph
Whitworth, Calpers’ Anne Simpson and The Corporate Library’s Nell Minow.
Why now? The financial crisis
has propelled the issue of the role of boards and balance sheet
transparency high onto regulatory and legislative agendas. Congress is
threatening to reach deep into corporate boardrooms on executive pay, and
the Obama-era SEC is taking a more activist approach to governance than at
any time since the Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. scandals of the early
2000s.
The truth is, governance has
never been as neat and simple as many of its proponents, and most
politicians, suggest. And the framework in which widespread corporate
ownership (shareholders) and relatively narrow control (boards and
management) should co-exist has been vigorously debated since Adolph Berle
and Gardiner Means first considered it in their 1932 classic “The Modern
Corporation and Private Property.” The authors might not be thrilled by
the results their seminal insights have had, and they would surely sense
that they were cited more often than read. But they would certainly be
impressed by how big and complicated the industry they all but started has
become.
© 2010 The
President and Fellows of Harvard College |
|