The current debate and theorising on corporate governance has been polarised between a shareholder perspective and a stakeholder perspective. While advocates and supporters of each camp attempt to justify the superiority, rationality and universality of each model in theory, they rarely pay attention to the age-old conceptions, assumptions and presuppositions underpinning their perspectives which are less credible and valid in matching the continually changing practice of corporate governance. This paper serves as a survey and critical review of major current theories on corporate governance. In so doing, it reveals the inadequacy of conventional approaches employed in corporate governance theorising. It calls for a new mode of thinking in analysing corporate governance and concludes by outlining a new direction of research in this field.

No abstract

The US General Accounts Office (GAO) study is, arguably, the first Western attempt at linking TQM and bottom‐line results. The study focused on the top 20 scorers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) in the period of 1988‐89. Following the findings of the GAO study, the Bradford study was conducted in order to establish whether similar patterns of behaviour were emerging within European companies which are pioneering TQM and trying to enhance competitiveness. The information used for this analysis was focused on “hard” bottom‐line business indicators. The performance indicators chosen reflect business performance both in the short term and the long term. They include both “softer” or people‐related measures, such as employee trends and remuneration, and “hard” measures such as those which are efficiency‐driven. The sample of 29 companies studied was chosen on the basis of good knowledge of their TQM programmes. The analysis was conducted over a five‐year span, since it was assumed that this would be a reasonable period for TQM implementation to start to yield to positive results.

Purpose -This paper seeks to examine the mainstream theories of corporate governance in an attempt to suggest that their underlying assumptions and ideologies are misplaced and ought to give way to an emerging pluralistic view of the governing process in order to understand any governance contribution to the dynamics of the business environment. Design/methodology/approach -The paper engages with the traditional literature and views on governance models from law, business and organisational studies perspectives. It then considers the environment and changes in the environment and how those challenge the relevance of the traditional approach, drawing upon the impacts on the fluidity of management and governance perspectives and practices in the global economy. Findings -The reflections and analysis confirm the view that the underlying assumptions of existing models and regulatory frameworks for governance are misplaced and it is suggested, with reason, that a pluralistic view and framework are better than the current dualistic approach to provide a better understanding of corporate governance in today's dynamic business environments. Originality/value -The paper develops a new model and framework for governance practice and regulation and seeks to persuade policy makers and commentators that the global business environment needs to recognise and engage with this new model and validate its assumptions.