DIFFERENT THOUGHTS CONTRIBUTED TO DEBATE ON CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

Kurumsal yönetim, 19. yüzyılın başından bu yana iş dünyasının gündemindedir.1920’lerde Amerikan şirket müdürlerinin yetkilerini kötüye kullanması sebebiyle borsa çökmüş ve büyük buhran meydana gelmiştir. Bu durum, Berle ile Dodd’u kurumsal hesap verilebilirlik hakkında bir tartışma başlatmaları için harekete geçirmiş ve bu suretle pay sahibi teorisi ve paydaş teorisinin temelleri atılmıştır. Bu tartışmadan sonra günümüze kadar iş adamları, akademisyenler ve politikacıların kurumsal hesap verilebilirlik konusuna farklı açılardan yaklaşmış olmaları, çeşitli kurumsal yönetim araçlarının gelişmesini sağlamıştır. Bununla birlikte bu farklı yaklaşımların yakın tarihteki krizleri engellemekte başarısız olduğu gerçeği Berle ve Dodd’ tan sonra bu alanda gerçek bir ilerleme kaydedilmediğini göstermiştir.

KURUMSAL SORUMLULUK TARTIŞMALARINA İLİŞKİN FARKLI GÖRÜŞLER

Corporate governance has remained on the business agenda since the beginning of the 19th century. In 1920s abuse of American companies’ managers caused to collapse of the stock market that led to great depression. This situation motivated Berle and Dodd, who laid foundations of shareholder theory and stakeholder theory, to commence a debate on the issue of corporate accountability. And until today, differences in approaches of business people, politicians and academics to corporate accountability caused to develop different types of corporate tools. However, the fact that none of these approaches could succeed to prevent crises proved that no real progress has been made in this area since Berle and Dodd.

Kaynakça

Books

Calder, A., Corporate Governance A Practical Legal Frameworks and International Codes of Practice (Kogan Page 2008)

Davies, P., Introduction to Company Law (2nd edn OUP 2010)

Freidman, A.L. and S. Miles, Stakeholders Theory and Practice (OUP 2006)

Kraakman, R. and others, Anatomy of Corporate Governance (2nd edn OUP 2009)

Mallin C.A., Corporate Governance (3rd edn OUP 2010)

Plesis J.D.D. and Others, Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance (2nd edn CUP 2011)

Sternberg, E., Corporate Governance: Accountablitiy in the Marketplace (2nd edn, IEA 2004) Cases

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company [1919] 170 N.W. 668 (Mich.) Legislations

Cadburry Report 1992

European Union published the Green Paper Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsility 2001 Journal Articles

Arcot, S., Bruno V., and Grimaud A. F. ‘Corporate governance in the UK: Is the comply or explain approach working?’ (2010) 30: 2 International Review of Law and Economics

Bratton, W.W. and Wachter, M.L., ‘Shareholder primacy’s corporatist origins: Adolf Berle and The Modern Corporation’ (2008) 34.1 The Journal of Corporation Law

Cadbury, A. ‘Corporate social responsibility, Twenty-First Century Society’ (2006) 1: 1 Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences

Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. ‘The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice’ (2009) 12: 1 International Journal of Management Reviews

Hartman, L.P. Rubin R.S. and Dhanda K.K. ‘The Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility: United States and European Union Multinational Corporations’ (2007) 74: 2 Journal of Business Ethics

Ocampo, J.A. ‘Corporate social responsibility’ (2004) 28: 4 Natural Resources Forum 13 JCC Macintosh ‘The issues, effects and consequences of the Berle-Dodd debate, 1931-1932’,(1999) 24: 2 Accounting, Organizations and Society

Parkinson, J. and Kelly, G. ‘The Combined Code on Corporate Governance’ (1999) 70: 1 The Political Quarterly

V.H. Ho Enlightened Shareholder Value”: Corporate Governance Beyond the ShareholderStakeholder

Divide‘ (2010) 36: 1 The Journal of Corporation Law 61, 78 see also Companies Act 2006 s 172 (1)

Online Journals

Diekin, S. ‘Corporate Governance and Financial Crisis In The Long Run’ (2010) ESRC Centre for Business Research, 15 _____http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/WP417.pdf> accessed 20 January 2014

Kaynak Göster