Skip to main content

Abstract

The Cadbury Code appears to have impacted and improved corporate governance in the UK and overseas, and its main features continue to be a prominent aspect of much more recent codes. Benefits enjoyed by board members engaging in insider trading due to access to price-sensitive information appear to have declined. Calls to increase the diversity of boards have been met with some success with respect to gender although this may be limited to particular industries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, R.B., B.E. Hermalin, and M.S. Weisbach. 2010. “The Role of Boards of Directors in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature 48(1): 58–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betzer, A., and E. Theissen. 2009. “Insider Trading and Corporate Governance: The Case of Germany” European Financial Management 15: 402–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., A. Millington and S. Pavelin. 2007. “Gender and Ethnic Diversity among UK Corporate Boards.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 15(2): 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P.M. 2005. “Governance and the Quasi-Public Organization: A Case Study of Social Housing” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16(7): 929–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conyon, M.J. 1994. “Tenure and Contracts: The Experience of UK CEOs.” Personnel Review 23(5): 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahya, J., and J.J. McConnell. 2005. “Outside Directors and Corporate Board Decisions.” Journal of Corporate Finance 11(1): 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahya, J., J.J. McConnell and N.G. Travlos. 2002. “The Cadbury Committee, Corporate Performance, and Top Management Turnover.” The Journal of Finance 57(1): 461–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dart, E. 2011. “UK Investors’ Perceptions of Auditor Independence.” The British Accounting Review 43(3): 173–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. 2011. Women on Boards. Bank of International Settlements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. 2014. Women on Boards. Davies Review Annual Report. Available at https://www.govuk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320000/bis-women-on-boards-2014.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedman, E. 2002. “The Cadbury Committee Recommendations on Corporate Governance — A Review of Compliance and Performance Impacts.” International Journal of Management Reviews 4(4) : 335–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulewicz, V., and P. Herbert. 1999. “The Priorities and Performance of Boards in UK Public Companies” Corporate Governance: An International Review 7(2): 178–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidrmuc, J.P., M. Goergen and L. Renneboog. 2006. “Insider Trading, News Releases, and Ownership Concentration” The Journal of Finance 61(6): 2931–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, K. 2001. “A Boardroom Revolution? The Impact of the Cadbury Nexus on the Work of Non- executive Directors of FTSE 350 Companies.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 9(3): 152–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory-Smith, I., B.G. Main and C.A. O’reilly. 2014. “Appointments, Pay and Performance in UK Boardrooms by Gender.” The Economic Journal 124(574): F109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, P.M. 2009. “The Impact of Board Size on Firm Performance: Evidence from the UK.” The European Journal of Finance 15(4): 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., and S. Farquhar. 2013. “Board Task Evolution: A Longitudinal Field Study in the UK.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 21(2): 147–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, N. 2000. “The Impact of Board Composition and Ownership on Audit Quality: Evidence from Large UK Companies.” The British Accounting Review 32(4): 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, N., and S.R. Diacon. 2003. “Board Composition and Performance in Life Insurance Companies.” British Journal of Management 14(2): 115–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peasnell, K.V., P.F. Pope and S. Young. 1999. “Directors: Who Are They?” Accountancy 123: 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peasnell, K.V., P.F. Pope and S. Young. 2005. “Board Monitoring and Earnings Management: Do Outside Directors Influence Abnormal Accruals?” Journal of Business Finance e’r Accounting 32(7–8): 1311–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veprauskaite, E., and M. Adams. 2013. “Do Powerful Chief Executives Influence the Financial Performance of UK Firms?” The British Accounting Review, 45(3), pp. 229–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2015 William Forbes and Lynn Hodgkinson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forbes, W., Hodgkinson, L. (2015). Boards. In: Corporate Governance in the United Kingdom: Past, Present and Future. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137451743_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics