Author Faculty (Discipline)

Business

Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date

9-24-2021

Proceedings

16th EIASM Interdisciplinary Conference on Intangibles and Intellectual Capital - Sustainability and Integrated Reporting, Governance and Value Creation

Link to publisher version (DOI)

https://www.eiasm.org/UserFiles/XVI%20EIASM%20Conference%20-%20Lille%20%20Online%20-%2023-24%20Sept%202021%20-%20Programme%20-%20FINAL%20without%20links.pdf

Embargo Period

11-30-2021

ANZSRC / FoR Code

38 ECONOMICS| 3899 Other economics

Avondale Research Centre

Christian Education Research Centre

Reportable Items (HERDC/ERA)

E2

Peer Review

Non-refereed

Abstract

Corporate governance is not a new concept. In fact the last 15 years has seen a surge in academic publications and case law in relation to the lack of corporate governance. Research Gap is that Company Directors are attending a “mad hatters’ tea party” when it comes to the implementation of governance codes, with the recent spate of court cases involving breaches of directors fiduciary duties. Methodology used was review of case law using archival data. This research looks at the type of case law issues of corporate governance in Australia and in particular accountability, and relates the case law to the Corporations Act (2001) to find where company directors are getting corporate governance wrong. The findings indicate that perhaps the “if not why not” prescription, should not be an option for corporate governance for some Boards. For some Boards the invitation from Alice to jump down the rabbit hole into creative accounting and bad board behaviour at the “mad hatters’ tea party” is just too great an incentive. Implications show that this review of important corporate governance case law will assist Boards to concentrate their efforts on improving the environment they operate in, as good governance equates to good business.

Comments

Used by permission: the author.

Share

COinS