Skip to main content

Evaluierte Board Dimension

Keep it controlled

  • Chapter
  • 625 Accesses

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Die Compliance-Funktion wird in unserem Konzept dem VR-Sekretär zugeordnet.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Böckli (2003:562).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vgl. Richardson/ Baril (2003:37).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Böckli (2003:562).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buffett (2003:19).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Richardson/ Baril (2003:38).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vgl. Herrmann (2003:42).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vgl. KPMG (2003:1f).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Böckli (2003:565).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Böckli (2003:566).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boeckli (2003:566).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boeckli (2003:567–570).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vgl. Meyer (2003:2).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schneider (2000) zitiert in Schmid (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vogt/ Abresch (2003:811).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vogt/ Abresch (2003:814).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vogt/ Abresch (2003:817).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Imhoff (2003:124).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Vgl. Bumbacker (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bookal (2002:47) „When we call for public reporting on internal controls (i. e. internal auditors), we have to be ready to furnish boards with the information they need to make informed decisions and disclosures.“

    Google Scholar 

  21. Malik (2002:226f).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ernst & Young (2002:7).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ernst & Young (2002:7).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Garratt (2003:XXII).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ernst & Young (2002:7).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shaw (2003:25).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vgl. Kalia (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ernst & Young (2002:11).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Müller (2003) Präsentation an VR-Tagung 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Müller (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gygi (2003:B11).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gygi (2003:B11).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dubs (2003), Vgl. ferner die Guidelines von Protiviti (2002:11f).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dubs (2003), ferner Overell (2003:4): „The biggest risk in any company comes from staff... The majority of FTSE 300 companies now have whistle blowing procedures in place.“

    Google Scholar 

  35. KPMG (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Böckli in Noetzli (2004:36).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Böckli in Noetzli (2004:36).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Macus in Noetzli (2004:51).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Die größte Frustration vieler Board-Mitglieder „... is not that they get too little information, but that they get too much information that is neither well organized nor well summarized. Too much of this data... concerns part financial competitive performance, customer reactions, new product performance.“ Carter/ Lorsch (2004:27).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Luft/ Ingham (1955): ‚Johari ‘entspricht der Abkürzung der Vornamen der beiden Autoren Joseph Luft und Harry Ingham.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Boeckli in Noetzli (2004:36).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Malik (1998:193f.).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Carter/ Lorsch (2004:151).

    Google Scholar 

  44. King Report (2002:40).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Meyer (2003:13).

    Google Scholar 

  46. www.swx.com.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vgl. Healy (2003:193).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Beatty (2003:21).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Meyer (2003:13).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ward (2003:6).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ward (2003:7).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vgl. z. B. BP’s Website als vorbildliche Website unter www.bp.com/company_overview/corp_gov/index.asp.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vgl. Nowell/ Wilson (2002:21); ferner Ward (2003:136).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vgl. Hilb (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  55. KPMG (2003:7), vgl. ferner Newing (2003:6) sowie für Europa die kritischen Empfehlungen von Pastré (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bernet (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Reichenberger (2003:B7).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Vgl. z.B. Pfitzer/ Oser (2003:379); die Ergebnisse sind jeweils über die Internetseiten der Agentur ersichtlich.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Vgl. Rowley/ Beatty (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Vgl. Rowley/ Beatty (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Clarkson Center for Board Effectiveness (2003:12).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Vgl. Kaplan/ Norton (1993/2000).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Vgl. Kaplan/ Norton (1993:134f).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Carter/ Lorsch (2004:153).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Vgl. Hilb (2002) mit CD-Rom und Kartensätzen.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Vgl. Kaplan/ Norton (1993/2000).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hilb et al. (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Überall, wo der Defizitwert zwischen Wichtigkeit und Zufriedenheit > 1 liegt, besteht Handlungsbedarf zur Verbesserung der C.G. Praxis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Evaluierte Board Dimension. In: Integrierte Corporate Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32744-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32744-4_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-32741-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32744-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics