Ethical Perspectives on Corporate Governance



The motivation for identifying and using ethical perspectives in decision-making regarding corporate governance has been growing in importance over the last 25 years. In the UK for example there have been four important and influential reports termed Corporate Governance Codes published in the 1990s: Cadbury Report (1992), Greenbury Committee (1995), Hampel Committee Report (1998) and Turnbull Committee Report (1999) (Letza 2015, p. 190). Indeed, these reports laid the foundations of corporate governance for the UK as well as other developed and developing economies. Following the collapse of Enron and WorldCom in 2001, corporate governance gained a much higher profile and was further developed through the Myners Report (2001), Derek Higgs Report (2003), Smith Report (2003), Myners Review (2004), Walker Review (2009) and a revised Combined Code (2012) (ibid.). During the twenty-first century we have witnessed a growing number of research projects and literature on both the general areas of corporate governance and different mechanisms, including directors’ remuneration, accountability, non-executive directors (NEDs) and audit committees.


Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Corporate Governance Stakeholder Theory Audit Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33, 1–19. (Reprinted in Ethics, pp. 186–210, by J. Thomson & G. Dworkin (Eds.), 1968, New York: Harper & Row).Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T., & Bowie, N. (1997). Ethical theory and business practice. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Bowie, N. (1991). Business ethics as a discipline: The search for legitimacy. In R. Freeman (Ed.), Business ethics: The state of the art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowie, N. (1997). New directions in corporate social responsibility. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, R. (2000). Enlightenment. In R. Burns & H. Raymond-Pickard (Eds.), Philosophies of history. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Cadbury Report. (1992). The Cadbury Committee report. European Corporate Governance Institute.
  7. Cargile, J. (1998). ‘On Consequentialism’ Ethical Theory 2: Theories about how we should live. In J. Rachels (Ed.), Oxford readings in philosophy (pp. 64–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chryssides, G. D., & Kaler, J. H. (1993). An introduction to business ethics. London: International Thomson Business Press.Google Scholar
  9. Combined Code. (2012). Compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code. UK: Financial Services Commission.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, N. (1980). The priority of avoiding harm. In B. Steinbock (Ed.), Killing and letting die (pp. 172–214). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Derek Higgs Report. (2003). Review of the role and effectiveness of Non-executive Directors (NEDs) and their responsibilities in corporate governance practice.Google Scholar
  12. Dienhart, W. J. (2000). Business, institutions, and ethics: A text with cases and readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Donagan, A. (1977). The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  15. Elias, A. A., & Cavana, R. Y. (2003). Stakeholder analysis for systems thinking and modelling. School of Business and Public Management, Victoria University of Wellington: New Zealand.Google Scholar
  16. Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2000). Linking stakeholder literature and system dynamics: Opportunities for research (pp. 174–179). Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Geelong, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Fera, N. (1997). Using shareholder value to evaluate strategic choices. Management Accounting (USA), 79, 47.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fried, C. (1978). Right and Wrong. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  21. Greenbury Committee. (1995). Directors’ Remuneration: Final Report of a Study Group on Directors’ Remuneration. July 1995 CBI UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hampel Committee Report. (1998). Corporate Governance Code UK for the DTI. London.
  23. Kant, I. (1973). Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Kant, I. (1785/1997). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Ed., p. 31). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kant, I. (1995). Political writings. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Cambridge texts in history of political thought (H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (2000). Progress in history. In R. Burns & H. Raymond-Pickard (Eds.), Philosophies of history. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Kaptein, M., & Wempe, J. (2002). The balanced company: A theory of corporate integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Machiavelli, N. (1980). The discourses. Pelican Classics.Google Scholar
  29. Machiavelli, N. (1986). The prince (Vol. XV, p. 91). Harmondswork: Penguin.Google Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, C. E. (1998). The Stakeholder Corporation; An Article in Volume 7, No. 1 (January), 30–35Google Scholar
  31. Mill, S. R. (1998). The dynamics of shareholder value. Lechlade: Mars Business.Google Scholar
  32. Myners’ Report. (2001). Myners Report on Institutional Investment. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  33. Myners Review. (2004). Myners principles for institutional investment decision-making: review of progress. UK: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  34. Nwanji, T. I., & Howell, E. K. (2004). Ethical perspectives on corporate governance: Developing substantive theory. UK: Earlybrave Publication.Google Scholar
  35. Nwanji, T.I., & Howell, K. E. (2005). The stakeholder theory in the modern global business environment. International Journal of Applied Institutional Governance, 1(1), 1–12.
  36. Nwanji, T. I., & Howell, K. E. (2007). Shareholdership versus stakeholdership. Journal of Corporate Ownership and Control, 5(1), 9–23. ISSN: 1727–9232.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2004). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD.
  38. OECD. (1999). Corporate governance principles: OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Steering Group on Corporate Governance.
  39. Oman, C., Fries, S., & Buiter, W. (2003). OECD report on corporate governance in developing, transition and emerging–market economies.
  40. Parkinson, J. E. (1994). Corporate power and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organisational ethics (p. 16). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
  42. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act. (2002, October 16). The US influence, supplement: New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ proposed listed company corporate governance rules. Governance Rules.Google Scholar
  44. Scheffler, S. (1982). The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sherwin, D. (1983). The Ethical Roots of Business System. Harvard Business Review Harvard Business School (November-December).Google Scholar
  46. Singer, P. (1993). A companion to ethics. In Blackwell companions to philosophy: Blackwell reference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Singer, P. (1998). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Smith Report. (2003). Audit Committees Combined Code Guidance. A Report and Proposed Guidance by an FRC Appointed Group. Financial Reporting Council. Retrieved From ( (
  49. Solomon, J. (2004). Corporate governance and accountability. Chichester: John Wiley.
  50. Ticker, R. I. (1984). Corporate governance: Practices, procedures and powers in Turnbull Report (2005), Internal control and risk management: Developing roles of internal audit. http://en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_of_non-executive_directors_br
  51. Turnbull Committee Report. (1999). The Internal Control: Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, ICAEW: London.Google Scholar
  52. Walker Review. (2009). Review of UK Corporate Governance in the Banking Industry. UK: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. In O. Williams & T. Bottomore (Eds.), Dictionary of twentieth-century social thought (pp. 202–204). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and FinanceCollege of Business and Social Sciences, Landmark UniversityKwaraNigeria

Personalised recommendations