Rethinking governance: what should companies be responsible for?

It is time that we looked at the basic question of what should companies be responsible for, writes Jo Iwasaki.

The global financial crisis impacted not just on the economy, it intensified the challenges on corporate culture more broadly. Remuneration, short-termism, engagement with shareholders and, alongside these the business agenda and cultural issues such as diversity now form the core of the corporate governance debate.

All these issues highlight how companies are run. One might say that these issues have always existed. However, we have taken advantage of the current interest and explored whether the existing models of running companies need a major rethink.

Corporate governance looks at much more than board procedures and regulatory compliance. As recent business issues and controversies have demonstrated, shareholders, government, and the broader public are all interested in how companies respond to the changing business and social environment. The nature of the capital markets has changed so much it has influenced our thinking around the relationships between companies, boards and shareholders.

It is time that we looked at the basic question of what should companies be responsible for. Responsibilities need not be seen as onerous they prompt us to be alert to diverse interests that surround and affect businesses today. With a keener awareness of their surroundings and the willingness to respond, companies can be better prepared to identify where new opportunities are.

In recent ICAEW paper 'What are companies responsible for' we discuss four key responsibilities of companies. They are not a definitive or exclusive list, but we have dared to present them as a basis to prompt debate.

Achieving a business purpose

A company needs to have a business purpose that is easy to understand. As well as shareholders, everyone involved in a company, including employees, customers, suppliers and lenders, expect companies to generate continuing profits. However, maximising profit is not the only business purpose of a company.

A business should not be so focused on a specific purpose that it ignores changes in its environment. Innovation and adaptability are essential for a business to be viable over a corporate life.

Behaving in a socially acceptable way

Without being written down, social norms are there to set boundaries for what is acceptable as business culture and behaviour, in the societies where the company operates. Companies may need to, in some cases, actively go the extra mile to identify what is socially acceptable. This would certainly cost time and resources.

Companies also need to recognise that different communities (e.g. the financial services sector, or a particular industry) develop their own norms and these may be very different from those prevalent in a wider society.  This gap may suddenly become apparent when their values are subject to external scrutiny.

Meeting legal and regulatory requirements

Legal and regulatory requirements relate to issues such as employment, health and safety, anti-corruption and taxation for example and private contractual, legal and financial obligations such as company pensions and debt covenants.

Being based on law, these are mostly public, and understood by most people. Breaches of these requirements may lead not only to formal sanctions and litigation but more importantly, reputational damage.

Stating how their responsibilities are met

Companies are expected to acknowledge their responsibilities, provide information on how they meet them and be accountable. This is about acknowledging those responsibilities publicly, reporting on how they are discharged, and being answerable for consequences. It helps companies construct a robust foundation for building and maintaining trust.

If companies are fully aware of the range of their responsibilities and attempt to meet them, legislators and regulators can focus on developing codes and practices that are proportionate. This is a big 'if' and to imagine such change to happen instantly is naïve. However, without a change in how we think, the effectiveness of laws and regulations would be limited. Only when companies embrace the principles which are underlying laws and regulations, will we see corporate behaviour change. And an end to the rather cynical box-ticking culture at present.

Jo Iwasaki is Head of Corporate Governance at ICAEW 

A statue of a dragon marks the boundary of the City of London. Photograph: Getty Images

Jo Iwasaki is Head of Corporate Governance at ICAEW.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.