University of Hertfordshire

From the same journal

Directors Pay Regulation: One Goal Two Approaches

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Directors Pay Regulation: One Goal Two Approaches. / Gheyoh Ndzi, Ernestine.

In: International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 58, No. 3, 09.05.2016, p. 337-352.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Gheyoh Ndzi, Ernestine. / Directors Pay Regulation: One Goal Two Approaches. In: International Journal of Law and Management. 2016 ; Vol. 58, No. 3. pp. 337-352.

Bibtex

@article{3d756d97d8a54ea68775aac9225b0059,
title = "Directors Pay Regulation: One Goal Two Approaches",
abstract = "PurposeThis paper aims to examine the two different approaches adopted in the UK to regulate directors{\textquoteright} remuneration. The paper also aims to explore the two approaches to understand which one better regulates directors{\textquoteright} pay and why. It provides an account of the two approaches{\textquoteright} evolution, effectiveness and challenges towards the regulation of directors{\textquoteright} remuneration. The paper will also make some recommendations on both approaches and the way forward to better regulate directors{\textquoteright} remuneration.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews various corporate governance codes, its recommendations on directors{\textquoteright} remuneration, its effectiveness and the challenges it face in regulating directors{\textquoteright} remuneration. The paper also reviews provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on directors{\textquoteright} remuneration, its effectiveness and challenges faced.FindingsThe paper finds that corporate governance adopts a better approach to regulating directors{\textquoteright} pay than the Companies Act 2006 because it targets the pay setting process. However, the existence of grey areas and lack of enforcement procedure poses a challenge on its effectiveness. The Companies Act 2006 is unable to regulate directors{\textquoteright} pay adequately because it adopts a corrective approach and it considers directors{\textquoteright} remuneration as a management responsibility.Originality/valueThe paper offers an up-to-date assessment of the two approaches to regulating directors{\textquoteright} pay in the UK. It highlights the challenges faced by both approaches and which approach could regulate directors pay better and its challenges. The paper further makes recommendations on how the regulation of directors{\textquoteright} remuneration can be effective in the UK.",
author = "{Gheyoh Ndzi}, Ernestine",
note = "This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Ernestine Ndzi, {\textquoteleft}Director{\textquoteright}s pay regulation: “one goal two approaches”, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 58 (3): 337-352, May 2016. The final, published version is available online at doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-07-2015-0034. Content in the UH Research Archive is made available for personal research, educational, and non-commercial purposes only. Unless otherwise stated, all content is protected by copyright, and in the absence of an open license, permissions for further re-use should be sought from the publisher, the author, or other copyright holder. ",
year = "2016",
month = may,
day = "9",
doi = "10.1108/IJLMA-07-2015-0034",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "337--352",
journal = "International Journal of Law and Management",
issn = "1754-243x",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Directors Pay Regulation: One Goal Two Approaches

AU - Gheyoh Ndzi, Ernestine

N1 - This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Ernestine Ndzi, ‘Director’s pay regulation: “one goal two approaches”, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 58 (3): 337-352, May 2016. The final, published version is available online at doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-07-2015-0034. Content in the UH Research Archive is made available for personal research, educational, and non-commercial purposes only. Unless otherwise stated, all content is protected by copyright, and in the absence of an open license, permissions for further re-use should be sought from the publisher, the author, or other copyright holder.

PY - 2016/5/9

Y1 - 2016/5/9

N2 - PurposeThis paper aims to examine the two different approaches adopted in the UK to regulate directors’ remuneration. The paper also aims to explore the two approaches to understand which one better regulates directors’ pay and why. It provides an account of the two approaches’ evolution, effectiveness and challenges towards the regulation of directors’ remuneration. The paper will also make some recommendations on both approaches and the way forward to better regulate directors’ remuneration.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews various corporate governance codes, its recommendations on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and the challenges it face in regulating directors’ remuneration. The paper also reviews provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and challenges faced.FindingsThe paper finds that corporate governance adopts a better approach to regulating directors’ pay than the Companies Act 2006 because it targets the pay setting process. However, the existence of grey areas and lack of enforcement procedure poses a challenge on its effectiveness. The Companies Act 2006 is unable to regulate directors’ pay adequately because it adopts a corrective approach and it considers directors’ remuneration as a management responsibility.Originality/valueThe paper offers an up-to-date assessment of the two approaches to regulating directors’ pay in the UK. It highlights the challenges faced by both approaches and which approach could regulate directors pay better and its challenges. The paper further makes recommendations on how the regulation of directors’ remuneration can be effective in the UK.

AB - PurposeThis paper aims to examine the two different approaches adopted in the UK to regulate directors’ remuneration. The paper also aims to explore the two approaches to understand which one better regulates directors’ pay and why. It provides an account of the two approaches’ evolution, effectiveness and challenges towards the regulation of directors’ remuneration. The paper will also make some recommendations on both approaches and the way forward to better regulate directors’ remuneration.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews various corporate governance codes, its recommendations on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and the challenges it face in regulating directors’ remuneration. The paper also reviews provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on directors’ remuneration, its effectiveness and challenges faced.FindingsThe paper finds that corporate governance adopts a better approach to regulating directors’ pay than the Companies Act 2006 because it targets the pay setting process. However, the existence of grey areas and lack of enforcement procedure poses a challenge on its effectiveness. The Companies Act 2006 is unable to regulate directors’ pay adequately because it adopts a corrective approach and it considers directors’ remuneration as a management responsibility.Originality/valueThe paper offers an up-to-date assessment of the two approaches to regulating directors’ pay in the UK. It highlights the challenges faced by both approaches and which approach could regulate directors pay better and its challenges. The paper further makes recommendations on how the regulation of directors’ remuneration can be effective in the UK.

U2 - 10.1108/IJLMA-07-2015-0034

DO - 10.1108/IJLMA-07-2015-0034

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 337

EP - 352

JO - International Journal of Law and Management

JF - International Journal of Law and Management

SN - 1754-243x

IS - 3

ER -