The moral arguments associated with justice, fairness and communitarianism have rejected the exclusivity of cost–benefit analysis in corporate governance. Particularly, the percepts of new governance (NG) have included distributive aspects in efficiency models focused on maximizing profits. While corporate directors were only assigned to look after the return of investment within the traditional framework of corporate governance (CG), NG has created the scope for them to look beyond the set of contractual liabilities. This article explores how and how far NG notions have contributed to the devolution of CG to create internal strategies focusing on actors, ethics and accountability in corporate self-regulation.
AllenD.S.2001. The First Amendment and the Doctrine of Corporate Personhood. Journalism, 2(3): 255.
2.
AllenW.T.1992. Our Schizophrenic Conception of the Business Corporation. Cardozo Law Review, 14: 261.
3.
Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.2006. Corporate Responsibility: Managing Risk and Creating Value.Canberra.
4.
BastmeijerK. & VerschuurenJ.M.2005. NGO–business Collaborations and the Law: Sustainability, Limitations of the Law, and the Changing Relationship between Companies and NGOs.Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
5.
BelalA.R.2008. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in Developing Countries: The Case of Bangladesh.London: Ashgate.
6.
BerleA.A.1930. Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust. Harvard Law Review, 44: 1049.
7.
BlairM.1995. Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-first Century.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BlairM. & StoutL.1999. A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law. Va. L. Rev, 85(2): 247.
9.
BradleyM.SchipaniA.SundaramC.A.K. & WalshJ.P.1999. The Purposes and Accountability of the Corporation in Contemporary Society: Corporate Governance at a Crossroads. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62: 9–305.
10.
BuffiniF.2005. Calls to Protect Corporate Conscience. Australian Financial Review, 23 November, p. 4.
11.
ClarksonM.B.E.1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92.
12.
CoglianeseC. & LazerD.2003. Management Based Regulation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public Goals. Law & Society Review, 37(4): 691–730.
13.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee.2006. Social Responsibility of Corporations.Sydney: CAMAC.
14.
DawsonS.2004. Balancing Self-interest and Altruism: Corporate Governance Alone is Not Enough. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(2): 130–133.
15.
DeeganC.2002. The Legitimising Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures: A Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 282–311.
EisenbergM.A.1982. Modernization of Corporate Law: An Essay for Bill Cary. University of Miami Law Review, 37: 187.
20.
EisenbergM.A.1998. The Conception That the Corporation Is a Nexus of Contracts, and the Dual Nature of the Firm. Journal of Corporation Law, 24: 819.
21.
FarrarJ.2008. Corporate Governance: Theories, Principles and Practice.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
FreemanJ.1997. Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State. UCLA Law Review, 45: 1.
23.
GillA.2008. Corporate Governance as Social Responsibility: A Research Agenda. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26: 452–462.
24.
GrayR.OwenD. & CarolA.1996. Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting.London: Prentice Hall.
25.
GreenfieldK.1997. The Place of Workers in Corporate Law. BCL Review, 39: 283.
26.
GreenfieldK.2000. Corporate Social Responsibility. There's a Forest in Those Trees: Teaching About Corporate Social Responsibility. Georgia Law Review, 34: 1011.
27.
GreenfieldK.2005. New Principles for Corporate Law. Hastings Business Law Journal, 1: 87.
Group, Company Law Review.1999. Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: The Strategic Framework.London: Department of Trade and Industry of the Government of UK.
30.
HansmannH. & KraakmanR.2000. The End of History for Corporate Law. Georgia Law Journal, 89: 439.
31.
HarshbargerS. & JoisG. U.2007. Looking Back and Looking Forward: Sarbanes–Oxley and the Future of Corporate Governance. Akron Law Review, 40(1): 1–53.
32.
IFRS.2006. Discussion Paper on Priliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framewok for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-useful Financial Reporting Information. Available at: <ifrs.org>.
33.
Investment Management Association (IMA).2006. IMA response to Discussion Paper on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.London: IMA.
34.
JooT.W.2003. A Trip through the Maze of Corporate Democracy: Shareholder Voice and Management Composition. John's Law Review, 77: 735.
35.
KarkkainenB.2004. New Governance in Legal Thought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping. Minnesota Law Review, 89: 471.
36.
KarmelR.S.1992. Implications of the Stakeholder Model. George Washington Law Review, 61(4): 1156–1177.
37.
KeaseyK.ThompsonS. & WrightM.1997. Corporate Governance: Economic and Financial Issues.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
KeayA.2007. Tackling the Issue of the Corporate Objective: An Analysis of the United Kingdom's Enlightened Shareholder Value Approach. Sydney Law Review, 29: 577–612.
39.
KlausnerM.2005. The Contractarian Theory of Corporate Law: A Generation Later. Journal of Corporate Law, 31: 779.
40.
KolkA.2008. Sustainability, Accountability and Corporate Governance: Exploring Multinationals' Reporting Practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1): 1–15.
41.
LobelO.2005. Interlocking Regulatory and Industrial Relations: The Governance of Workplace Safety. Administrative Law Review, 57: 1071.
42.
LobelO. & AmirO.N.2007. Behavioral versus Institutional Antecedents of Decentralized Enforcement in Organizations: An Experimental Approach. Regulation and Governance, 2(2): 165–192.
43.
MitchellL.E.1991. Theoretical and Practical Framework for Enforcing Corporate Constituency Statutes. Texas Law Review, 70: 579.
44.
MitchellL.E.2007. The Board as a Path Toward Corporate Social Responsibility. In: McBarnetD.VoiculescuA. and CampbellT., eds. The New Corporate Accountability.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
OECD.2004. OECD Principles of Corporate Governance.Paris: OECD.
46.
ParkerC.2002. The Open Corporation: Effective Self-regulation and Democracy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
ParkerC. & NielsonVL.2006. Do Businesses Take Compliance Systems Seriously-An Empirical Study of the Implementation of Trade Practices Compliance Systems in Australia. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(2): 441.
48.
ParkerC.2007. Meta-regulation: Legal Accountability for Corporate Social Responsibility? In: McBarnetD.VoiculescuA. and CampbellT., eds. The New Corporate Accountability: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RahimM.M.2011. Meta-regulation Approach of Law: A Potential Legal Strategy to Develop Socially Responsible Business Self-regulation in Least Developed Common Law Countries. Common Law World Review, 40(2): 174–206.
50.
RahimM.M.2012a. The Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance and Regulation: An Assessment. Macquarie Journal of Business Law, 8: 304–325.
51.
RahimM.M.2012b. Raising Corporate Social Responsibility: The ‘Legitimacy’ Approach. Macquarie Journal of Business Law, 9: 62–81.
52.
SabelC.F. & SimonW. H.2006. Epilogue: Accountability without Sovereignty. rest.
53.
SalamonL.M.2000. The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28: 1611.
54.
SelznickP.2002. The Communitarian Persuasion.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
ShamirR.2008. The Age of Responsibilization: On Market-embedded Morality. Economy and Society, 37(1): 1–19.
56.
ShleiferA. & VishnyR.1997. A Survey of Corporate Governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2): 737–783.
57.
SolomonJ.M.2007. Law and Governance in the 21st Century Regulatory State. Texas Law Review, 86: 819.
58.
StatmanM.2005. Socially Responsible Indexes: Composition and Performance.Bloomington, IN: Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University.
59.
SulkowskiA J, & GreenfieldK.2005. A Bridle, a Prod, and a Big Stick: An Evaluation of Class Actions, Shareholder Proposals, and the Ultra Vires Doctrine as Methods for Controlling Corporate Behavior. John's Law Review, 79: 929.
60.
TrubekD.M. & TrubekL.2007. New Governance and Legal Regulation: Complementarity, Rivalry and Transformation. Columbia Journal of European Law, 13: 639.
61.
WalkerN. & BurcaG.D.2006. Reconceiving Law and New Governance. Colum: Journal of European Law, 13: 519.
62.
WinklerA.2004. Corporate Law or the Law of Business? Stakeholders and Corporate Governance at the End of History. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67(4): 109–133.
