UK: Governance Must Evolve

Last Updated: 22 May 2017
Article by Henry Ker

Iain Wright discusses the BEIS Select Committee inquiry and how governance can reconnect business with its stakeholders

Iain Wright is a former MP and chaired the BEIS Select Committee inquiry on corporate governance.

What is your overall opinion of the current state of UK corporate governance?

Our corporate governance system is strong and has a very good reputation internationally. The key is how to keep it strong, and how to adapt to take into account multi-business practices, different technologies, different ways of doing things and so on. You cannot just say 'job done' with corporate governance – it has to evolve, but that is one of its strengths.

One of the things we tried to emphasise in our report is that we do not believe in revolutions; we do not believe in kicking everything out. The comply or explain system is a particular strength, for example, and nobody wanted to move away from it. But the Cadbury report was 25 years ago and we need to think about the next step in the evolutionary process to ensure the UK corporate governance system remains as strong and receptive as ever.

Corporate governance seems to be seen as the answer to an increasingly large set of issues. Can the current system really fulfil everything being asked of it?

It is not going to stop businesses going wrong. It is not the answer to everyone's prayers, and you cannot just think that if you follow and comply with a certain set of rules, you will have business success. It is not that easy. Even if you have good corporate governance, sometimes there will be bad business decisions and businesses can fail. However, if you have bad corporate governance, it is more likely your business will fail.

"Governance is not the answer to everyone's prayers, and you cannot just think if you follow and comply with a certain set of rules, you will have business success"

One of the things that came out strongly in the report when we looked at this in the context of Sports Direct and BHS, is disconnect. Disconnect from different stakeholders, disconnect from customers, disconnect from workers, and disconnect from the society in which business operates. Corporate governance can help with that, in terms of managing stakeholder expectation for the good of the business.

Were there any particular challenges to chairing a cross-party group? Did members struggle to avoid party politics?

I was fortunate that we had a very positive team spirit in respect of all our reports. We did not vote on any of these recommendations. We talked them through, negotiated, discussed and debated, and every single member of that Select Committee can be proud of what we achieved.

There are always challenges in chairing a Select Committee, but in terms of pulling together and letting everyone have their say and debating the matters, this was a particularly strong report from a very strong team of MPs.

The report includes a large list of recommendations – are there a few key ones you feel are the most important?

We looked at three broad areas: directors' duties and questioning if section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 is fit for purpose; the diversity of board composition and whether diversity matters from a business point of view rather than just a moral or ethical point of view; and whether there is a disconnect between pay and performance in executive remuneration.

First, on directors' duties, there have been no prosecutions with regard to section 172. Courts and judges are very reluctant to get inside business people's heads, and so a business person can simply say 'of course I am thinking about the long-term success of the company, but I got it wrong'. The judiciary is reluctant to go down the route of trying to prosecute.

"We recommend the abolition of long-term incentive plans as soon as possible, because we do not think they provide meaningful incentive"

However, we can look at directors' duties in terms of narrative reporting and how section 172 is explained to shareholders and stakeholders. We thought the recommendation for informative narrative reporting on fulfilment of section 172 duties was an important one.

Second, the diversity of boards. Half of society are women; although there have been some improvements, why are half of non-executive positions not held by women? We are not forcing targets, but boards should explain to their stakeholders why they may be falling short on diversity, and what they are doing to replenish the pipeline to ensure more women and greater diversity comes through. I think that is really important.

The third element is the huge disconnect between pay and performance. We recommend the abolition of long-term incentive plans as soon as possible, because we do not think they provide meaningful incentive in order to create long-term value for a company through executive remuneration.

Underpinning a lot of that is an enhanced role for the Financial Reporting Council. We recommend an enhanced system for reporting, as well as expanding reporting by companies. Because of all this, the FRC should be given additional powers and resources. We did not see the case to set up a new quango or regulator.

We were also very taken by the notion of the ownerless company. Often the shareholding of a company is very diverse, and fund managers might only hold tiny amounts of a large number of companies, and that being the case, who is holding executives to account? Is that why executive pay has been rising in recent years?

On the recommendation for informative narrative reporting on fulfilment of section 172 duties. Could you explain the thinking behind this recommendation?

There were a number of things we looked at with regard to section 172. Is it fit for purpose? Should it be amended? If it is fit for purpose, are there improvements that have to be made? I mentioned that no directors have been prosecuted as a result of non-compliance with section 172. Does that mean it is working well, or mean it is not working at all? We looked at whether we should get rid of it, but decided against that.

Instead we decided that expanding reporting, with an explanation on a company-by-company basis, and then being looked at by the FRC, was the right way to tackle this.

In addition, the Secretary of State has got a number of powers, when it comes to directors, that were last used a long time ago. There is an armoury of different tools that could be used to hold directors to account. They fulfil an important role in promoting long-term success and we should ask them how they doing it, how they are reporting, and how the success of their duties is being assessed.

However, we are keen to avoid boilerplate reporting – this is why we did not prescribe a standard form of words they should be using. Reporting of directors' duties has to be on a company-by-company basis, and then shareholders, together with the FRC, need to suggest whether it is fit for purpose through the UK Corporate Governance Code and through shareholder consideration.

ICSA and the Investment Association are currently producing guidance on stakeholder engagement. Some of the initial feedback suggests engagement often goes on at operational level, but then does not reach the board. How do you overcome that?

In terms of engagement with boards, one of the key things I want to keep reinforcing is the disconnect. The current failure of corporate governance is essentially a disconnect of the system. This disconnect with members and wider stakeholders needs to be addressed and this cannot be just during the build-up to AGMs and through the annual report.

We need to ensure board members are engaged with stakeholders and engaged with what is happening in the company. One of the really crucial modern attributes of a good director is constant stakeholder engagement. Good corporate governance is all a matter of connection.

The report encourages companies to consider putting worker directors on boards. How can this benefit the company?

This chimes very much with the previous question. It is about connection between strategy and operational matters, connection between the various stakeholders, and linking it to how we promote long-term success. We are too short term at the moment.

"We hear time and time again, that 'staff are our best asset'. If that is the case, one, pay them as such, and two, put them on the board to help with strategy"

Employees really want their company to work well in the long term because they want a job for a long time. They are involved in operational matters and can often see weaknesses in processes, and they interact with customers and suppliers. They can provide a different viewpoint to that of other non-executive directors. Do not discount that if you are a chair.

We did not want to dictate or make this mandatory, but I think it is really telling that you see in company reports, time and time again, the notion that 'staff are our best asset', and 'the staff makes us competitive' or 'give us a comparative advantage'. If that is the case, one, pay them as such, and two, put them on the board to help with strategy, because they will give you a perspective on different matters that can be absolutely invaluable.

How would worker non-executives work in practice, given they would potentially be involved in the oversight of their management? How do you ensure they remain an independent voice?

There is no conflict of interest. They would have to be there as directors in their own right – they are not there as shop floor representatives. In terms of the principle of being directors, that is absolutely key.

Having said that, one of the problems with corporate governance is information asymmetry. Obviously, executives will have much more information about the company than non-executive directors. But because they live and breathe the company every day, workers can help mitigate the information asymmetry that non-executives have.

For example, you have got listed companies like the FirstGroup transport company, which has workers on its board and it has worked incredibly well. If FirstGroup can do it, I do not see why other listed companies cannot do so.

You also mentioned putting employee representatives on remuneration committees. Is that key to tackling excessive executive pay?

In the past 20 years or so, executive pay has gone up disproportionately compared to the median pay of other workers. There are examples where a company has seemingly failed in many respects: there have been profit warnings, there may have been job redundancies, and production facility closures, and yet the chief executive still got a pay increase.

The remuneration committee needs to challenge a lot more. There does not seem to be enough downward restraints on executive pay. When a company does well and a chief executive has created value, absolutely they should be rewarded appropriately. I am the first to celebrate the point that running a major company is an extremely difficult task that requires skills and should be remunerated accordingly.

But when there is that disconnect between pay and performance, and failure to challenge and put real downward pressure on remuneration, that is where remuneration committees are failing. Having a worker on a remuneration committee would help provide that downward restraint.

Do you feel shareholder votes can have the required impact on executive pay, given the lack of evidence so far?

Shareholders are waking up to this and institutional investors understand it as a business risk. Some of the corporate governance reforms on executive pay introduced in 2013 by the Coalition Government are starting to bear fruit, although they are isolated and small scale at the moment.

We need to make sure shareholders and institutional investors understand this is a really important matter.

Our published recommendations build on what has been going on. The role of the remuneration committee, and the role of the chair of the remuneration committee, cannot be just to go to the AGM and ask 'are people happy with this?'

Instead there must be active engagement on an almost continual basis over executive pay. If you cannot get a sizeable chunk of the shareholders to agree with the policy, you have failed in your duty as chair of the remuneration committee, and that is why we suggest you must stand down. You have failed in your connection, failed in that stakeholder engagement, and you have to go.

We were very mindful of the fact that the current system already has a shareholder vote on the director who chairs the remuneration committee. But a lot of the new rationale is because sometimes shareholders do not want a public, high-profile corporate governance row. That is entirely understandable.

How do we ensure the recommended code of governance for private companies is effective? There is a lack of transparency and no shareholders to answer to.

We looked at this very much on the back of the BHS scandal. We were mindful that BHS was a major company, with thousands of employees and thousands of pensioners. It had a big impact on society and could not be run like a fiefdom, and yet that is what it was. There was weak corporate governance and a dominant individual.

It is a case of trying to have more connection and reporting requirements that strike a balance. We want entrepreneurial spirit and companies and chief executives to have energy and passion to take their business forward.

However, we must recognise there are major stakeholders involved too, and if we do not have good corporate governance, then the fallout could be immense. We saw that with BHS.

"It is a strength of the UK economy that we can build on the successes of an effective corporate governance system to evolve with the requirements of the future"

We want to strike a balance between ensuring that stakeholders, wherever they come from, feel reassured, while allowing private companies to be able to carry on. That balance is really important. We do not want to it be heavy handed, and we do not want any reporting to be disproportionate. The recommendation for private companies is a bit lighter in many respects in terms of ensuring there is adequate reporting.

What do you think the future of corporate governance will be? I ask that in the context of Brexit and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments about the possible need to change our economic model to regain competitiveness?

This is something I really want to stress, because good corporate governance should not been seen as regulation. It should not be seen as bureaucracy. It is the framework by which good business can take place, and effective successful enterprises can have their ideas challenged, but then ultimately endorsed. Good corporate governance can be a comparative advantage.

It is a strength of the UK economy that we can build on the successes of an effective corporate governance system to evolve with the requirements of the future. One of the reasons to do business in this country is that shareholders and stakeholders in general recognise that the UK is still the number one for corporate governance.

That is my vision, and that is one of the things that we wanted to do on the Select Committee. To ensure that good corporate governance lends itself to great business decisions and creates a comparative advantage for the UK, but makes sure people feel reassured and continue to invest.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.