Mindsets and consequences in corporate governance and control: Part 1
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980210810265 |
| Date | 01 September 2002 |
| Pages | 279-283 |
| Published date | 01 September 2002 |
| Author | Carole Edrich |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Mindsets and consequences in corporate
governance and control: Part 1
Carole Edrich
Received (in revised form): 2nd May, 2002
KAI Corporation (Risk), PO Box 21729, London E11 2WF, UK; tel: +44 (0)20 8530 3933;
fax: +44 (0)20 8530 6593; e-mail: cedrich@KAlCorporation.com
Carole J. Edrich, the founder and Principal
of KAI Corporation (Risk) has over 16 years’
experience in the management of enterprise
and operational risk and high impact
change. Chief Examiner for the UK govern-
ment’s management of risk course, she is
involved in leading-edge research as well
as the provision of consultancy, workshops,
continuing professional development and
master classes to a variety of international
commercial organisations and academic
institutions. She successfully developed and
implemented the world’s first enterprise-
wide risk and opportunity management
methodology, with the result that all but one
of KAI’s internal and external projects were
completed on time, and all have been com-
pleted to budget and to the client’s satisfac-
tion. She is in the process of writing a
comprehensive series of books on risk man-
agement, corporate governance and asso-
ciated disciplines.
ABSTRACT
This paper sets out to examine some of the cur-
rent challenges in corporate governance and con-
trol. It comprises two parts. Part 1 examines
formal requirements and how they have been
interpreted and implemented, deriving some poin-
ters for the way forward. Part 2 examines the
more practical implementation issues of corpo-
rate governance and risk management frame-
works, and will be published in Volume 10,
Number 4 of the Journal.
FSA REQUIREMENTS
There are numerous understandings of the
meaning and implied interpretations of
corporate governance, risk management
and controls. In an IIR conference on cor-
porate governance in March, 2002, Simon
Morris of CMS Cameron McKenna (a
legal company) said that he believes that
the most effective approach concentrates
on the views of the Financial Services
Authority (FSA) which is under a statutory
duty to maintain financial sector market
confidence. The FSA does this by trying to
avoid damage to the soundness of the UK
financial system and is therefore particu-
larly concerned about the conduct and col-
lapse of organisations. Because of this, a
large proportion of their interpretation
practice is likely to be of use to more than
just those in the UK financial sector.
Tight corporate governance require-
ments, such as KonTraG in Germany, and
those in Japan and Denmark are reflections
of the mounting pressure from share-
holders and regulators to improve business
resilience and provide clear and unambigu-
ous governance and controls. In a GARP
seminar in September, 2001, Jeremy
Quick of the FSA said that he believed
that many of the Basel principles would
remain at a high level and would be
dependent on national interpretation. In
the UK, with Turnbull also influencing
the governance and control regime, it is
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 10 Number 3
Page 279
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 10, No. 3,
2002, pp. 279–283
#Henry Stewart Publications,
1358–1988
To continue reading
Request your trial